Commentary Magazine


Topic: Hillel

Open Hillel: Two Can Play the Shame Game

Last December I wrote about Open Hillel, a movement founded in 2012 to oppose Hillel’s Standards of Partnership. Hillel International is the most prominent campus Jewish organization, with over 500 college and university affiliates. Their standards for sponsoring speakers or cooperating with organizations, though imperfect, protect Hillel’s foundational principles, which include a commitment to Zionism understood in the broad sense in which nearly all Jews of the left, right, and center, endorse it, namely the belief in the legitimacy and desirability of a Jewish state in the Middle East. This principle has led Hillel to say that it will not sponsor speakers or cooperate with groups who promote the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement. That movement has, since 2005 sought to turn Israel into a pariah state comparable to apartheid era South Africa or even Nazi Germany. It is in the context set on campuses by BDS, which has included the targeting not simply of Zionists or Israel but of Jewish people and organizations altogether, that Hillel adopted its standards. As I have written here concerning Swarthmore College’s decision to disaffiliate with Hillel, when Open Hillel assails Hillel International for sticking to its standards of partnership, it assails it for sticking to rather than abandoning its fundamentally decent principles.

Read More

Last December I wrote about Open Hillel, a movement founded in 2012 to oppose Hillel’s Standards of Partnership. Hillel International is the most prominent campus Jewish organization, with over 500 college and university affiliates. Their standards for sponsoring speakers or cooperating with organizations, though imperfect, protect Hillel’s foundational principles, which include a commitment to Zionism understood in the broad sense in which nearly all Jews of the left, right, and center, endorse it, namely the belief in the legitimacy and desirability of a Jewish state in the Middle East. This principle has led Hillel to say that it will not sponsor speakers or cooperate with groups who promote the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement. That movement has, since 2005 sought to turn Israel into a pariah state comparable to apartheid era South Africa or even Nazi Germany. It is in the context set on campuses by BDS, which has included the targeting not simply of Zionists or Israel but of Jewish people and organizations altogether, that Hillel adopted its standards. As I have written here concerning Swarthmore College’s decision to disaffiliate with Hillel, when Open Hillel assails Hillel International for sticking to its standards of partnership, it assails it for sticking to rather than abandoning its fundamentally decent principles.

But this year, Open Hillel has been running a campaign to force Hillel International to abandon its principles. It is, one must admit, clever. Four Jewish veterans of the American civil rights movement are touring the country to discuss what they see as the connection between their civil rights work and their Israel-Palestine activism. Two support BDS. The campaign is quite explicit that its intent is to break Hillel’s standards of partnership. As Open Hillel says of the activists, who appeared at Open Hillel’s conference in October, they “discussed their work in the South fifty years ago and the role Judaism played in shaping that work. They tackled issues that are banned by Hillel International’s Standards of Partnership. They made connections between their work in the Jim Crow south and activism around Israel-Palestine today.” I call the campaign clever because if Hillel rejects these speakers—two of whom can be expected to proselytize for BDS—they will appear to reject that most American of causes, the civil rights movement. But if they accept the speakers they put their name on the Zionism is racism obscenity, not at all well disguised in the program’s coupling of Jim Crow to Israel.

To its credit, Hillel has refused to sponsor the “From Mississippi to Jerusalem” event. So the civil rights veterans involved are expressing shock and outrage that Hillel won’t sponsor their campaign against Hillel. Their piece is entitled—one hopes not by them—“Shame on Hillel for Shunning Civil Rights Veterans.

If you are looking to inspire shame, though, it helps to start by being honest. Our civil rights veterans write that they “are honored that since the [Open Hillel] conference, Hillel students around the country, from Boston to Chicago to North Carolina, have invited us to continue these conversations in their Jewish communities on campus.” What they don’t say, here, or anywhere else in the 900 plus word article, is that they are part of the campaign I just described, publicized and partially funded by the Open Hillel movement, to break Hillel’s standards of partnership.

