There is no more fertile ground than the Western campus for all manner of anti-Zionist activity. How such activity can be countered is an important question, not only because Israel and Zionists are misrepresented, but because often, people come to university without eve having known or cared about Israel or Jews, and their formative experiences of us can be extremely negative if, on one side, we have anti-Zionist propaganda effectively disseminated, and on the other hand, vitriolic and aggressive defence of Israel.
So, why is the university campus so hospitable to anti-Zionism? Firstly, anti-Zionism cannot be viewed in isolation. It is very much within the framework of anti-American, anti-imperialist, and generally anti-establishment groups and movements that are very attractive to a certain type of university student. Young people who are rebelling against parents and the values with which they grew up often project this rebellion onto a wider political canvas.
Sometimes Anti-Zionism is nothing but a cover for someone with already entrenched anti-Semitic feelings; however, it would be a mistake to view all student anti-Zionists thus. Many of them are merely subscribing to a package of ideas that presents simplified dichotomies – powerful vs powerless, dominant vs submissive, perpetrator vs victim. The more the Zionists shout at these people, the more it confirms in their minds that Zionism equals bullying. We probably cannot change their minds, but we needn’t harden their opinions either.
Most students, however, are not part of rabidly anti-establishment groups on campus. Most of them are concerned with studies, money to live on, and their social life. Some may dally in politics, some may imbibe opinions on Israel via osmosis. These sorts of students will not be tempted to view Zionism kindly if they are being shouted at.
Another group of students are those from Arab or Muslim communities. Again, some are not going to have an open mind on the subject of Israel and Jews, but many will. The best way to build bridges with these students is also the best way to rehabilitate the image of the Zionist bully that the hardened anti-Zionists like to perpetuate. What we suggest is a Jewish student group and a Muslim student group uniting to begin charitable work to raise money or do some other good for a cause in Australia – perhaps Aboriginal education or health. This would not only demonstrate good faith between the Muslim and Jewish students, but it could demonstrate to the broader campus community that both groups can see beyond ethno-religious conflict in order to make their country, Australia, a better place. By helping those less fortunate, the image of the Zionist bully begins to recede.
Another approach, aimed directly at the majority of politically inactive students, is to hold regular parties. Again, such parties can take any number of forms, but the most important ingredient, is that the Zionist students refrain from giving unsolicited political opinions. If asked direct questions about Israel, these students should comport themselves as communal ambassadors.
One way of conducting these parties is to hold them monthly, and each month, co-host the party with another ethnic or religious campus group.Relevant ethnic food and music should feature and the atmosphere should be light. Such parties not only create good associations with Jews in the minds of students, but also provide inter-communal networking opportunities that may prove invaluable in the future.
For the moment, Zionists, standing alone in their small groups, shouting and handing out leaflets in defence of Israel, have not converted anyone we have ever met to the Zionist cause. It’s time to start doing things differently.
Related posts:
- Dani Klein of StandWithUs and The SJ in Dialogue
- Part Five – Axis of Honour: Dislocation, Family, and Terror
- In The AJN – The Community Survey; a Question; and Coming Next
- Michael Fagenblat’s Presentation at the Seven Jewish Children Reading
- Winning Friends and Influencing People 3: Anti-Semitism, The Hiatus, and Secret GLBT Business.
I think this is what happens when Stand With Us and a bunch of bright young Jewish students who have no non-Jewish friends take up campus advocacy. The assumption is that everyone else is stupid and guerilla tactics are best. As you say, it would be far more effective to actually talk to those students with divergent views to find common ground and to intellectually engage with the issues on hand with the wider student population.
Support this comment
0
GH, we feel we have already answered most of your questions either in comments or posts.
As for evidence of the scoring of own goals, why is it exactly that Israel has such a poor name on Campus, in much of the media, and among the intelligentsia? Is it that these arenas are the exclusive domain of liars and fools? Or have we, perhaps been going about things the wrong way.
Support this comment
0
Dear TSJ,
If you believe that we cannot (by effort and skillful engagement) change the minds of anti-zionists, then why should we seek to lessen the hardness of their opinion.
It is akin to saying that attitudes or prejudice that are homophobic or anti-feminist or racist (I place anti-zionism as a category of this broader disease) cannot be addressed, merely moderated.
I don’t want islamic, secular non-believer, christian or atheist students on campus “soft” about their opposition to legitimate zionist apirations. We should not be happy enough to accept smouldering hatred under the breath versus open and vicious opposition.
The feel good moderate appeasement road has been taken before.
It has failed to buy more than just a little time.
We would not stoop to accept a low quality outcome for indigenous reconciliation, then why for zionism?
