An interview with the architect of the David Project’s new direction
The David Project has long been known as one of the most aggressive, acrimonious pro-Israel voices on campus. But their new report, “A Burning Campus? Rethinking Israel Advocacy at America’s Universities and Colleges,” is starting to change that reputation. Full of new strategies for combating what they see as destructive efforts to delegitimize Israel on campus, they hope the report will form the basis for a new unifying strategy for all on-campus Israel advocacy organizations. At its core is a complete 180: the idea that vigorously attacking “anti-Israelism” on campus is counterproductive.
David Bernstein was hired as the executive director of the David Project two years ago, a change that has finally culminated in the new direction that “A Burning Campus” represents. I spoke with Bernstein via phone yesterday. Here is our conversation, which has been edited for length and partially reordered. In it, we go beyond the new report and touch on everything from the definition of pro-Israel to the upcoming Israeli Apartheid Week — and Bernstein talks about correcting common misconceptions about what Jewish campus life is like today.
Wilensky: After working at the American Jewish Committee for several years, what drew you to the David Project?
Bernstein: I started out as a pro-Israel student activist in college. I was the head of the pro-Israel student group at [Ohio State University], an activist in the Soviet Jewry movement and I was on the national Hillel student executive committee. I’ve always felt a special kinship to the campus scene. I spent 13 years at AJC involved in and leading high-level advocacy initiatives and really wanted to bring what I’ve learned to campus work.
The new report makes a distinction between anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism. What is the difference?
We have determined anti-Israelism to denote discrimination specifically aimed at the modern State of Israel, while we use anti-Semitism to denote discrimination aimed at the people of Israel and at Jews. It’s certainly possible that some forms of anti-Israel hostility may not be motivated by anti-Semitic sentiments, so we choose not to use the terms interchangeably. Certainly criticism of Israeli policy in and of itself is not anti-Semitism.
The term “pro-Israel” gets used a lot, though its definition is the subject of some debate. Some don’t include those who are critical, but supportive of Israel in the pro-Israel tent. How do you define pro-Israel?
We’re certainly comfortable with the definition that pro-Israel means critical, but supportive.
Before this report came out, the David Project was often accused of being too aggressive and bombastic. How would your characterize the David Project’s strategy before this report and before you came to the David Project?
Well you just characterized it pretty well. The David Project has learned a lot, as has the larger pro-Israel community, about how to approach these matters on campus. We’ve realized that giving BDS [the movement to Boycott, Divest from and Sanction Israel] and Israeli Apartheid Week a megaphone by providing publicity they wouldn’t have had on their own is not in our best interest. Our strategy has changed and shifted as we’ve learned what works and what doesn’t work on campus.
Israeli Apartheid Week (an annual international campaign to bring attention to the BDS movement and the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories), which you just mentioned, will be on a number of American campuses this year from Feb. 26-March 3. Can you describe the David Project’s approach to IAW in the past and then contrast it with your plans for this year?
In the past we’ve certainly spent time educating students about why the apartheid analogy is specious and absurd. Our approach now is to say as little about it publicly as we can, but to do as much as we can to mobilize students into relationship-building mode.
What do you think of plans that other organizations have for countering IAW?
Many of these organizations have adopted a similar approach to the David Project, which is to take a positive tone and support as much positive programming as possible. There are some organizations — and I’m not gonna name them here — which try to directly take on the detractors. We think that’s a big mistake and it only serves to amplify their voices.
In The Forward’s article on your new strategy, reporter Naomi Zeveloff wrote, “The David Project’s founders are appalled by [the new] approach.” Have you spoken with them since the report came out? If not, what would you say to them to reassure them?
I have spoken to Avi Goldwasser and I’ve exchanged emails with Charles Jacobs [the co-founders]. Neither of them expressed to me that they’re appalled by the approach. … I know that we don’t differ so much in how we define the challenge, but in how we define the solutions. And certainly they have every right to disagree with this approach.
But for Goldwasser and Jacobs — or anyone else who agrees with you on the challenge, but is troubled by your new strategy — what can you say to them to reassure them?
I’m not sure I can assure them. All I can do is make arguments and our arguments are based on more sophisticated public opinion research and surveys that have been done and a collection of best practices over 10 years. All we can do is cite those and cite our collective experience and still understand that we’re not going to convince everybody.
