This is a crazy story. Jeff Halper, the brave leader of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, was touring the U.S. last week, and two student groups at Temple U in Philadelphia invited him to speak: the moderate pro-Israel group All Sides and Students for Justice in Palestine.
Naturally, the students thought of having the event at the Hillel. Elliot Ratzman, a teacher of secular Jewish studies at Temple, suggested that the student groups approach the (lobby group) Students for Israel to co-sponsor and they’d have a "respondent" to Halper. Maybe Daniel Pipes or Jonathan Schanzer. A regular hootenanny. But Ratzman says that the pro-Israel group declined to get involved.
And then the Hillel refused to host the event. Halper came anyway. He spoke in a classroom about how the occupation and the colonies are destroying the two-state solution.
Well on Wednesday night, guess who Temple U. Hillel is hosting? Effie Eitam, a former colonist of Gaza and member of the Knesset who has called for the expulsion of Palestinians from the Jewish state. Temple Students for Israel and the Jewish National Fund are hosting.
Eitam was at Harvard earlier this week. “I think that it’s disturbing that someone who advocates so openly very racist policies is asked to speak here,” [student Abdelnasser] Rashid told the Harvard newspaper.
Elliot Ratzman was angered by the Halper refusal. He says that Rabbi Howard Alpert, the head of Hillel of Greater Philadelphia, told him that Halper crossed the red line for him on an appropriate speaker. And what was the standard for such speakers? Ratzman asked. Well as a minimum, Ahavat Yisroel. Love of the Jewish people. (By the same standard did Gershom Scholem pox Hannah Arendt; she said, I love my friends, I don’t love a people.)
"Eitam’s talk was pitched as being about ‘Jewish ethics,’" Ratzman says. "I suppose if by ‘ethics’ one means advocating the expulsion of Israeli Arabs, resisting the Gaza withdraw, and insisting that the West Bank belongs to the Jews, then there you go.
"Of course there will be no respondent for Eitam. He is being brought around campuses (he will be in Ithaca tomorrow nite at the Moosewood cafe) by the JNF – their ‘Caravan for Democracy’ series.
"Eitam is a foul choice to represent Jewish democracy. He is a theocrat who advocates an explicit ethnocracy, someone who has tried to delegitimize his fellow (Arab) citizens. He is a leader of the settler movement, and should not be allowed in any Hillels.
"For years I’ve been counsellng activists to NOT see Hillels as targets of anti-occupation demonstrations. As of this week, I will no longer counsel such restraint; Hillels that deny peace activists a forum but allow militant ethnocrats a forum should be considered politically partisan institutions, appropriate targets for demonstrations."
There’s likely to be a demo there Wednesday night. Thanks to Hannah Schwarzschild for the headsup.
RE: “Effie Eitam, a former colonist of Gaza and member of the Knesset who has called for the expulsion of Palestinians from the Jewish state”
SEE: “Jordan Valley could be a sticking point in peace talks”, By Howard Schneider, Washington Post Foreign Service, 11/02/09
(excerpt) “…That is certainly the view from Maskiot, where settlers such as Yosi Chazut are confident they have a permanent home. Chazut, 30, was among the thousands of Israelis removed from settlements in the Gaza Strip when Israel left the area in 2005. The government let him and his wife and three children settle here a year and a half ago with a long-range plan to develop the surrounding hillsides. During one of Netanyahu’s visits to Maskiot, “he said clearly — the Jordan Valley remains in Israeli hands in every future negotiation,” Chazut said.”…
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to washingtonpost.com
FROM ‘ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS’ : “…Hagel made clear his attitude towards Israel when he spoke at the pro-Arab and self-proclaimed pro-Israel J Street lobby last week. He echoed President Obama’s previous statements that meeting the demand of the Palestinian Authority for a new Arab state within Israel’s current borders “is central, not peripheral, to U.S. vital security interests in combating terrorism.”…
…Hagel, who once criticized President George W. Bush for refusing to meet with Yasser Arafat, has questioned the loyalty of American Jews who support Israel, stating that “the political reality is that … the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here.”…
SOURCE – link to israelnationalnews.com
Hannah knew that her problem was not that she was stateless, but the nation state in the 20th century that reduced Jews to a non-recognized minority. This now produces another “stateless” among the Palestinians. The only question that remains is will the state of Israel try to liquidate the “problem” they created.