Building bridges is fine. However a defeatist attitude towards engagement – with no real objective to move people from hate to respect – weakens the fight against evil.
Support this comment
0
Well M/s Fein if it were left up to you and your anonymous comrades anti Zionism and antisemitism being conducted by the Arab/Muslim students,anti zionists along with their Socialist Alternative thug allies on campus would go un challenged by Jewish [pro Zionist] students. Their anti Zionist anti Semitic rally’s and demonstrations would go unchallenged,the anti Israel plays and other anti Israel events like the Seven Jewish children would go un challenged and only the Palestinians should have their lobby group and lobbyists not the Zionists , so in the end M/s’ Fein all we Australians would hear would be the Palestinian narrative on the Israeli/Arab conflict.. The Zionists should be quiet , passive and not make waves..
There is one indisputable fact here M/S Fein and that is Loewenstein , Australians for Palestine Lobby group, would agree with you, that’s for sure.
Support this comment
0
Faygale, How many apathetic university students do you think were persuaded one way or the other by Socialist Alternative thugs or pro-Zionist leaflet distributors this week?
Support this comment
0
Dear TSJ,
Faygale raises an important point: if narrative is the new political reality (Obama’s message was clearly the superior regardless of details) then withdrawing from the hard, sometimes uncomfortable, marketplace of ideas and ideology (the struggle as opposed to the joint welfare fundraising holds hand approach) will lead to only one side of the possible truth being heard.
It is better that robust debate occurs than no debate at all.
Silence can be seen as weakness.
It is good that campus life is uncomfortable for those committed to values. Twenty years ago gay rights activists were having a hard time and thirty years ago the opponent of the South Africa regime were still fighting for oxygen.
Support this comment
0
Some thoughts:
Those who want to find out the facts and develop an informed position will do so regardless of biased advocacy efforts. And this is commendable with regards to every issue.
Developing relationships with broader groups can only assist those who are seeking the facts/truth by enabling them access, not only to written materials but a living experience concerning their issue of enquiry.
Rational, self-aware and self-critical examination and introspection informing our (Jewish) positions and debate are going to present our legitimate aspirations in the strongest light.
For instance, Zionism as understood as the Jewish right to self-determination (national/political/cultural) is a perfectly legitimate position to hold and those arguing against it in those terms are hard pressed to appear reasonable. If however an opponent notes that our (Jewish) self-determination came at the expense of someone else’s (the Palestinians) and they can present this fact as ongoing due to Israeli (or diaspora Jewry) intransigence (regardless of whether this is correct – primarily in my opinion due to poor communal leadership’s handling of media etc) then it becomes much more reasonable to question or criticise Zionism in discourse.
Additionally, as members of the diaspora, we need to consider our roles/views with regards to Israel and the conflict. Remember, Israel is not entitled to diaspora support, it needs to act in a way which earns it. We (as diaspora Jews) need to call its excesses into question and withdraw our support (eg. over the settlements) where appropriate and offer our support also when appropriate.
Support this comment
0
Dear TSJ,
We seem to be on common ground: reasonable voices making a position mainstream is very much the objective. It is open to debate as to which strategies work best and in what context. However, the temptation may be to drift from honest views to comfortable views.
I do not perceive any excessive behaviour or violent undertones when assessing the diversity of pro-Israel activism. What I see is clear passion and determination. Not unlike many of the anti-Israel activists. The reasonable voices on gay rights and women’s liberation also showed passion and willpower.
Do you perceive it as radical to defend Israel 100% regarding its current borders (including settlements) or merely a point in a spectrum of valid political (although contested) aspirations?
I don’t think it radical. In the same way that it is not radical for some advocates of a one state solution to call for a completely secular state (it is just their position – I might passionately disagree but will not seek to rubbish their view as vitriolic or aggressive). Only if they call for violent and anti-state terror measures will their advocacy cross the line between robust politics and militant extremism.
If the Israel position on campus is confronted by strong advocates of delegitimacy, disinvestment and exclusion (I note the academic call for bans on contact to make political pressure), why can’t the presumed defenders use lawful advocacy? Is there room in Australia for those seeking to see Israel treated equally with all other nations? We accept trade and dialogue with regimes like China and Iran. We can do better.
Support this comment
0
Dear ladies,
1. Whilst I did not specify that you (TSJ) were peddling comfortable views, I will respond. My worry is that in seeking to open dialogue with those who are hardline in their thinking (both sides can take a bow on this) by means of the social/cultural/food event outreach we may lose sight of the reason why we are campaigning: for truth rather than brotherhood (sorry about the gender language).
