Wednesday, April 1, 2015 // The Statement
8B

The issue of funding

This ultra-polarization of campus is often blamed solely on 

BDS, but the responses rather than the act itself may be more 
culpable. Campus leaders have bemoaned the breakdown of 
dialogue and meaningful debate regarding Israel-Palestine — 
people like Friedman and Abudaram, Dishell and Blume, and 
even Tilly Shames, the Hillel director.

“Something’s gotta change,” Abudaram told me. “I don’t 

know what.”

“I think if things continue the way they are we’re just 

gonna further split our campus,” he added.

Plenty of other students — from both the campus left 

and the pro-Israel community — have similar sentiments to 
share. Younger Jews are also increasingly critical of Israel, 
with only 26 percent of 18 to 29 year olds believing the Israeli 
government is making a sincere effort for peace with the 
Palestinians, according to a recent Pew survey.

So why are things still so bad?
At the core of this constant strife is an issue that all 

institutions face, one that often leads to bad outcomes: the 
need for funding. While younger Jews are considerably 
further to the left of the ideological spectrum, their parents 
are not. Significantly more Jews aged 50 and older — 43 
percent according to the Pew survey — feel that Israel is 
making a sincere effort for peace. Older, more conservative 
Jewish Americans still control the funding, and hence the 
direction, of many powerful pro-Israel institutions.

Groups like AIPAC and Hillel have both conservative 

political views and the cash to make sure they get heard. 
AIPAC’s yearly budget is estimated to exceed $60 million, 
some of which pays for hundreds if not thousands of student 
trips to conferences and seminars. In 2013, Michigan Hillel 
had expenditures of over $2 million — $300,000 alone for 
student organizations. Hillel has many functions beyond 
Israel advocacy, but few campus organizations have that level 
of funding available.

This influence can go beyond advocacy work, often spilling 

into academia. In October 2013, the Center for the Education 
of Women withdrew a speaking invitation for Pulitzer Prize-
winning author Alice Walker. On her website, Walker wrote 
that she was disinvited due to her controversial views and 
activism surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a claim 
the CEW denied. The events’ funding, Walker withdrew, 
was compromised as donors angered with her politics had 
threatened to pull out.

Seven years earlier, in 2006, University History Professor 

Juan Cole, a prominent blogger, was being considered for a 
position at Yale University. Due to his often-harsh criticism of 
Israel, Cole’s appointment became highly politicized and was 
voted down. Rumors quickly surfaced that Yale’s appointment 
committee came under pressure from prominent pro-Israel 
donors, but Cole, who declined comment for this story, has 
downplayed the incident.

In a similar situation this past summer, the University of 

Illinois reversed an appointment for Professor Steven Salaita 
after a string of anti-Israel tweets, some of which were 
interpreted as anti-Semitic. Illinois denies that de-hiring 

Salaita, who favors BDS and spoke to SAFE this December, 
was at all influenced by donors. A trove of e-mails show 
several threats by alumni to never enroll their children or 
donate another dollar as long as Salaita teaches at Illinois.

In 2014 both UCLA’s The Daily Bruin and UC Berkeley’s 

Daily 
Californian 
released 
e-mails 
showing 
student 

government candidates soliciting funds from pro-Israel 
donor Adam Milstein. Milstein appealed to other members of 
the pro-Israel community in Los Angeles, invoking a looming 
campus divestment resolution.

Avi Oved, who now serves as the University of California’s 

student regent, thanked Milstein and promised to “make 
sure UCLA maintains its allegiance to Israel and the Jewish 
community.”

This is not to posit that wealthy donors and powerful, 

nefarious organizations are using their wealth to control 
college campuses. This line of thinking is terribly blind to a 
more nuanced and reasonable reality.

Like most pro-Israel students, Bobby Dishell did not begin 

his connection with Israel after a free trip or “brainwashing” 
by AIPAC. But he has had extensive opportunities to cultivate 
his interests that most students don’t — from a paid internship 
in Washington to AIPAC’s Saban Leadership Seminars, 
which are named for wealthy pro-Israel businessman and 
philanthropist Haim Saban. Programs like these, and the 
money behind them, do not control campus debates on Israel 
— but they do have an influence.

