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