This summer, while interning with Hillel, I was denied the right to make my own decision as to how I chose to express my political opinions.
The organizers of New York City’s annual Salute To Israel Parade billed their high-profile event as an “expression of unity within the American Jewish community, transcending religious and political affiliations.” And yet, this past June 5th, as I reluctantly marched in the midst of a cluster of orange t-shirts worn in opposition to Israel’s disengagement plan, past a sequestered group of protesters wrapped in kefias and brandishing Palestinian flags, listening as members of one group hurled curses at the other. I found myself besieged by those very affiliations.
Along with the rest of the interns in Hillel’s College Leadership Internship Program, I had been required to join in the parade, after being assured that it would be an apolitical event. By the end of the march, however, I felt betrayed by Hillel, which had seemingly eschewed the pluralism it advocates and claims to practice.
How can a ‘pluralistic’ Jewish organization compel individuals to participate in a political event? My supervisors at Hillel claimed the event was “apolitical,” but what is the purpose of a public demonstration that “salutes Israel” if not to make a political statement? The uniform requirement to march in the parade glosses over the genuine diversity of sentiment towards the Jewish State and presumes a necessary connection between one’s interest in Judaism and in Israel. The supervisors had ignored people’s real feelings about the issues and the different ways in which individuals choose to express their relationships to Israel.
While my own connection to Israel is generally manifested in cultural terms, such as language, music, literature, and film, personal relationships with the Jewish State run the gamut from the spiritual to the political. There are those of us who like to march, those that like to learn Israeli dances those who like to protest, those who like to debate, those who like to shop in the souks of the Arab quarters and eat falafel, those that like to go pray by the Western Wall, and those who enjoy the Kabalistic air of Safed. There are those who fight to stop house demolitions and those who oppose disengagement, and those whose Judaism is entirely distinct from the State of Israel.
There is value in this plethora of reactions and responses to Israel. The stated mission of the Salute to Israel Parade is to bring Israel supporters (in the opinion of Hillel and the parade’s organizers, all Jews) of every color, shape, and size together in solidarity with Israel. However, the assumption that all Jews can relate to Israel in the same way ignores the diversity of Jews’ actual relationships to the country. One would think that an organization that advocates pluralism and works to engage young Jews would be sensitive to the plurality of ways that students choose to express their own connection—or lack thereof—to Israel. It is inappropriate for Hillel to ask students to take a unified stance on this issue.
