On March 4, 2014, Rabbi Bruce Warshal wrote a column announcing that the he was dissociating from Hillel International because of its restrictions surrounding discourse on Israel-Palestine.
A former Israeli Defense Force soldier was barred from speaking at the University of Pennsylvania because his presentation on the IDF’s abuses to Palestinians threatened Hillel International’s goals of promoting Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state.” Former Speaker of the Knesset Avraham Burg was prevented from holding a public event at Harvard Hillel because his event was co-sponsored by the Harvard Palestinian Solidarity Committee. Around the nation, Hillels are barring speakers like David Harris-Gershon who even dare to acknowledge that the Boycott Divest Sanction movement is legitimate.
Whether or not leaving a flawed organization is the best means of moving forward, Warshal’s willingness to do so is one of many actions suggesting that those still siding with Hillel International are on the wrong side of history. On March 5, 2014 over 150 scholars signed an open letter condemning the general censorship and intimidation of critics of Israel. And despite threatening the Hillels that do not conform with the umbrella organization’s guidelines, President and CEO Eric Fingerhut hasn’t thrown out the Hillels that have embraced the Open Hillel movement: they’re leaving on their own. The Jewish communities at Swarthmore College and Vassar College have already dissociated from Hillel International. Coming out of this confrontation, Hillel International as it stands is likely to be seen as more concerned with protecting Israel’s reputation in young Jewish consciousness than with providing a center of Jewish life on campuses. More and more, members of Hillel are acknowledging that Judaism and Zionism are not the same thing.
Part of this realization unwittingly stems from Hillel International’s own policy that speakers at Hillel must support Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state.” On January 27, 2014, Harvard Hillel invited General Yaacov Amidror to speak at an open event. That evening, Amidror said, “The Palestinians are suffering … from us going into their beds, homes … to prevent suicide bombings.” He did not note that violence is a tactic used by Israeli settlers as well. The kind of Israel Amidror promotes is a Jewish one, to be sure. But it is not a democratic one.
When Hillel claims that BDS speakers do not support Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state,” it emphasizes “Jewish,” yet when speakers like Amidror come to speak, it understates “democratic.” If we are willing to host speakers like Amidror we must also be open to speakers on the other side of the spectrum. Too often, proponents of Hillel International’s current policy emphasize Hillel as a “safe space.” But this concept is misleading. Safely lying within the boundaries of status quo ideology is the exact opposite of what a center of Jewish life—especially at universities and colleges—should be doing.
By making support of Israel a contingency for speaking at Hillel, Fingerhut is politicizing what it means to be Jewish and alienating the many young Jews whose views do not align with Hillel International’s perception of Israel. It is okay to disagree. It is okay to have our personal stakes challenged. The conversations happening at Open Hillels may be more uncomfortable, surely. But they will also be more valuable.