300 young people to gather in Cambridge to shake off Zionist orthodoxy of the Jewish establishment

Starting tonight 300 young people will be gathering in Cambridge, Mass., at the “Open Hillel” conference to shake off the Zionist orthodoxy inside the Jewish establishment. These young people do not want a bunch of graying Jewish nationalists telling them that they can’t hear from Ali Abunimah or Rebecca Vilkomerson in their campus Hillel’s, or anyone else who supposedly demonizes Israel or who calls for boycott of the Jewish state.

When they declare, “It’s time to build the future of the American Jewish community,” believe them. Their community includes non-Jews; and echoing Rabbi Hillel, the conference is titled, “If Not Now, When?” “The anticipation is mounting!” writes a supporter at their Facebook page.

Registration for the conference is now closed. Speakers over the next two days include non-/anti-Zionists such as Dorothy Zellner, Rashid Khalidi, Judith Butler, and Sa’ed Atshan, and Zionists Peter Beinart, Steven Cohen, Shaul Magid and Sarah Turbow of J Street U. There is bound to be spirited and angry argument at this conference. As the organizers say, “We are inviting left-wingers, right-wingers, Zionists, Anti-Zionists, Non-Zionists, two-staters, one-staters and everyone in between or outside of that spectrum to share their thoughts and ideas on Israel-Palestine.”

Here’s a description of the conference’s aims from three students writing in The Harvard Crimson:

This weekend, Open Hillel will make history in yet another way. From October 11 to 13, we are hosting a conference here at Harvard, bringing together 300 college students and recent alumni from across the country. The conference will create a space for conversations not bogged down by Standards of Partnership or the political whims of Hillel’s major donors. It will feature leaders in Israel-Palestine-related academia and activism, including many who have been barred from Hillel and other Jewish institutions in the past, such as Judith Butler, Rashid Khalidi, and David Harris-Gershon.

The principle these young people will consecrate this weekend, free speech, is so obvious to any liberal that official rejection of the insurgents’ demands will only cause greater and greater embarrassment to the Jewish establishment– which makes the movement fun to watch. There is little question in my mind that the Open Hillel conference will be a historic conference in American Jewish history, and that it will succeed, because the Zionist orthodoxy has persisted so long, nearly 50 years, and is so decadent and absurd.

In recent days I’ve heard a range of views on the conference from anti-Zionists. Some celebrate the conference as a liberation/halfway-house-for-the-indoctrinated that will ultimately swell the numbers in the movement to bring democracy to Israel and Palestine. Others doubt that the conference will have any political effect outside the Jewish community. Given my own belief that the Jewish community is the Gordian knot in US policy in the region, I’m on the celebratory side. And any conference that features David Sheen, Ussama Makdisi, Donna Nevel and Phyllis Bennis is a great thing.

Note that in heralding the conference at +972, Naomi Dann, an organizer of the conference, sees this gathering as a place where she can bring her criticism of Jewish “ethnocentrism” — for “the sake of our community and for the sake of others.” I.e., Dann is not doing this just for the sake of Jews.

As a Jewish student of Peace and Justice Studies at an American liberal arts college, talking about the Israel-Palestine conflict was inescapable. I struggled against the fact that as a leader of a Jewish community, those I interacted with assumed my full political support for a nation-state that had displaced hundreds of thousands of people and imposed military rule on millions living under occupation. The oppressive policies of that state do not reflect my values, and a Jewish community that silences those of us who speak out for justice does not either.

Under the current guidelines, people like me are not welcome in the institution that claims to provide a home for Jewish life on American university campuses. The muzzling of dissent is not unique to Hillel International, but rather characteristic of the mainstream American Jewish community’s approach to criticism of Israel. Challenging this does not come without pushback. Speaking out against Hillel’s guidelines and in favor of putting pressure on Israel to change earned me hate mail and an ad hominem attack published by a disgruntled alum in the Wall Street Journal. But while it strained some relationships, it also strengthened and empowered our community.

This summer’s brutal assault on the people of Gaza made it clearer than ever to many of us that we must speak out against the militarism and ethnocentrism supported and even encouraged by our Jewish institutions. We’ve heard again and again that there is a generational shift happening. Polls tell us that my generation is less likely to identify with Israel. New movements and the growth of Jewish Voice for Peace signal that my generation is no longer content to remain willfully ignorant of the injustices committed by the State of Israel….

For the sake of our community and for the sake of others, we must embrace this shared vulnerability, lean in to discomfort, and engage with the politically and morally challenging realities of the Israel. Opening Jewish communities to this conversation will not make them less safe. It will make them stronger.

Typically, coverage of Open Hillel is better in Israel than it is here. Haaretz has a great piece up called “Hillel, intimidation, and free speech for Jewish Students on Israel,” by Martin Federman, a former director of Hillel at Northeastern University, who is a member of Jewish Voice for Peace. Federman writes to Eric Fingerhut, the head of Hillel, to warn the organization that its repressive policies are encouraging the racism of the Jewish state, and to remind folks of the importance of boycott for Jews in social justice movements.

Declaring that everyone associated with Hillel must accept Israel as a strictly Jewish and democratic state is highly problematic. To begin with there are those who believe that Israel’s current policy is moving inexorably toward a Jewish and racist state which is terribly self-destructive and actually threatens not only Israel’s character as a democratic state but its very existence.

Should those who love Israel but worry for its future and are therefore led to support, for instance, a so-called “one-state solution” be excluded from participation in Hillel? If that is the case, some ardent Zionists of the past such as Martin Buber, Judah Magnes , Haim Kalvarisky as well as Asher Hirsch Ginsberg [Ahad Ha’am] would have to be excluded from Hillel. And Brit-Shalom, a deeply committed Zionist organization that some of these revered individuals identified with, would not be allowed to meet in a Hillel building. It’s time for Hillel, in keeping with its commitment to inclusion, to stop trying to define for everyone what concern for Israel really means.

As for BDS, the reality is that people who use BDS as a cover for anti-Semitism are a small minority in a BDS movement that is itself far from homogenous. There are those who advocate for not supporting entities that help maintain what they view to be an illegal and immoral occupation of Palestinian territory and there are others who believe that only the economic pressure of boycott will move Israel’s leadership to end the occupation and restore civil and human rights to the Palestinian people.

A significant majority of American Jews have historically supported boycotts as a viable and effective non-violent strategy to move immoral actors to “do the right thing.”

Here’s a video that Open Hillel made a few months ago, calling for openness:

And one more thought to add. The three Open Hillel chapters thus far are Vassar, Wesleyan and Swarthmore. I believe that Open Hillel has not been able to declare open chapters at bigger, urban schools because those Hillels are more dependent on the local Jewish community. Donors. The Harvard advocates for the conference above note the influence of wealthy donors over the Zionist orthodoxy. At Tablet the other day a religion writer wrote that the caricature of the Zionist funder is an anti-Semitic trope. Anathematizing free speech in that manner won’t work with these students.