Our civil rights veterans say that one of them, the pro-BDS activist Dorothy Zellner, spoke in February “on an interfaith panel at Harvard Hillel, where she discussed both her work organizing for racial justice in the United States and her work organizing for Palestinian human rights in Israel/Palestine.” This event was well received, but “to our great dismay, Hillel International, the parent organization for Jewish students on campus, has blocked us from coming to every subsequent campus Hillel where students have invited us to speak.” What they don’t say is that Hillel International was willing to have its name associated with the Harvard event because it did not focus on Israel and Palestine, and that they have indicated—in a letter to Swarthmore—their willingness to have chapters sponsor similar events featuring these very civil rights veterans. So no, Hillel did not shun any civil rights veterans. But they won’t sponsor programs for speakers to “present or proselytize their known anti-Israel and pro-BDS agenda.” The campaign in which these civil rights veterans have been engaged is, unlike the Harvard event, designed precisely so that BDS can be preached under the Hillel banner, and it was because Hillel took a principled stand on that matter that Hillel supposedly should feel ashamed.

Finally, the civil rights veterans think that Hillel should be ashamed for trying to “censor what Hillel students can hear.” In fact, there is no shortage of anti-Israel or BDS speech for Hillel students to hear on the campuses that have declared themselves Open Hillels and, if anything, speech in favor of Israel is suppressed.

Unlike our civil rights veterans, I am no expert on what people should be ashamed of. But people who use their civil rights records to cover for a movement as ugly as BDS, then publicly misrepresent their own actions and Hillel’s, should probably not be wagging their fingers at others.

Read Less

What Jewish Students Really Need

Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life will soon name a new leader. As the JNS news agency reports, the group, which operates at campuses all over the nation, is set to appoint a new CEO to succeed Wayne Firestone, who presided over a period of growth and controversy as the group both expanded its reach while also coming under fire in some quarters about the nature of its response to anti-Israel agitation at American universities. The prospect of a change at the top of Hillel has prompted a debate not so much about who the choice should be but about what the group should be focusing on as it deals with the problems of students who are largely representative of an American Jewish population that is often Jewishly illiterate, doesn’t affiliate with synagogues and Jewish groups, and has distanced itself from Israel. Most important, Hillel is, in the absence of viable competitors, the frontline defense group for students who must contend with a growing movement to demonize Israel.

Everyone concerned with or about the group seems to agree that the response to the BDS (boycott, divest and sanction) movement against Israel is an important element of Hillel’s task. But there is deep division about how aggressive it should be in dealing with the increasingly venomous campaign against the Jewish state which has long since crossed over from mere criticism of policies to open anti-Semitism. There’s also debate about how big Hillel’s “big tent” approach to Jewish community should be as left-wing groups critical of Israel as well as avowedly anti-Zionist organizations want to be included. This is something of a trap for pro-Israel activists on campus as well as for those who want to aid and/or influence Hillel to be more effective. The main problem that will face Hillel’s new CEO is not so much who gets to join the group or their politics but whether the organization is prepared to drop the gloves and the usual kumbaya pabulum that seems to be the standard response of so many Jewish professionals and campus organizers when faced with BDS agitators.

Read More

Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life will soon name a new leader. As the JNS news agency reports, the group, which operates at campuses all over the nation, is set to appoint a new CEO to succeed Wayne Firestone, who presided over a period of growth and controversy as the group both expanded its reach while also coming under fire in some quarters about the nature of its response to anti-Israel agitation at American universities. The prospect of a change at the top of Hillel has prompted a debate not so much about who the choice should be but about what the group should be focusing on as it deals with the problems of students who are largely representative of an American Jewish population that is often Jewishly illiterate, doesn’t affiliate with synagogues and Jewish groups, and has distanced itself from Israel. Most important, Hillel is, in the absence of viable competitors, the frontline defense group for students who must contend with a growing movement to demonize Israel.

Everyone concerned with or about the group seems to agree that the response to the BDS (boycott, divest and sanction) movement against Israel is an important element of Hillel’s task. But there is deep division about how aggressive it should be in dealing with the increasingly venomous campaign against the Jewish state which has long since crossed over from mere criticism of policies to open anti-Semitism. There’s also debate about how big Hillel’s “big tent” approach to Jewish community should be as left-wing groups critical of Israel as well as avowedly anti-Zionist organizations want to be included. This is something of a trap for pro-Israel activists on campus as well as for those who want to aid and/or influence Hillel to be more effective. The main problem that will face Hillel’s new CEO is not so much who gets to join the group or their politics but whether the organization is prepared to drop the gloves and the usual kumbaya pabulum that seems to be the standard response of so many Jewish professionals and campus organizers when faced with BDS agitators.

