What If There Were a BDS Vote and No One Came?

On college campuses, to be a Jew, particularly one who identifies as a Zionist, is difficult. Although boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) resolutions persist, even more pernicious are attempts by students, faculty and outside influences to equate the State of Israel and Zionism with a racist, oppressive product of European colonialism — often invoking anti-Semitic rhetoric. As an organized Jewish community, it may be time to rethink our collective response and, instead, respond strategically. We should consider choosing our battles and repositioning the discussion with greater focus and intention.

Consider BDS. Each time that resolution pops up at a college, activists converge. Supporters of various pro-Palestinian movements butt heads with pro-Israel  organizations and speakers in a series of proxy wars. The active involvement of non-students in opposing the resolution only exacerbates a narrative that “the Jews” are throwing all their resources at these losing battles.

There are several good reasons to do less in-fighting about BDS. First, many activists forget there often is no practical effect to their efforts; it’s just student government. The student government isn’t relevant to much of the student body.

To make matters worse, the Jewish community’s efforts to combat BDS provide free publicity through these debates. Local papers, campus media and sometimes national news organizations give attention to BDS, because we respond to a vote with no real consequence. Further, once passed, any BDS resolution becomes yesterday’s news.

Today, the sad fact is that issues of Israel and the Middle East are less relevant to most college students.

Another problem with fighting BDS is that activists are unlikely to change minds. It once was true that a broad group of undecided but engaged students was the audience of such activism. Today, the sad fact is that issues of Israel and the Middle East are less relevant to most college students. This ambivalence leaves pro-Zionist students debating primarily with antagonists already dead set in their positions.

Given these constraints in fighting BDS, is it worth devoting money, time and effort? Surely there are other, better ways to deploy resources. It is more important, for instance, to arm Jewish students not with the talking points for debating resolutions, but with the educational tools about the conflict, its origins, narratives and challenges, which they can employ in conversations with their peers. 

Pro-Israel student leaders should avoid a war-like stance with their contemporaries and instead, adopt a stated policy they repeat like a mantra:

“We are aware of the proposed action. We oppose it but will not engage in its debate. We will not appear at any hearing or meeting to defend our faith, the right to a nation of their own, or the actions of the Israeli government. The adoption of any resolution or the taking of any action will occur without any formal opposition in the forum you have chosen. We are, however, prepared to discuss the valid concerns of Israelis and Palestinians in a conversation that can be constructive and educational. That can only happen if both parties acknowledge the two valid narratives regarding the history of the conflict.” 

Deny BDS activists the platform to pontificate, deny them opposition to a kangaroo court debate, and save our breath and money for consequential fights.

Let’s deny BDS activists the platform to pontificate, deny them opposition to a kangaroo court debate, and save our breath and money for consequential fights.

Reference point: The BDS movement, which is modeled after the South African anti-apartheid movement that was founded in 1959 and expanded over the next several decades, urges action to pressure Israel to comply with international law, the Brookings Institution wrote in January.

When it comes to anti-Semitism, resisting the temptation to engage in debate is even more important. Consider a recent incident at USC, where a student leader who self-identified as a Zionist was hounded for it until she resigned her position. Carol Folt, the president of USC, issued a letter condemning anti-Semitic rhetoric and hatred on campus. It was a clear, definitive and kind statement. But a Black student group objected to the president’s defense of the student, particularly as it perceived to support Zionism. Jewish groups followed with statements about anti-Semitism on campus and aligned with the aggrieved student.

We should reconsider how we respond to nonviolent and non-physically destructive anti-Semitism. We need to realize that to most people, anti-Semitism is not the issue of the day. For many Jews, anti-Semitism is the worst of all ethnic injustices. But in the current historic moment, racial injustice and police brutality toward Black people and other People of Color are paramount in the public’s mind. This is not to suggest acts of anti-Semitism ought not be fought. Of course we cannot remain silent — but we must recognize that anti-Semitism is not the issue at the top of the agenda on campuses today, and some perceive claims of anti-Semitism as detracting from the current pressing issues of racial inequities.

Although there is never an excuse for an anti-Semitic attack, we need to understand there often are exogenous precursors to comments, often involving trivialities such as student government elections. When we take sides reflexively, we entangle ourselves in issues that may not concern us.

We should separate the words from the speaker. That someone opposing the settlements also says something we deem anti-Semitic doesn’t mean his or her basic position is anti-Semitic; rather, it is the words that are to be condemned.

We need to realize that to most people, anti-Semitism is not the issue of the day.

Rather than focusing on offensive language or anti-Israel rhetoric, we should concentrate on areas of common ground with other student groups, such as acknowledging the primacy of issues of racial inequity in the current political moment. Part of seeking common ground means we should educate — not argue. For example, we should confront with facts the argument that Israel is a Western colonial enterprise. We can acknowledge the damage the colonial period left in its wake, but we must point out the Jewish population in Israel is comprised of more than 50% of Jews from the Middle East, including those driven from their homes in Arab countries and their descendants.

When we say “anti-Zionist,” we mean opposition to the Jewish people’s right to a Jewish state. When others claim to be anti-Zionist, many clarify that means they are against current Israeli government policies and/or the lack of a Palestinian state. When there is a claim Zionism somehow thwarts the Palestinian right to self-determination, we should have a basic response not based on labels, but on a single, simplistic starting ground from which further debate can ensue:

“The Zionism we support is the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in the land of their ancestors. Zionism does not negate the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland. Of course, we support the right of the Palestinian people to seek their own homeland; provided, they, too, do not seek to negate the right of the Jewish people to a homeland. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.”

Now is the time to develop a reasoned response to use in most instances when anti-Semitic statements are made or BDS resolutions are presented. One can agree with some of the arguments of people who oppose the current Israeli government without labeling them as anti-Zionists. Our arguments should focus on the facts. We should start each response with, “You have a point.”

That said, all ethnic hatred and all negation of a people’s right to a nation of their own must be called out — whether espoused by allies of the Palestinians or allies of Israel. By adopting this balance, we can focus on more pernicious acts of anti-Semitic violence and rhetoric. We should redirect discussions away from the semantic definition of Zionism and toward a conversation about Zionism’s dreams for the future alongside, and not in conflict with, Palestinian aspirations.

Glenn Sonnenberg is president of Latitude Real Estate Holdings. He is former president of Stephen Wise Temple and is on the boards of the Jewish Federation, the Children’s Institute, Wayfinder Family Services, Bet Tzedek and Center Theatre Group.