M-T
The Canadian Jewish News, Thursday, December 22^ 1983 - Page 7
Opinion
Jeii^alem college draws iiitemational^^^^s^ body
By
DANNY LEVY JERUSALEM —
. The winding road which leads to the Jerusalem College of Technology is bordered by wild plants, unkempt grass and sharply-bladed weeds. By contrast the college, located on the edge of one of the city's many hills, is a model of modernity and functionality. Laboratories and workshops are crammed with the sort of highly sophisticated equipment which attracts students to its
classrooms and lecture halls from all over the the world.
"I first heard of the college," recalls Ist-year student Mark Slutzki, "when I was still in high school in Toronto and Prof. Low, the founder of JCT, came to speak to us. I knew immediately that this was the place for me."
Arthur and Brian^Gottlieb, brothers from Montreal, had a similar sense of the place when they visited during their study year at Kerem BeYavneh."My parents wanted me to go to University in Canada,' 'admits Brian, "and officially I'm only here for a preparatory year before returning to Montreal to study chemical engineering. "But," he adds, "I might just stay here for the duration of the 4-year program in electro-optics."
His brother, Arthur, a year younger than 19-year-old Brian, is less clear about his future. "In Canada I thought of studying engineering or law, but since being here I've discovered the world of micro-computing and this has opened up other possibilities for me."
Mark Slutzki is more specific about his future plans^ Like Brian he i» studying electro-optics, a course which doesn't exist elsewhereat this level. But he is doing so as an immigrant, a status which has both ideological and practical dimensions.
"Theprogramat JCT," he says,''satisfies two requirements for me. First, it is in Israel and second, it allows me to combine some form of engineering and physics. It took about half a year to persuade my parents about my choice of college but now they're very happy with my decision. Moreover by deciding to become an immigrant, aU my fees are paid by the Israeli government."
Having already spent a year at. the University of Toronto, Mark, at 21, has something with which to compare h|s present situation: '*Atuniversity I was just a number, one of500 students at a lecture. I, as a person, didn't exist. I had no relationship with the professors nor they with me. It was no great matter if you did well or badly ... it was up to you. At JCT you're more directed, but not in. any harmful way; simply, the college is more concerned about your individual progress.
"Similarly, when I see a professor I relate to him not only as a person but also as a model for what I aspire to be — a Jew who is also a man of science and technology."
The college was established 14 years ago. From a handful of students it has grown to a student body of well over 200. It was created to answer two needs: to train applied engineers in the field of high-technology and to give Jewish students an environment in which they can continue religious studies on a high level while preparing for a valuable career. In this it has been enormously successful, since graduates have been enthusiastically recruited by industrial and research concerns throughout Israel because of their technical training and ethical reliability.
The uniqueness of the college expresses itself in the daily schedule. As Brian and Arthur describe it:
"The day begins with Shaharit morning prayers followed by morning sessions which are devoted to Jewish studies. Here, the main emphasis focuses on Talmud, though there are also regular lectures on science and religion, ethics and the weekly Torah portion. These classes are conducted by rabbis as well as by some of the professors, such as the rector. Prof. Leo Levi, who also give talks on Jewish topics.
"Followhig afternoon prayers^, the scientific curriculum begins^ continuihg till 7.30 or 8 in the evening."
Didn't they find this program a bit overwhelming?
"It's certainly a far tougher regimen than university," says Mark, "but it is within this framework that we experience the blending of science and our traditions. While I was at university studying biology, the professors talked very nonchalantly about the things science could now do with the human embryo. It was like listening to science fiction except that it was being presented as the realm of the possible, and even probable direction that science was taking. No
reference at all was given to human or spiritual values.
"By contrast, JCT gives a thorough grounding in scientific techniques and religious values with the idea that the two must never be separated. The double program of studies forces you to realize the potency of science and how it is up to man to colitrol it."
After four years, these three young men and their 90 classmates will be entitled to a Bachelor of Science in Applied Engineering degree. In addition, JCT's links with local industry will have allowed them practical experience through a scheme whereby they work as apprentices in their fields of interest during their vacationis.
They will also have studied alongside Israelis and other students from a wide selection of countries including Algeria, Belgium, Brazil, England, Holland, Iran, Morocco and the U.S.
The richness of their experience does not mean that Brian, Arthur and Mark do not miss certain things from back home.
"Like mv car," murmurs Brian.
Mark Slutzki, Brian and Arthur Gottlieb at the Jerusalem College of Technology.
"And Mom's cooking," pipes up his though these young Canadians are too brother. involved in their studies to miss too much of
With or without Mom's cooking it looks as the "outside" world.
Should Jews in the Diaspora publicly criticize Israel and its policies? It may be an old question, but it remains very relevant.
The Ottawa Jewish Bullethi & Review recently provided a forum for thrashing out this issue. Shalom Lappin, a professor of linguistics at the University of Ottawa who has dual Canadian-Israel citizenship, writes that public criticism is permissible. Eli Rabin, a doctor affiliated with the Jewish Community Council, takes the opposite view.
This column is researched and edited by Sheldon Kirshner.
■■■^ -By SHALOM lAP?m
Opponents of dissent in the Jewish communities of the Diaspora generally employ one of two arguments in order to defend the suppression of criticism.
The first goes something like this: Jews in the Diaspora do not have to deal with the security problems which Israelis must live with on a daily basis. They do not have to suffer the consequences of the policy changes which they may wish to advocate. Hence, they have no right to urge alternative policies on the Israeli government, "the second argument turns on the claim that public dissent by supporters of Israel aids Israel's enemies. Open criticism of Israel gives credence to the propaganda of its adversaries. In this way, criticism under^ mines Israel's political (and ultimately its security) interests, and so dissent must be left to people in Israel, or voiced only in private conversations among friends.