Some critics of Hillel have focused on the willingness of many campus branches to welcome J Street into its ranks and to allow the group to help influence its decisions about programming. Given J Street’s willingness to reflexively criticize Israel and to align itself against the Jewish state’s democratically elected government, the rancor of many in the pro-Israel community toward the group is understandable. But those who wish to draw a line in the sand that would put J Street effectively outside the community are making a mistake.

J Street’s stands have often marginalized it in the Jewish community and rightly so. Their approach is wrong-headed, but they are not so much a threat to Israel as they are irrelevant to the main questions facing it or its supporters. J Street’s only significance is that it is an attempt by a portion of the Jewish left to dispute the question of who speaks for American Jewry—the mainstream AIPAC or a small liberal group. Without the affection of a mainstream press that has no love for Israel, few would hear of them and they have virtually no influence on Capitol Hill or even in an Obama White House that they ardently support.

But there is no point in excluding it from Jewish communal bodies. Doing so is not only tactically wrong because it makes them martyrs and feeds the false narrative that the pro-Israel majority is suppressing critics. It’s also wrong because any group that is willing to not just say it is “pro Israel” but to actively oppose BDS deserves to be inside the tent, not kept out. For all of its faults, J Street has consistently passed that test. As much as I find its outreach to BDS supporters unsettling, the group is right when it says it has a better chance of convincing fellow leftists of the need to oppose boycotts than do mainstream groups. Thus, I find myself in agreement with those liberals who wish to include J Street inside the Hillel tent.

The key issue is not keeping out J Street, it is in resisting those like Jewish Voices for Peace–who make no secret of their opposition to Israel’s existence, its right of self-defense and their support for BDS–and those groups like Harvard’s Progressive Jewish Alliance that are ready to make common cause with them. Those students and their backers who wish to create an “open Hillel” that would welcome and sponsor joint events with pro-BDS groups ought not to have a place in the organization. It is that bright line that must be preserved if students are to have a chance to face down the anti-Israel mob.

Hillel needs a leader that can work to unite students under the pro-Israel banner but in a context that recognizes the fundamentally anti-Semitic nature of BDS thinking. It should be remembered that any group that is willing to treat Israel and the Jewish people differently from any other and to deny it rights they wouldn’t deny anyone else is demonstrating prejudice. Prejudice against Jews is anti-Semitism and any argument that fails to make this point about BDS will flop.

While Israel’s supporters should not get side-tracked into a spat with J Street that serves no purpose, what Hillel’s new head must understand is that the fetish with inclusiveness at all costs will fatally handicap the group’s efforts to defend Israel and Jewish students. While all groups that back Zionism should be welcomed, neutrality toward BDS is no different from being open-minded about anti-Semitism. Calls for an “open Hillel” give a pass to hate that has gone mainstream on many campuses especially on the West Coast.

Hillel can respond positively and effectively to BDS in many ways that do not include confrontations. But above all, what Hillel needs to remember is that the most important thing the community can do for students is to help give them the courage to stand up against the haters and their cheering sections among the faculty and other bastions of left-wing conformity. If Hillel cannot muster the courage to denounce those advocating BDS, then it will not be doing its job.

Read Less

Hillel’s BDS Battle and Anti-Semitism

To listen to the arguments put forward by Harvard students to create what they call an “open Hillel,” their fight with the national Hillel group is about the right of young Jews to free association. The students say that rules mandating that the organization not partner with groups that support BDS—the anti-Zionist campaign that aims to boycott, disinvest and sanction the State of Israel—or host speakers that advocate such measures are unfair and limit their ability to have dialogue with Palestinians. To the thinking of the Progressive Jewish Alliance that is, according to the Forward, organizing the campaign against Hillel, such rules “stifle discourse” and discriminate against those who disagree with Israeli policies.

