Some cowardly Israeli academics oppose the idea of forming an Israeli university beyond the Green Line because doing so might increase calls from international academia to boycott other existing and proven Israeli institutions. Apparently, they believe that if they kowtow to bigotry by distancing themselves from Ariel they can somehow avoid a boycott from universities in Spain, Britain and elsewhere.Born on the Fourth of June
In January of last year, some members of the Israeli academic community went one step further. Hundreds of professors declared an academic boycott against Ariel because it is located beyond the Green Line.
Instead of trying to appease Israel bashers or join their ranks, our academics should be protecting academic freedom. Why should a researcher be punished simply because he or she works at a university which happens to be in Samaria? On Tuesday, the Council for Higher Education in Judea and Samaria is expected to meet to discuss upgrading Ariel’s status. We hope they make the right decision.
On the fourth of June, 1967, Israel—deploying 275,000 troops, 200 combat planes, and 1,100 tanks—faced off against combined Arab armies that fielded nearly twice as many troops, more than four times as many planes, and nearly five times as many tanks.How to Effect "Equal Sharing of the National Burden
On the fourth of June, 1967, the commander of the Egyptian army, Field Marshal Abdel Hakim Amer, told Ahmad Shukeiri, the founder of the Palestine Liberation Organization, “soon we’ll be able to take the initiative and rid ourselves of Israel once and for all.”
On the fourth of June, 1967, Israel had not received emergency military aid promised by the United States; nor had the United States mounted a promised international armada to break Egypt’s blockade of the Straits of Tiran; nor had Israel gotten any relief from France, which just then decided to turn on the Jewish state with an arms embargo; nor had it gotten any diplomatic relief at the United Nations, which had instantly capitulated to Egyptian demands to withdraw peacekeepers from the Sinai.
The correct way to reach an equal sharing of the national burden is to do it moderately, step-by-step. Such an approach is capable of fully and genuinely correcting the situation.
Towards this end, the I.D.F. should be prepared to absorb thousands of strictly religious soldiers, and remove all obstacles currently facing the religious and hareidi community. In other words, the army must operate according to the principles of Jewish tradition, including enabling any Jewish soldier to maintain his halakhic lifestyle.
This should be set in law: I.D.F. commanders have the obligation to ensure the fulfillment of a soldier’s religious requirements, as customarily accepted by recognized, religious authorities.
To do this, the law requiring women to serve in the army should also be cancelled, because the mixing of men and women in the army is the main obstacle and primary justification of the hareidi community leadership for their non-enlistment. This will not weaken the army, but only strengthen it; an army should always be aimed at its true function, which is security, and nothing else. It is not a ‘melting pot’, nor a place to educate youth about assorted values.