Both of these arguments are, 1 think, unsound. The first involves a faulty inference. It does not follow from the fact that only Israeli must live with the results of their government's policies, that only Israelis have a right to publicly express views On these policies. North Americans generally, and North American Jews in particular, take stands on the policies of a wide variety of governments...
The second argument is a particular version of an argument which is frequently used to suppress dissent by regimes which find any forum of opposition inconvenient. Democratic societies are vulnerable precisely because they tojerate criticism which can be exploited by their jdyersaries. But to suppress dissent on these grounds is to give up-ihe democratic character of the institutions one seeks to defend.
To be fair to the proponents of the second argument, one must recognize that it is of the utmost importance for critical supporters of Israel to choose their forum of criticism intelligently. Assuming that the objective of this criticism is Israel's well-being, one must be careful to select the audience in which one's dissent will do the most good. It makes little sense, for example, for a dissenting Zionist to publish his/her criticisms of the (government) in a rabidly anti-Israel news-
paper. Ho}yever, opponents of dissent do not, in general, distinguish between responsible opposition.by loyal supporters of Israel and irresponsible or hostile criticism. They are simply not prepared to countenance substantive disagreement of any kind. They have succeeded in preventing open debate within the Jewish community, which should be the framework of a critical discussion of Israel.
It was not always the case that controversy over Israel was stifled within the community. Prior to the creation of the state and in the years immediately following its establishment, open and often heated debates among different factions within the Zionist government (as well as between Zionists and non-Zionists) were an established feature of life in the Jewish community. These groups were committed to radically distinct visions of Israeli society, and they sustained a lively discussion on the future direction of the country . . .
The suppression of dissent has had destructive consequences. It has prevented the emergence of an organized body of opinion representing an intelligently critical pro-Israel position. As a result, opposition has been left almost exclusively to Israel's most extreme adversaries.
At present, Jews must decide between (at least passive) acceptance of the community's official pro-government stand, and individual dissent, which may involve virtual excommunication from the community. This situation has caused many Jews (particularly young Jews) who are seriously disenchanted with the . . . government to simply drift away from any identification with Israel, and, ultimately, from participation in the Jewish community.
In addition, the refusal to tolerate criticism within the community has allowed the ; . . government to manipulate the Jewish community into providing unquestioning support (both financial and political) for extremist and annexationist policies .. .
.By ■ ,. ELI RABIN
After proclaiming independence in 1948; the State of Israel promulgated the law of return, by which jews would acquire citizenship in Israel by returning and settling in the land of^Israel. The unique relationship between Israel and the Jews of the Diaspora became firmly established within Israeli law and enshrined in the psyche of the Jews throughout the world. -
Thousands of Jews entered the State of Israel as refugees from war-torn Europe or as refugees from hostile Arab countries. Some Jews emigrated from America, Europe, South Africa, etc. as Zionists committed to aliya and the rebuilding of the land of their forefathers. Those immigrants became citizens of the sovereign State of Israel with all the rights, privileges and responsibilites which the word "citizen" implies.
In short order, many of the new citizens learned the hardships of the physical setting
and they began to share with the native-born Israelis the overwhelming burdens of taxation and defence, and the constant harassment of the terrorist activity of the surrounding hostile environment.
Life in Israel hai> not been particularly easy. Indeed," since 1948 many Israelis have left their native land for greener pastures in countries such as Canada, France, England, and particularly the large urban cities of the United States. These emigres, or yordim, have joined the Jews of the Diaspora....
It should be clear, however, that when the Jew of the Diaspora speaks about Israel, he (or she) speaks as an outsider to the mainstream of the political organization of the State of Israel; he speaks about a foreign country despite his emotional, cultural or ethnic ties. No matter how committed the Jew of the Diaspora is to the State of Israel, he is not a tax-paying member of Israel, and, in most cases, nor is he a member of any faniiily (in the specific sense) which has sacrificed sons or daughters in the defence of Israel's security (excluding Israelis living in the Diaspora). Indeed^ the Jew of the Diaspora has the best of both worlds; he enjoys a unique relationship with Israel and at the sametime, he does not have to participate in such odious tasks as paying high taxes and serving in the armed forces.
The Diaspora Jew therefore must be careful to respect the sovereignty and autonomy of the State of Israel. The Diaspora Jew must realize that the government formulates its policies for security and national survival based on the requirements of the population within the land of Israel, and this unfortunately may not include the opinion of non-Israeiis. It is in this area of hard-nosed political realities that the Diaspora Jew must recognize that his criticisms of Israel or his Intemperate remarks about Israel — particularly in the area of national security — may be unwelcome, ill-conceived and unrealistic.
Sometimes such ill-timed remarks serve no purpose but to enhance the propaganda machinery against Israel.
No doubt some of Israel's policies may make the Diaspora Jew feel uncomfortable, but such discomfort cannot support the contention thatthe Diaspora Jew is a member of a special Israeli constituency whose views must be considered in the formulation of Israeli policy.
Israel is a democratic country where freedom of speech abounds^ The country enjoys freedom of the press and possesses a freely elected government. Israelis are quite capable of challenging their government policies and actions based on their inherent rights as citizens.
The Diaspora Jew need not fear that Israel may descend in a state of totalitarian exercises. The Diaspora Jew must continue his special relationship with Israel, but without the rights and privileges of Israeli citizenship.