But this controversy isn’t about the deadening hand of a Jewish establishment determined, as leftists claim, to silence dissenters. Any Hillel branch that regards groups that are struggling to destroy Israel in this manner would in essence be declaring their neutrality not only about the continuation of the Zionist enterprise but that they can no longer be counted among those prepared to bear witness against the discriminatory ideology at the heart of the drive for BDS. Those who wage war on one people and deny the same rights they readily concede to any other group are advocating a form of bias. Such a bias when directed against Jews has a name: anti-Semitism.

Read More

To listen to the arguments put forward by Harvard students to create what they call an “open Hillel,” their fight with the national Hillel group is about the right of young Jews to free association. The students say that rules mandating that the organization not partner with groups that support BDS—the anti-Zionist campaign that aims to boycott, disinvest and sanction the State of Israel—or host speakers that advocate such measures are unfair and limit their ability to have dialogue with Palestinians. To the thinking of the Progressive Jewish Alliance that is, according to the Forward, organizing the campaign against Hillel, such rules “stifle discourse” and discriminate against those who disagree with Israeli policies.

But this controversy isn’t about the deadening hand of a Jewish establishment determined, as leftists claim, to silence dissenters. Any Hillel branch that regards groups that are struggling to destroy Israel in this manner would in essence be declaring their neutrality not only about the continuation of the Zionist enterprise but that they can no longer be counted among those prepared to bear witness against the discriminatory ideology at the heart of the drive for BDS. Those who wage war on one people and deny the same rights they readily concede to any other group are advocating a form of bias. Such a bias when directed against Jews has a name: anti-Semitism.

Were Hillel to back down on this issue it would not be a victory for free speech or free association. Rather, it would mean the most important Jewish campus organization would be signaling that the war on Israel is neither hateful nor worth opposing. BDS is, after all, not just a point of view about the settlements or borders or the peace process. It is an economic war on Israel whose purpose is not an alleged reformation of its policies but a desire to bring it to its knees and hasten its destruction. It is an attempt to deny to the one Jewish state in the world the right to self-determination and self-defense in the face of armed foes who threaten it with terror and violence.

It needs to be understood that this is a very different argument from those that have divided many Jews in this country about the peace process. Groups like J Street and other left-wing critics of the current Israeli government may take a point of view about the country that is harmful as well as based in a poor understanding of the realities of the Middle East. Those who think Israel should be pressured from abroad in order to make concessions that are opposed by the country’s democratically elected government and the vast majority of its citizens are doing something shameful. But so long as they continue to support the right of Israel to exist and to defend itself and oppose those who seek to wage war on it, such groups must still be considered as having not crossed an important line between legitimate dissent and actions that are beyond the pale of communal conduct.

This debate is illustrative of the fact that there is a point of view prevalent in contemporary Jewish life that views any attempt to draw lines between those inside the community and those outside it as illegitimate. It values inclusiveness above Judaism, Jewish values and even Jewish survival. It fetishizes dialogue with all comers as the supreme good even if such encounters serve only to legitimize forces that are serve as fronts for those who wish to destroy the Jewish state.

The increasing acceptance of this frame of reference about Jewish life is a dangerous development for an American Jewish community that has spent the last two generations faltering in its effort to maintain itself against the ravages of assimilation. While the idea of welcoming everyone fits in nicely with our pluralistic American ethos, a community that is defined primarily by inclusiveness is one that stands for nothing. Such a community is not only unsustainable; it may not be worth saving.

But the application of the principle of inclusiveness to BDS supporters takes this trend to a new low. It is one thing to say Jews may believe anything about their faith or support any political point of view. It is quite another to say that there is nothing amiss with a nominally Jewish group that is neutral about the war on the Jewish state.

Any student who believes that being “progressive” requires them to be open to working with BDS supporters fundamentally misunderstands not only liberalism but the intent of Israel’s foes. Neutrality toward BDS is no different than neutrality toward beliefs that stigmatize Jews. What these students don’t understand that is that their fight for an “open Hillel” means giving a pass to hate.

It is up to Hillel to resist this attempt to transform a Jewish campus group into a beachhead for those who make common cause with these anti-Semites. Inclusiveness is not an excuse for acquiescing to an ideology of hatred. There is no alternative but for Hillel and its supporters to stand their ground and to help Jewish students find the courage to stand up against the enemies of their people.

Read Less




Pin It on Pinterest

Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.