So the question of Ahabath Israel remains, of which she answers that I love my friends not a people. She goes on to rightly consider the non-separation of religion and state disastrous (and it has proven to be true). Or the substitution of god for the people, so that even the interpretation is that the people returning is essentially the mashiach – she does not believe in them but belongs to them. She is physei and not nomo. Being this she can take her own stand politically, whether or not they conform to some supposed norm of “Jewish” in being or in the political position. What had changed from her earlier views? That we may indeed by Jewish yet be divergent in our views. The rise of Fascism and totalitarianism did away with a place in the nation state, which arose from personal experience. So to accede to Zionism is to do away with the universal nature of the Never Again, and carries with it the seeds of our own destruction.
Now this is what’s called saying a mouthful.
Now this is what’s called saying a mouthful.
This little tale illustrates once again that no progress will be made in resisting the evils of Zionism until non-Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews learn to ally themselves with like-minded non-Jews. Barring such cooperation, the defeat of Zionism will have to await the revolution.
More self-constructed mountains (out of molehills).
Hillel gets to host whom it wants to, for the reasons that it wants. Who are you to seek to impose?
YOU do not open your editorial control here, in your venue. You edit. You censor.
They found a venue. There is no censorship.
Your posts are getting pettier, not more effective.
You are purposefully superficial. You are dishonest and disingenuous. You are often a liar.
The point of this article, you fascist, is that a racist who calls for the expulsion of Palestinians in Israel is allowed to speak INSTEAD of Jeff Halper.
It’s about the content. No one is questioning the right of ethnocentric Jews and Zionists to be advocates of racism/etc. They are entitled to their opinion and that opinion is racist.
Get past the superficial, and stop playing games you coward. People are suffering because cowards like you play rhetorical games all day, stalling any meaningful change and chance at peace.
the point of the article was “we feel censored, we want to tell you who can speak”
Goebbels could have used a man like you, Witty.
This is Witty, using a mirror as his window into Phil’s soul, distorting Phil’s post, erecting a strawman so Witty can burn it down.
The issue is how Hillel expresses its true values by the speakers it chooses to have, and the speakers it won’t have. Witty ignores the substance and pretends it’s about Hillel’s “right” to have the speakers it wants. Under free speech principles they have the right to push whatever line of thinking they want, and Phil is not questioning free speech principles. He’s pointing out that Hillel is supporting racism with its choices. Witty doesn’t want to deal with the substance so he changes the subject and invents his own version of what Phil said so Witty can make false and petty accusations.
Of course he is questioning free speech principles.
He condemns the Philadelphia Hillel’s liberty to invite whom they want.
Would Witty condemn the Philadelphia Hillel’s liberty to invite David Duke? If so, why so? If not, why not?
Notice again what Witty does. Phil is accusing Hillel of supporting racism by the choice of speakers they have. Phil isn’t questioning their free speech right–as Citizen says, they have a free speech right to invite KKK speakers or Nazis if they want to support those viewpoints.
Witty doesn’t want to deal with the substance of Phil’s post, which is an accusation of racism. So he changes the subject and in his response he sticks to his talking point. It’s a pattern with him you see over and over again. If he wanted to deal with the substance, he’d have to show Phil was wrong. He could find examples where Hillel invited Palestinian speakers to give their side of the story, or where they invited someone else with Jeff Halper’s views or something like his views. He could give us a list of Hillel speakers and show that there has been significant attempts to give varying viewpoints. He could, in short, try to refute Phil if Phil is wrong. (And Phil might be wrong, for all I know). But maybe Phil is right. So it’s better for Witty to change the subject and then we sit around arguing about his chosen topic. Of course he’s wrong on that too (Phil isn’t denying Hillel’s free speech right to advocate racism), but it is a distraction. Mission accomplished.
