Boston University has recently become the headquarters for a new reactionary movement called “Safe Hillel,” which seeks to push back against the growing Open Hillel movement. Their stated goal is to “ensure that Hillel remains a safe place for Jews of all backgrounds to practice Judaism and a safe place for those that support Israel.” With this goal, they try to justify their support for the corporate censorship of Jewish students. They argue that Hillel’s Israel guidelines, which limit the spectrum of free speech and the exchange of ideas at Hillel, are there to protect students who support Israel and Zionism. In this context, the term “protect” means to save students from the burden of having their support for Israel questioned or challenged by other students in the Jewish community. In doing so, Hillel becomes an exclusive community that many young Jews do not feel comfortable joining because they are discouraged from expressing their views or feel out of place with the overt Zionist atmosphere at Hillel.
Competing ideas and open dialogue will make some students uncomfortable, Safe Hillel claims. This argument merits careful thought. Certainly, it is true that some students will feel uncomfortable with groups like Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) or even J Street being allowed to have a presence in the Hillel community; however, that does not justify having an unfree community that censors students and discourages them from participating in Jewish life on campus. This discomfort emerges from the knowledge that the monopoly of ideas will end with an Open Hillel. The rigidly pro-Israel ideology supported by Safe Hillel and Hillel International will no longer go unchallenged in the Jewish community; thus, the pro-Israel establishment will lose its power at American universities and colleges. This is the last thing they want to happen since their power and influence takes precedence over freedom of ideas.
The argument that students may feel uncomfortable in an Open Hillel should be exposed for what it really is: a pretext for corporate censorship and totalitarian culture. At its core, Safe Hillel is hypocritical and deceptive. They claim that any anti-Zionist ideas will make Hillel less safe for Zionists, but they do not seem to care about the dangerous effects that exclusivity and intolerance have had on the Jewish community. Many liberal Jews are lambasted as “self-hating” or “anti-Israel.” It is also common for them to be harassed by others in the Jewish community. One of these incidents was caught on film in June 2010 when members of the staunchly pro-Israel group StandWithUs harassed and threatened protesters from JVP (see above). They were bullied and called “Pigs for Palestine.” Many received threats such as, “We’re going to find out where you live… we will disrupt your social life.” It is not hard to see why many Jews feel uncomfortable at Hillel when pro-Israel groups like StandWithUs are accepted at Hillel, while they are not. Ideas will not make Hillel more dangerous; however, institutionalized censorship and intolerance do.
In justifying their desire for power over the exchange of ideas at Hillel, Safe Hillel supporters lament that, “College campuses have become anti-Israel lately and are not providing a safe place for Israel supporters to be welcomed.” It follows that Hillel is supposed to provide that safe place for them to take refuge. In reality, people will be criticized for their ideas, regardless of whether they are about Israel or another topic. It is most unfortunate that criticism is not always done in a constructive and respectful way; however, creating a closed environment in the Jewish community that is hostile to anti-Zionism will certainly exacerbate that issue. Furthermore, pro-Israel events are welcome on campus. For example, the BU Israel Business Club had an event at our School of Management last semester. BU Students for Israel also hosted activities around campus for Israel Unity Week. The idea that they are not welcome is farcical.
Open Hillel strives to create an inclusive community at Hillel that allows for the free exchange of ideas. Safe Hillel will have to explain why they feel it is acceptable to ostracize Jewish students who do not agree with their dogma about Israel and create a hostile atmosphere that is intolerant of open dialogue. The movement is truly hypocritical in calling itself “Safe Hillel” while promoting an unwelcoming and intolerant environment that discourages many Jewish students from participating in Jewish life on campus.
“Competing ideas and open dialogue will make some students uncomfortable…”
Then what the hell are they doing at University?
The idea of “Safe Hillel” is insane and totalitarian. This reminds me of the conditions that my friends from Arab states and Iran live under when traveling overseas. They can get into trouble for saying anything anti- or consorting with groups of people considered enemies of their countries.
How can one call itself “the only democratic country in the middle east” and then expect political fealty of people who aren’t even it’s citizens?
So, “Safe Hillel” regards praising Israel as an element of practicing Judaism (or at lest as not antagonistic to it) but regards dissing Israel (or, I’ll bet, dissing the settlements or occupation or mentioning the Nakba as a fault of Zionism) as NOT part of “practicing Judaism”.
Well, well, lots of fun to be in the driver’s seat when the defining is to be done.
