The Firestone Plan's Flaws
In his May 6, 2010 Op-ed “Fighting the new divestment effort on campus,” Hillel CEO Wayne Firestone puts forth a plan that continues to ignore any sort of reality that might allow local student groups to beat back the ever growing Israel divestment movements.
The Firestone Plan outlines three steps to address the divestment movement. First student groups should address their needs locally, without outside help which is interesting coming from the CEO of Hillel International. Then students should build coalitions (again without outside help) by bringing student government officials to AIPAC events and other such “get to know Israel” programs. And finally, student groups should remain on the branding message that Israel is a high-tech leader that shares Western values. As a former student senator and Jewish activist at the University of California, Davis, I can tell you without any shadow of a doubt that the Firestone Plan is fatally flawed.
Yes, the divestment movement is somewhat misguided. Their tactics have grown ever more disruptive and obnoxious over the years. However, the campus checkpoints tell a story that speaks to students and community activists of all stripes: the image is powerful and simple. The fact that we all chat on instant message systems and that technology was created in Israel does not effectively combat the fact that Israeli teens are manning real checkpoints in the West Bank disrupting the lives of Palestinians. Posters about the “start-up democracy” will do nothing to address the fact that students, from the most radical to apolitical, are consuming information and images on campus that are based in truth.
The “we created AIM” argument has always been weak. Would activists in any other community utilize such a disjointed argument? The answer is no because it does not work. Not only is this line of defense bad, it has been dictated from on high, from the offices of Jewish organizations in New York and D.C. to be disseminated on campuses around the country, without any regard to its applicability locally. This branding effort ignores the first two points of the Firestone Plan.
But the real problem with this argument is that it simply does not work.
To say that because Israel is a democracy, has high-tech jobs and allows GLBT soldiers to fight in the army—undoubtedly true and good things to promote— does not address the fact that there are checkpoints. It does not address the fact that Israeli citizens, with the help of the Israeli government, are building homes on land that will one day be the Palestinian state. The arguments put forth on those cute post cards, printed by Hillel and others outsiders who choose this message, do not address what is at the heart of this argument.
By completely dismissing the concerns of everyday students, Israel activists following the Firestone Plan will alienate potential allies. But more importantly, by not engaging in the deeper debate, Israel activists allow the divestment movement to dictate the terms of the conversation. By saying, “yes, the checkpoints exist and they aren’t the best situation but they save lives” is much stronger in the eyes of a rational outsider than responding to the rhetoric of the divestment activists with “did you know that Israel has more high-tech jobs per capita than the any other country in the world?”
If Mr. Firestone wants to win this fight, he must take a hard look at his own movement before dismissing the movement that continues to grow, garners national press attention and most importantly is making significant inroads towards achieving its goals. The pro-Israel campus movements have allowed the message to be dominated by either a black and white argument of body counts (which it losses) or the “hey look a pony!” arguments (which don’t work). The question of Israel and the Palestinians is not a simple issue and should not be boiled down to sound bites.
The fight for the soul of the pro-Israel movement is being lost to the radicals and the so-called marketing experts. An honest debate is lost by divestment activists, but a conversation about who is the bigger victim is won by the people supporting those blocked from the doctor by checkpoints, not those with jobs at the computer company.
The branding of Israel as a democracy, or as the hot-bed of high-tech, or even as more tolerant of GLBT individuals than other western countries, is important but it is not a tactic to respond to the divestment movement. It is time for an open debate.
dcc, I heart you. Are you single?
“However, the campus checkpoints tell a story that speaks to students and community activists of all stripes: the image is powerful and simple….Israeli teens are manning real checkpoints in the West Bank disrupting the lives of Palestinians.”
“To say that because Israel is a democracy…does not address the fact that there are checkpoints.”
Well if checkpoints are the biggest evil in the world, then no: nothing that’s done besides removing checkpoints will address the terrible, oppressive, unbearable evil of checkpoints.
I think Firestone’s idea is that the image of Israel that’s promulgated on most campuses is de-contextualized and aimed at otherizing Israel and the country’s supporters as being somehow beyond the pale. The reality of Israel is much bigger than that 2D image.
“An honest debate is lost by divestment activists, but a conversation about who is the bigger victim is won by the people supporting those blocked from the doctor by checkpoints, not those with jobs at the computer company….It is time for an open debate.”
Really — there’s not an open debate already? If you want to play victimhood one-upmanship, I’ll take your ‘patient blocked by a checkpoint’ (not a huge number of those) and raise you an Israeli victim of Palestinian terrorism blown up by a bomb brought through a checkpoint-free road.
If security checkpoints are the ultimate evil, then anti-checkpointers win. But they’re not the ultimate evil–they’re widespread throughout the world, and Palestinians can always make the choice to stop smuggling high explosives.
Anon- I am happily married. But thanks, it means a lot.
Eric- The body count game is a lose lose for pro-Israel activists. Do the side by side for either Intafada or even better the Gaza War. The number of Palestinians killed far out numbers the number of Israelis killed. But even if you wanted to put the check-points in context, which I advocate, activists should be putting them in context of the conflict, not the economic strength of Israel or their so-called Western values.
Is Firestone aware that many Israelis – people quite familiar with Israel’s high tech success and the willingness of GLBT soldiers to join in the subjugation of Palestinians – are nonetheless highly critical of Israel?
This notion that ignorance about Israel is the solution makes no sense. In nearly every situation where students with less knowledge go deep and acquire more, they end up being more critical of Israel, not less.
There is a fundamental disconnect between the reality of a 40+ year occupation and colonization project and the consensus liberal values of Western Democracies. Temporary measures which could have been excused if they had an end date are seen quite differently under an official Israeli policy of ‘conflict management’ replacing the active pursuit of peace.