LSA sophomore Lindsay Hurwitz is currently a fellow 

with the Committee for Accuracy on Middle East Reporting 
in America, a right-leaning pro-Israel group. CAMERA pays 
student fellows to hold CAMERA-funded campus events 
and write op-eds with a pro-Israel spin. Hurwitz published 
articles with the Daily in November 2014 and February 2015, 
though only stipulated her fellowship in the November piece. 
Both were displayed on CAMERA’s website as an example of 
Hurwitz’s work through her fellowship.

Students who are enthusiastically pro-Israel, like Dishell 

and Hurwitz, do not hold their stance purely because they 
were enticed by donations or a paid fellowship. There are many 
students who grew up in staunchly pro-Israel environments 
and did not change their views to assimilate in college. There 
are even some students who become more Zionist in college, 
or adapt a pro-Israel stance after being exposed to the issue 
for the first time. This could be because of a panel at an AIPAC 
conference, or from a 3:00 a.m., heart-to-heart conversation 
with a new friend.

The influence of money on the Israel-Palestine debate is 

often an impossible topic to breach, even more hot button 
than the conflict itself. The concept of wealthy, manipulative, 
Jewish donors trying to control politics hits on the worst of 
anti-Semitic stereotypes, one that is both dangerous and 
untrue. The influence of money on campus politics and 
climate is a reality that must be acknowledged, even though 
it is not the sole reason behind the current feelings on Israel 
and BDS.

Alex Adler, the chair of Hillel’s student governing 

board, explained in clear terms that Hillel limits its group 
membership and events due to its mission as a long-standing 
(and private) institution — not donors. Shames said the same. 
It is possible to live in a world where money, institutional 

barriers, and genuine commitment to Israel all work in 
tandem to amplify some campus voices and stifle others.

On the other side of the debate, the once dominant and 

always vocal campus left has of late been pushed to the 
margins. Student government, once a platform for firebrand 
activists, has taken a step back and focused on athletics, 
Greek life, and day-to-day campus problems. CSG will give an 
occasional endorsement to initiatives like tuition equality or 
increased diversity, but they seldom inspire social movements 
and have set a high bar for any divestment initiative.

Likewise, The Daily’s editorial voice is far removed from 

the radical liberalism of the ’80s and ’90s. The paper has also 
turned away from opining on international conflicts to focus 
on campus issues, the city of Ann Arbor, and higher education. 
During divestment debates the last two years, The Daily has 
published numerous student op-eds, but the editorial board 
has not taken a firm stance one way or the other on BDS.

Moving forward

In the midst of this year’s divestment resolution, which 

was voted down at the March 31 CSG meeting, several pro-
Israel students formed the group Wolverines for Peace, which 
opposes BDS and has spoken out in favor of more space for 
dialogue about the conflict. Jonathan Friedman, the Israel 
cohort chair, hopes this dialogue will be purposeful and lead 
to support for people who empower positive change in the 
region.

While their goals for action have been vague, and primarily 

defensive about Israel, it would be action nonetheless — like 
supporters of divestment, many, especially progressive 
— Zionists are dissatisfied with the current stalemate. 
Predictably, however, BDS supporters are not impressed. 
On Twitter, UM Divest supporters juxtaposed the hashtag 
#WolverinesForPeace with images of Israeli oppression, 
while former SAFE co-chair and Public Health student Farah 
Erzouki condemned the group in a March 24 speech.

“They have not reached out to Palestinians on campus, 

but they want dialogue?” Erzouki asked. “They have done 
nothing to listen to the voices of Palestinians on this campus.”

Even a progressive group like J Street U is far from making 

friends with SAFE or Jewish Voice for Peace, but a number 
of campus leaders are committed to building a less divided 
community. Progressive Zionists have consistently played 
the difficult role, the child exchanging passive aggressive 
messages between her feuding siblings. After the 1988 
controversy over Tagar’s bus and the Palestinian students’ 
shanty, the Progressive Zionist Caucus placed a sign in the 
Diag painted with a dove and the slogan “TWO PEOPLES, 
TWO STATES.” Uniting the campus without taking sides is a 
goal equal parts ambitious and idealistic; as Herzl once said, 
“If you will it, it is no dream.”

But the doubts loom: Another failed peace plan; another 

grisly war in Gaza this summer; another right wing Israeli 
Prime Minister denying Palestinian statehood. In their op-ed 
this fall, the students of Jewish Voice for Peace quoted Hillel 
the Sage, asking, “If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if 
I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?”

Student activists of all shades do not have a response for 

this question, but they are frantically searching for an answer.

ISRAEL From Page 5B

See full story online at
 MichiganDaily.com