2. Am I to take you to belive that Zionist activists have (on balance) lost the plot and are scoring own goals? Where is the evidence?
3. Is Israel at war or at least in a warlike state? If so, is blanket loyalty so repugnant in the same way that certain dissent under the Defence of the Realm Act was sedition in the 1940s?
4. If I am correct you started the radical/moderate comparison with your 842 posting, if it is good enough to describe the spectrum of advocates from radical to mainstream (MLK etc) then it appears to be OK to ask the question of pro-Israel support.
5. I thought that everyone’s opinion was of equal merit until such time as the position is countered by evidence or fact. Good manners, not force or compulsion, tell me that I should accord your opinions equal merit until such time as I assess them as wrong, limited or contrary to my interests/values. Maybe this is the key point: some people will always disagree becuase their interests clash or are in conflict. It might be as simple as that. Opponents to my viewpoint are wrong if I see issues through the prism of self-interest (rabid self interest if you must).
6. Where is the evidence that the middle ground is shifting away from Israel. Is there data to peruse or studies to consider?
Support this comment
0
[...] Comments (RSS) « Zionism on Campus: a New Approach [...]
Support this comment
0
TSJ, I have been the president of a campus Jewish Student Society. Maybe things are done differently where you’re from but I never once asked members to stand in the quad passing out leaflets or heckle passers by.
I purposely adopted a low-key strategy that focused primarily on recruiting student leaders to a pro-Zionist stance and engaging with the Muslim Student Association and other foreign student associations through a variety of events. While we had ‘Israel-Day’ and market day stalls, I kept proselytising about Israel to a minimum, relying on an always popular Shisha and free food to attract passers-by.
What you’re not acknowledging is that there are differences in the manner in which Israel advocacy occurs on campuses. You’re making a series of assumptions that have their base in your own personal experience.
Yes there are idiots on campus who are messianic in their Zionism. I can recall a specific political officer from a Sydney campus who was reported to having come to a peace rally wrapped in his former Israeli army units flag. His star rapidly diminished when it became apparent he would do nothing but alienate people.
Don’t tar us all with the brush of the idiots.
Support this comment
0
The methods that I’ve outlined tend to be preferred, simply because it’s non-confrontational. Kids in AUJS have learnt that arguing with Socialists is a waste of time and just looks bad.
There are some people who like to push-poll with a survey to engage with passing students. I don’t like this because it is usually rather transparent.
If there is one thing that annoys me, it is the attitude that particular people take towards their lecturers. I have had lecturers say overtly anti-Semitic things in lectures, I have also had lecturers engage in debate about the ‘Israel Lobby’ in American Politics tutorials. While there are some that would interject and disrupt the lecture, I always found it to be useful to engage on their level and either go through the grievance process or use counter-arguments in tutorials based on the writings of those who support my views.
It tended to work better because the non-confrontational style makes you appear to be reasonable and, more importantly, willing to engage in proactive argument.
Support this comment
0
Do you have an e-mail address I could get off you?
Support this comment
0
THE JERUSALEM POST reported several years ago on plans at the Israeli Foreign Ministry to abolish its “hasbara” or information efforts. It reported, “The decision to abolish hasbara is in keeping with the then Foreign Minister Shimon Peres’ view that ‘if you have good policy, you do not need hasbara. And if you have bad policy, hasbara will not help.’”
Reading that quote Shimon Peres, sounds like it was written from another century. It was actually said at the beginning of the Oslo Process, when many were filled with hope that peace was just around the corner.
Coming back to 2009, despite all the violence and miserable loss of life that has befallen Israelis and Palestinians, perhaps its time that both people stop focussing their efforts on convincing the other that their version of history, and governments position is the only right action. Instead the members of both the Zionist and Palestinian Diasporas would be making a much better use of their time by directing their efforts to advocating for changes in the thinking of their respective nations that will lead to the agreement of both peoples for a two-state solution, based on the 1967 borders.
Support this comment
0
Hi Israel. We think you’ve really hit on something here. There is an awful tendency for certain people in our community to assume that it is only ignorance that causes anti-Zionism, and that if only we educated more, and more loudly, our message would surely get through. Unfortunately, the situation is far more complex than that. There is quite a messianic streak that manifests itself as extremely patronising in the campus environment. Anecdotally, we can say that numerous people have expressed to us that whatever their feelings about Zionism, the Zionist activists’ fervour and refusal to engage in meaningful discourse were highly offputting.
Support this comment
0
GH, We should look to “softening” the temporarily “unconvertible,” because there will likely come a time down the track when such people move away from their student days and associated activism. It is quite right to talk of homophobes and sexists in similar terms.