And, yes, I well understand that Zionists formerly comfortably ensconced within Hillels will feel attacked within Hillels if [1] forced to listen to anti-Zionist talk, or forced to sit next to people who at other times spout anti-Zionist talk — but who’s forcing them to listen or sit next to? Or even to attend Hillel if they don’t want to? Democracy is a messy thing.
All reminds me of the real-estate device of block-busting. Here, comfortable Zionists (there comfortable White property owners) are faced with the disagreeable influx of nasty others (here, anti-Zionists, there black neighbors).
I think there are really two questions.
1) Can you still be a part of the Jewish community and be anti-Zionist?
2) What should be Hillel’s rules be regarding anti-Zionist speakers?
I don’t think they are the same question and I think the article conflates them. Let’s pick an unrelated example:
In the 1970s the Jewish community took a very hard line against Messianic Judaism, that they weren’t going to recognize it as a form of Judaism at all. I personally am of the opinion that its a good compromise faith for intermarried couples which practically resolves a lot of the problems in intermarriage. If I were dictator of the Jews, Messianic Judaism would be seen as the outer fringe but there would be a friendly cooperative relationship not a hostile one. But I’m not dictator of the Jews. The Jewish community has spoken clearly and repeatedly indicating that Messianic Judaism is to be treated as no different than any other form of Christianity and that the people in it are to be considered part of the Christian community that rejected Judaism. That is I think the community has decided that Messianic Judaism is beyond the pale, Messianic Jews are to be excommunicated (Herem).
So given that stance, even though I disagree with that stance, I don’t think Hillel should allow Messianic Jews to be members of Hillel. Now in that context if a Messianic Jewish speaker is invited, then they are invited not as someone presenting a legitimate viewpoint but rather a view that needs to be better understood so that it can be fought against. Not my preferred position, but the position I hold given the community’s belief that Messianic Judaism is a heresy.
So with that in mind the question is, is anti-Zionism a heresy worthy of excommunication? I think that drives everything else. If the answer is yes then ethnic Jews who have embraced anti-Zionism shouldn’t feel welcome at Jewish events, that’s the point of excommunication. If the answer is no, then a more nuanced discussion occurs about how to handle the problem. I think that B’nai B’rith is of the opinion that the answer to this question is yes, they should be excommunicated.
A little bit of why is called for. I don’t think the issue is merely anti-Zionism or lack of support for Likud. J-Streeters just represent the Israeli left in America.; J-Street is clearly a Jewish organization and Hillel shouldn’t be banning them. That one is clear cut. Even for some BDSers I don’t have a problem with them as speakers. For example Ali Abunimah / Electronic Intifada has taken strong stands against anti-Semitism over the years and tried to drive it out of the Palestinian movement, “our fight is with Zionism not Judaism”. Also he’s not Jewish so he’s not threatening in the same way inviting a Messianic Jews as an outsider isn’t threatening. I don’t think there is any reason not to invite him as a speaker.
Up until 1967 there were prominent American Jews in the American Council for Judaism that were anti-Zionist. No one talked about kicking them out of the Jewish community. I think Gush-Shalom supporters should be welcomed at Hillel. But when we go beyond that, it gets more complex. My feeling is if you are encouraging others to attack the Jewish community, and Israel is the core of the Jewish community, you aren’t a dissident you are a traitor. There is a difference between what Noam Chomsky did on Afghanistan and what John Walker Lindh did on Afghanistan. There is not much of a difference between Lindh and Anwar al-Awlaki. Noam Chomsky was having a debate among Americans about Afghan policy, John Walker Lindh and Anwar al-Awlaki were trying to help America lose the war. Once you are urging the UN to attack Israel you aren’t anymore having a debate within the Jewish community, you are simply siding with the enemy.
The Jewish community should be open and welcome dissent. Jewish BDSers aren’t just dissidents. I have no problem with Obama dropping a missile on Anwar al-Awlaki, even though under ideal circumstances I don’t like the idea of the president assassinating Americans abroad. B’nai B’rith and Hillel’s #1 job is to work to advance the interests of the Jewish community, and that means fighting the enemy. I don’t see how Hillel can offer those people an equal voice and still be a Jewish community center.
So in short while I think anti-Zionism is not beyond the pale I think BDS because it is siding against the Jews not just debating them, is.
This kind of censorship and intimidation crap has no place in the USA, never mind a city like Boston. My hometown. This is disgusting. I am going to the locals the benefit of the doubt and assume this is coming from the large number of New Yorkers who attend BU