Meet Tel Aviv University's goofy Orly
Lubin, ultra-feminzt, Marxist, anti-Israel faculty member in "Gender
Studies":
To illustrate just how bad the
situation of women in Israel is, Lubin cites the example of driving. "I tell my
women students that we were all taught to be bad drivers. If a woman is a good
driver, like I am, then people say that she drives like a man. Whenever someone
delays me on the road, it's always a woman, because we were taught to be bad
drivers. Women have no experience driving because a man won't let them drive if
he has to sit next to her in the car."
...
Asked why a program like Gender Studies is necessary and what one does with such a degree, Lubin becomes indignant. "Questions like that are the kind of thing that make me mad. Do you know what it's like to read a theoretical text in feminism? It's very hard work. Why don't you ask why we need a history department? You have to write that this academic program was made possible with the aid of the National Council of Jewish American Women, because they invested about a million dollars in it," she instructs me.
...
"This morning I read an article by Hannah Kim in Haaretz about the first government in Israel that is a totally right-wing government - economically and diplomatically. I read it and cried, really. I'm genuinely distraught. We've really regressed."
...
Lubin regularly receives about 20 professional journals dealing with feminism, Third World culture and the intellectual left. "I go through them all and use them as a lecturer," she says.
...
Asked why a program like Gender Studies is necessary and what one does with such a degree, Lubin becomes indignant. "Questions like that are the kind of thing that make me mad. Do you know what it's like to read a theoretical text in feminism? It's very hard work. Why don't you ask why we need a history department? You have to write that this academic program was made possible with the aid of the National Council of Jewish American Women, because they invested about a million dollars in it," she instructs me.
...
"This morning I read an article by Hannah Kim in Haaretz about the first government in Israel that is a totally right-wing government - economically and diplomatically. I read it and cried, really. I'm genuinely distraught. We've really regressed."
...
Lubin regularly receives about 20 professional journals dealing with feminism, Third World culture and the intellectual left. "I go through them all and use them as a lecturer," she says.
According to your new book, femininity
is a stereotype. How do you define your own femininity?
"First of all, it's very intellectual.
I've never been concerned with the question of whether my particular femininity
is worthy and if it meets the criteria for worthy femininity, because I'm not
from the feminist police and this has never bothered me. I don't know what's
feminine and what's not feminine, because it's a function of so many things - of
fashion, of norms, of a Hollywood decision. I'm interested in it, but in a very
intellectual way."
Is being well-dressed
feminine?
"I certainly am. I buy clothes only in
New York because I don't have time anywhere else and I wear clothes by an
American designer named Eileen Fisher who makes what are called `Women's Sizes.'
It costs a fortune because she has a certain reputation. Her clothes fit me
well."
How do you see yourself?
"I'm always lamenting the fact that I
have to be on a diet. Even right now when I'm chewing on a brownie at a cafe,
I'm lamenting that fact."
2. Time to Junk
"Oslo":
Israel Should Annul the Oslo Accords
By DANNY DANON
JERUSALEM — THIS
month marks 20 years since the signing of the first of the Oslo Accords between
the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Two decades after
Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat stood on the White House lawn with President Bill
Clinton, Israelis and Palestinians are again in the midst of the umpteenth round
of negotiations.
Despite these
efforts, true peace seems as distant as it did before the secret talks in Oslo
were revealed to the world. The government of Israel must admit that we made a
mistake and declare that the Oslo process has failed.
Only by
officially annulling the Oslo
Accords will we have the opportunity to rethink the existing paradigm and
hopefully lay the foundations for a more realistic modus vivendi between the
Jews and Arabs of this region.
Despite attempts
to rewrite recent history by fringe elements, the failure of the Oslo framework
cannot be attributed to a lack of will and persistence by Israel. What didn’t we
try? We attempted direct negotiations, third-party mediators, public conferences
and back-channel talks. We staged withdrawals and unilateral disengagements,
established joint Israeli-Palestinian military patrols in Gaza and deployed
American-trained security forces in the West Bank. None of this worked.