The pro-Israel campus movements have allowed the message to be dominated by either a black and white argument of body counts (which it losses) or the “hey look a pony!” arguments (which don’t work).
Hear hear!
And ditto to Jew Guevara.
Yes. I’d love to live side by side with the Palestinians in an environment without checkpoints. My ideal world would include a peaceful Israel living next to peaceful neighbors, including a fully independent Palestinian state, regardless of the details of the final application of SCR242. The Palestinian side has made tremendous headway with their various campaigns, anti-Israel weeks and BDS movements. They have effectively hijacked the world humanitarian agenda and painted their cause as the most pressing humanitarian issue of our time. Many people have bought this simplistic narrative hook, line and sinker. Many well meaning Jews, with an innate concern for Justice, have also bought into this narrative and rank amongst its leading proponents.
Israel as a perpetrator of genocide. Israel as an apartheid regime. Israel as a polity rapidly devolving into proto-fascism. Israel as a multi-headed hydra subverting loyalty and governments around the globe. These are notions that would easily have been dismissed a decade ago. Now they are being discussed seriously in the halls of academe and government as well as by the water cooler. And not just by foaming at the mouth anti-Semites, but also by good, well meaning people.
The success of these distortions has emboldened the radicals. Advocates for the Palestinians are now whispering that what they want, what true justice demands, is the complete dismantling of the country and the total eradication of Zionism.
And yes, you are correct. The ICQ arguments are not very persuasive. The self styled marketing and branding experts are not doing a very good job of advancing the cause of Israel beyond that of the regular suspects and the members of the choir.
But I personally don’t care about PR. I need to make sure my friends and family are safe and protected. Everything flows therefrom.
ck, dcc (heartbreaker!),
Maybe we should bring together bloggers that care and have a conversation about what does work. Some of us have years of experience in learning the hard way, often while having to fight the entrenched and failing Hillel and Federation bureaucracies, which stifle innovation in their incomprehensible turf wars. With the Jewish Agency under new leadership, we might even get some institutional support.
Also, I’ve been meaning to ask for months, is there a difference between KFJ and KFJ 18?
But I personally don’t care about PR. I need to make sure my friends and family are safe and protected. Everything flows therefrom.
That is a much better argument than what Firestone and ICC put forth.
That’s not saying much dcc…
That is kind of the point CK. “Hey Look Over Here” advocacy is crap. It is also really silly to try to convince people that what they believe is wrong.
If Pro-Israel advocates want to win that 1/3 of the population that doesn’t care, they need to be honest. Your honesty about wanting security plays much better than anything the ICC or others are putting out there. The fact that you know you have seen and you understand is a better counter argument than there are lots of computer jobs in Israel.
Also, the moral argument is weak. If you say, the occupation isn’t as bad as [fill in Middle Eastern issue here] you only are then comparing Israel to the countries and terror orgs that you are trying to separate Israel from by saying Israel is a democracy and holds western values.
An honest debate about what is going on…good bad and ugly is the way to go.
-Anon, sorry…
One of my best friends is a Palestinian who lives in Ramla, in Israel. Some years ago, we were eating fish at a beach place in Jaffo, and talked about what it meant for all the mess to finally be over. For both of us.
Our answer was: when the flag our children are asked to salute evokes the same sense of awe, loyalty and inclusiveness for both – not just my kids or his kids.
That feels like a worthwhile goal. Yet the Zionists in my life affirm that it is more or less the same as condemning the Jewish State to oblivion.
It’s worth adding – this guy is absolutely uninterested in seeing a one state solution.
The only people truly interested in a one state solution are…
1) Islamists who want a civil war, which they intend to win.
2) Palestinians who don’t want to live in Hamastan, or a Baathist-style fascist dictatorship strong enough to keep the Islamists at bay.
CK writes: Israel as a perpetrator of genocide. Israel as an apartheid regime. Israel as a polity rapidly devolving into proto-fascism. Israel as a multi-headed hydra subverting loyalty and governments around the globe. These are notions that would easily have been dismissed a decade ago. Now they are being discussed seriously in the halls of academe and government as well as by the water cooler. And not just by foaming at the mouth anti-Semites, but also by good, well meaning people.
A decade ago, they were ludicrous notions about a naiton almost at the brink of resolving its outstanding issues with the region. Now, they are closer and closer to the truth. There is an apartheid regime in the territories. It is devolving into proto fascism. Israel is to blame for its sorry state. It could have waged a battle against “terrorism” without resorting to its inhuman and inhumane policies.
“A decade ago, they were ludicrous notions about a naiton almost at the brink of resolving its outstanding issues with the region…. It could have waged a battle against “terrorism” without resorting to its inhuman and inhumane policies.
—Amit · May 24th, 2010 at 5:12 am”
Please, that is such hysterical nonsense. So “a decade ago” it was ludicrous. But now, since the Palestinians restarted their terrorism campaign and added surface-to-surface missiles to the mix, it’s “closer and closer” to the “truth”???
Israel’s “outstanding issues with the region”? Like the region’s refusal to accept the existence of a non-Muslim polity? The region’s never been close to resolving that “issue” and there’s no reason to believe it will move appreciably closer in the next 10-20 years.
Since you seem very knowledgeable about effective counterterrorism strategy, please lay out what Israel “should” have done. Maybe you can cite some historical examples of counterterrorist and COIN strategy from around the globe that fit the bill you have in mind.
>>>”Israel as an apartheid regime. Israel as a polity rapidly devolving into proto-fascism. Israel as a multi-headed hydra subverting loyalty and governments around the globe…. Now, they are closer and closer to the truth. It is devolving into proto fascism.”
How can an intelligent person echo such tripe without sliding under their bed in embarrassment?