“Hillel gets to host whom it wants to, for the reasons that it wants.”
Yeah, and they can all go wait on the roof for Sabbatti Levi to take them too the Promised Land, too. And we get to comment on it.
But as far as hosting “whom (sic) it wants to” that privilege applies to Mondowiess, too. And I damn-sure wish they would use it.
The larger question is, what are the purposes of a Hillel chapter on a college campus?
To provide a place of religious worship? No issue there.
To instill ethnic chauvinism and discourage intermarriage? Not exactly consistent with what colleges, especially their Jewish academics, preach for other groups.
To monitor teaching and chill academic freedom, with recourse to national enforcement arms like the ADL? See Tony Martin’s experience at Wellesley:
link to blacksandjews.com
As a current and active member of Hillel, let me correct your ignorance on Hillel on campus. I attend a small college (about 4000 students) with an estimated amount of Jewish students around 125 so what we do might be different than Hillel chapters on larger campuses. We have no Hillel house or kosher cafeteria, and there 2 synagogues (Reform and Conservative) in town.
Since we are a small chapter, Hillel becomes what participants want it do be. We each take our own personal experience from it and there is no outside agenda (unless we get outside funding from a Jewish organization for a specific event which happened only once while I was here). In fact, our adviser is a non-Jewish woman who is also the head of Religious Activities. She always tells us we are her favorite group. Hillel used to have a relationship with the local Chabad house but that ended before I came here (naturally since we are very secular and non-Orthodox).
We organize several events each semester (Fall and Spring) and we are an information center to Jewish students for opportunities from Jewish organizations. All of our events involve food, something different from the stuff we get from our two cafeterias (regularly called by the student body “Scurve’s” and “Scurvy 2.0″).
Most of our events are funded by the Student Senate thus most of our events are open to everybody.
All or most of our active members are from out of state so we organize rides home or to the local synagogue for holidays. We also plan a couple holiday services on campus or do something non-traditional to mark the holiday (Chocolate Seder, Pizza in the Hut/Sukkah). Since all or most of our members are Reform, secular, or Conservative, we don’t hold regular Shabbat services. We do hold maybe one Shabbat service each semester and non-Jewish students sometimes come either to observe and learn, or for credit for their World Religions class or whatever its called.
We have a relationship with the local Reform rabbi who also has a relationship with other religious organizations and charities in the local area. We also have a relationship with the other (and much larger) religious organizations on campus.
While my parents like to point out nice Jewish girls for me, I don’t care if my friends are not Jewish. Though I do participate in Hillel for the enjoyable experience of doing Jewish things with other Jews (and for the food). While I’m no yeshiva student, I do appreciate the vast body of Jewish literature, the wisdom of our teachers/rabbis, and even Tanakh. There is much that can be learned from the written word, even those from thousands/hundreds of years ago.
You might dismiss me as an exception from your preconception of Jews, but this is my personal experience and I believe many of my Jewish peers perceive Hillel like I do.
Truly an astounding reply, Richard. If a Catholic Newman center invited that British holocaust denying Bishop to speak…would American Jews (or Jews all over the world) be entitled to a response? Entitled or not, you can bet they WOULD respond. And rightfully so, in my opinion.
This strikes me as an appalling choice for that particular Hillel. We are Americans, and in principal, if not always in reality, opposed to racism.
Phil is dead right on this, and you are dead wrong. To accept the benefits of American citizenship, on the one hand, and for those same Americans to actively participate in the denial of similar rights to others…I personally find sickening.
To suggest the director of that Hillel is not doing those AMERICAN Jewish students any favors is a gross understatement.
Nauseating hypocrisy.
Well put, Don. Very well put. Wish I could do the same. You are very generous.
link to newyorker.com