The P.L.O., and
later the Palestinian Authority, never truly accepted that Israel, as the
national state and homeland of the Jewish people, was here to stay. No amount of
impressive ceremonies, cosmetic changes to the P.L.O. charter and Palestinian
doublespeak to Western media outlets about their commitment to peace was able to
change this grim fact.
To understand the
mind-boggling scope of Oslo’s failure, it is best to look at the statistics.
According to the organization B’Tselem, during the first Palestinian intifada in 1987, six
years before Mr. Rabin’s attempt to recast the archterrorist Yasir Arafat as a
peacemaker, 160 Israelis were murdered in Palestinian terror attacks. In the
mid- to late-1990s, as successive Israeli governments negotiated with the
Palestinians, and Mr. Arafat and his cronies repeatedly swore they were doing
their utmost to end terrorism, 240 Israelis were brutally killed as suicide
bombs and other heinous terrorist acts targeting unarmed civilians were
unleashed in every corner of our nation.
Things did not
get better after Prime Minister Ehud Barak made the Palestinians an offer in
2000 that, judging by his landslide defeat in the election a few months later,
was way beyond what most Israelis supported. Between then and September 2010,
1,083 Israelis were murdered by Palestinian terrorists.
The Oslo process
did not bring peace; it brought increased bloodshed. We must end this farce by
announcing the immediate suspension of the accords.
Little impact
would be felt by average Israelis and Palestinians. Those who would suffer most
would be full-time negotiators like Martin S. Indyk and Saeb Erekat, who would
find themselves out of a job after 20 years of gainful employment in the peace
process industry.
What should
replace Oslo’s false promise? We should implement what I have called a
“three-state solution.” In the future, the final status of the Palestinians will
be determined in a regional agreement involving Jordan and Egypt, when the
latter has been restabilized. All the region’s states must participate in the
process of creating a long-term solution for the Palestinian problem.
In the short
term, the Palestinians will continue to have autonomy over their civilian lives
while Israel remains in charge of security throughout Judea and Samaria,
commonly referred to as the West Bank. Following an initial period, the Arab
residents of Judea and Samaria could continue to develop their society as part
of an agreement involving Israel and Jordan. Similarly, Gaza residents could
work with Israel and Egypt to create a society that granted them full civil
authority over their lives in a manner that was acceptable to all sides.
Most veterans of
the peace process will mock this proposal, protesting that there is no way it
would be accepted by the Palestinians. Their argument may seem convincing today,
but as I often remind my critics, our region is unpredictable. Had you told any
Middle East expert five years ago that two successive Egyptian presidents would
be deposed and Bashar al-Assad’s regime would be in the midst of a bloody civil
war, you, too, would have been mocked. Things change. We can make them change.
I am aware that
even if the Palestinians accepted this plan, we would still have to deal with a
fundamentalist Hamas regime in Gaza and continuing instability in Egypt. No plan
for Israeli-Arab peace can be fully implemented until these issues are resolved.
In the short
term, Israel’s only option is to manage this conflict by refusing to compromise
when it comes to the security of Israeli citizens. At the same time, our
government should take all steps possible to improve the economic well-being of
the Palestinians.
The dissolution
of the Oslo Accords would serve as the official act validating what we already
know — that this failed framework is totally irrelevant in 2013. Once the
Palestinians were ready to sit down and seriously discuss how our two peoples,
through this new paradigm, could live side by side in peace and prosperity, they
would find willing partners across the political spectrum in Israel.
It may not be the
utopian peace promised to all of us on that sunny day in September 1993, but in
the harsh realities of the Middle East, this may be the best we can hope for and
the sole realistic chance for our children to grow up in a world less violent
than previous generations have had to endure.
Danny Danon is a
member of the Knesset and the deputy defense minister of Israel.
3. Nairobi and the
Yids: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/172163
4. What Netanyahu buys
with his "prisoner releases": http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/The-price-of-prisoner-swaps-326799
5. Bill de Blasio and
the Jews: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/bill-de-blasio-and-the-jews/
No comments:
Post a Comment