Whether you are happy or not with anti-Zionist sentiment, and whether you accept their rights to such views, you are still not going to change them with raised fists, shouting, and a few leaflets.
Which “feel good moderate appeasement road” are you referring to? How has it failed? If you read our posts carefully, you’ll see that appeasement is the last thing we’re advocating. The term, “appeasement” is an emotive one, designed to evoke comparisons with Chamberlain re: Hitler, and is quite inappropriate in this context.
We do not advocate “low quality” outcomes for Zionists or anyone else. That is a deliberate misreading of what we have written. We are advocating best possible practice and believe the outcomes would provide Jewish and Zionist students with the best chance to study in a conducive environment. We would advocate similar sensible solutions for Aborigines or anyone else wishing to bring about change. We don’t think shouting, and public displays of animus help anybody – not Zionists, not women, not homosexuals, not Aborigines. The key figure in the US civil rights movements was Dr Martin Luther King, not Malcolm X.
We are not sure that you have actually read the post we wrote. There is nothing defeatist about it. There are concrete objectives to move people from negative to positive feelings towards Jews and Zionism. And the fight against evil? That is hyperbole and completely unsuited to what is actually going on on campuses in Australia.
Support this comment
0
GH and faygale, we are not and never have advocated withdrawal from debate. We simply say that context and manner matter. It is great to engage in debate when there is a possibility for the exchange of reasoned arguments. It is far less useful to stand across from one’s enemies, screaming slogans. No one, not the protagonists, nor bystanders, is actually privvy to the subtlties of the the political discourse in such a situation. We are simply talking about replacing vitriol and aggression – which demonstrably have not helped us on campuses – with an approach that will provide numerous benefits.
As for Gay rights or those opposing apartheid – it was the reasonable voices in those movements that were able to make their issues go mainstream. Radicals from either group would have completely alienated disinterested parties. In the same way that Martin Luther King was successful in ways that Malcolm X was not, we should take heed. Martin Luther King was criticised by radical blacks for not being strident enough. Some mistook his gentleness for weakness. But no one today could seriously hold such a belief. MLK’s gentleness and commitment to non-violence allowed him to penetrate white living rooms and present a face of African Americans that was at once non-threatening, but at the same time firm and passionate in its advocacy for equality. And to keep matters in perspective, we are not in a situation anywhere near as dire as those of blacks in South Africa or mid-20th century US blacks, homosexuals or women.
It is unsubtle and simplistic to equate a lack of stridency with weakness and defeatism.
Support this comment
0
Hi GH.
How have we advocated, “comfortable views?” What are “comfortable views?”
Violence is not a prerequisite for counterproductive behaviour. When Zionist activists damage their cause, they are able to do so in any number of ways.
We’ll avoid the term, “radical,” for the moment, because it is too emotive. We do think blanket support for every Israeli action is intellectually and morally lazy, as are advocates for One State. They are free to propound as they wish, and they certainly exist on a political spectrum (whoever contended otherwise?); however, calling such views extreme is similarly a normal, healthy part of the discourse. Discourse ceases to exist when we are forced to say that everyone’s opinion holds equal merit. No one really believes that.
Lawful advocacy is great. Countering the repugnance of the divestment/boycott lobby is great. But it’s only great if it works. It’s not great if it not only fails, but pushes previously unaligned people towards the other side because our methods are not appropriately geared towards the context: campus life.
Support this comment
0
Hi JP, and welcome! Thank you very much for letting us know about your experiences. We apologise if we generalised too much. Unfortunately, because we are not on campus ourselves, we only have the media and our memories to serve us. From these sources, the loudest voices garnered all the attention. So we thank you for pointing out the diversity that does exist.
Would you say that your methods are dominant? How often do the more aggressive tactics detract from what you’re trying to do?
Support this comment
0
JP, once again, thank you for a very informative comment. Would you mind writing a piece that we could place as a post on this blog? If not, would you mind if we edited your last two comments together to form one post? It’s very important that we hear from people like you who are actually on campus and able to see things first hand.
Support this comment
0
Hi JP.
Write to us at sensiblejew@gmail.com
We really look forward to hearing from you.
Support this comment
0
Hi Ittay.
It’s great to hear from you again. Thank you for your thoughtful comment. The first thing they teach in any PR or communications course is that the PR practitioner needs to get involved when his/her organisation formulates policies or takes actions which will be impossible to justify to the public. We’re not sure whether this is an overly idealised or exaggerated view of the PR practitioners role; however, there’s no doubt that it’s a lot easier to spin something that doesn’t have a mass of problems to begin with.
Support this comment
0