Does the report reflect a sudden shift in your tactics or is it the culmination of a gradual shift?
Some is gradual. The David Project has changed a lot in the last three years. Some of it is not sudden, but decisive. We’re moving from a frontal approach to advocacy to a more relationship-driven approach.
An approach driven by relationships between which people or groups?
Between the pro-Israel community and key segments of campus leadership. One of the key recommendations is that students spend time mapping out their campuses and figuring out who the key influencers and sources of leadership are and build relationships accordingly.
In a Feb. 9 op-ed for JTA, you accuse the rest of the pro-Israel world of being “addicted to overreaction” in the way that they respond to anti-Israel activity on campus. But in the past the David Project has been accused of the same thing. Why is there no admission that the David Project was one of the perpetrators of this behavior and that this is a major change for the organization?
The op-ed and the white paper are not about the David Project and its past, but about how the pro-Israel community should move forward. … If one believes that the problem is hostility and anti-Semitism, you respond a certain way. But if one believes the problem is declining sympathy for Israel, you go with a strategy of advocacy.
The Jewish Week asked you if there’s a similar “white paper” from the other side. You said you didn’t know, but they do have a strategy: “Their strategy is to bring delegitimization of Israel into the American campus and into the larger society.” That’s a pretty broad articulation of a strategy; it sounds more like a goal to me. What are the nuts and bolts of their strategy?
The only thing I’ve seen is that they’ll bring anti-Israel conferences and anti-Israel speakers to campus to influence the conversation about Israel and the Middle East. I don’t think the other side has been that sophisticated in their methods and their radicalism has been a limiting condition on their success convincing large swaths of American students.
What about the long-standing strategy of bringing up Israel’s economic and technological successes instead of addressing criticisms of Israel?
We know that sometimes Israel advocates have to engage in complicated, painful conversations about Israel on campus. We know there are times when talking about Israel’s technological advancements is perfectly appropriate.
Just to play devil’s advocate: Isn’t that just changing the topic?
For example, business students who are taking a class on the business environment in Israel may have little interest in the state of the conflict, but they have an interest in the business environment and the technological advances. So we’re engaging in different conversations with different people because Israel itself is complicated and no one approach or talking point is going to cover all of the conversations that we can have on or off campus.
What do you think of Jewish Voice for Peace, which doesn’t support the general BDS movement, but calls for boycotting the settlements and divesting from corporations that they say profit from the occupation? Should they be included in the pro-Israel tent?
No. I don’t include any group that opposes the right to exist as a Jewish state or supports BDS.
You don’t see a distinction between the full BDS movement and JVP’s more targeted approach?
I’m not gonna get into the nitty-gritty there. I think that their approach is profoundly un-constructive.
Do you agree with the ban that Hillel has placed JVP under, prohibiting JVP groups from interacting with Hillel chapters?
Yes.
What about Jewish students who are pro-Israel, but have serious concerns about Israel?
Any student that’s willing to work in a positive relationship-driven approach to Israel is certainly welcomed by us. We don’t apply a litmus test; we just want to identify students who have a love for Israel and want to play a role in how Israel is treated on their campus. Having students who can thoughtfully critique an Israeli policy while supporting Israel, they play to our strengths.
And what would you say to Jewish students who are involved with JVP or Students for Justice in Palestine? Do you have an approach to dealing with them?
We ignore them. Our job is to find students who are willing to take up a thoughtful pro-Israel banner and work with them.
What do you think about the attempt to use Title VI Civil Rights complaints to combat anti-Israel activity on campus?
We believe that there are times when pro-Israel students have been subject to anti-Semitic speech and that Title VI is a perfectly legitimate tool. We’re concerned that Title VI not be applied too broadly because it could create a backlash. It could be perceived as trying to restrict legit speech.
You told the Jewish Week that one of the things that surprised you most when you came to work at the David Project was that far fewer schools were hostile to Israel than you thought. Is that a misconception that many American Jews share?
It is. The vast majority of campuses are better defined as apathetic about Israel and about all sorts of Israel and policy issues
Should anything be done to counter that perception?
One purpose of the white paper is to advance a common understanding of the problem. … Most campuses aren’t burning, most campuses aren’t hostile, and they’re more likely to contain negativity than hostility.
David A.M. Wilensky is the editor of New Voices Magazine
