“It is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to use a well-established term to define a group (pro-Israel) when that group and its members such as yourself admit that the meaning of the well-established term does not in fact apply.” This was one of the many responses I received after my op-ed last month, “Hillel Student Board Votes to Reject J Street U at Boston University”. While most responses were positive and supportive, telling me and J Street to keep up the good work, the negative feedback, and this one in particular, taking issue with our description as a “pro-Israel organization,” illuminated for me the value of our work at J Street U.
In fairness, if being “pro-Israel” means refusing to criticize the country’s policies, taking an incomplete view of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and ignoring that the occupation threatens the very existence of Israel’s character as a Jewish homeland and democratic state, then the commenter may have a point. However, this is an unnecessarily limiting definition of the term. When I call myself pro-Israel, I mean that I care about Israel’s future, that I proudly support the existence of a secure homeland of the Jewish people, and that my love for Israel has caused me to spend countless hours working to ensure that Israel continues to be a place I can love and support. There is therefore no intellectual dishonesty in declaring this position pro-Israel; in fact, I ask all who care about Israel to have the same honest conversation about the existential challenges facing Israel today.
If I thought this commenter had an isolated viewpoint, I would ignore it; however, it is clear that these concerns reflect the current stance of a significant portion of the Jewish community today. This portion includes Boston University Hillel, whose guidelines around Israel programming are more stringent than those of Hillel International, and exclude a sizable portion of the pro-Israel community, including, for now, J Street U BU. In March, we invited Lara Friedman, Director of Policy at Americans for Peace Now, to speak about the status of negotiations. Our conversation centered around an attempt to protect Israel’s character and long-term security. We spoke about the status of negotiations, gave the American, Israeli, and Palestinian takes on the prospects of an agreement, and discussed what the future of the region would look like without a two-state solution. It was a thoughtful event, from which all attendees learned and challenged their beliefs.
Lara Friedman has spoken at many Hillel chapters around the country, and her organization, Americans for Peace Now, holds a spot in the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Bringing her to campus should not stir up controversy. However, because of the way BU Hillel’s guidelines on Israel programming are written, we were not allowed to host our event with her inside the Hillel house. Since Americans for Peace Now supports a boycott of products from the settlements, and Hillel’s charter states that groups are not pro-Israel if “they (or their national organizations) invite speakers who agree with and support the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions of Israel or the Palestinian Territories”, Hillel could not play any role in the event. This is despite the fact that Lara Friedman’s talk had nothing to do with boycotting settlements, nor was that tactic endorsed during the event.
This is a dangerous stance for the Jewish community at BU to take. As pro-Israel students, we must take a full view of all the challenges Israel faces, and that includes the existential crisis driven by the continuing long-term military occupation of the Palestinian territories. We want to live in a community brave enough to acknowledge and understand the impact of these challenges on Israel’s democracy, so that the Jewish community can take leadership on this issue to promote a just and lasting future, grounded in peace.
A similar point can be made in the aftermath of the recent Conference of Presidents vote, which recently rejected J Street’s application to the umbrella organization. The institutions of the Jewish community must be willing to grapple with the occupation and demonstrate leadership in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if they truly want to protect the Israel they love. If Lara Friedman is turned away from Hillel, and J Street from the Conference of Presidents, who will take the reins and lead the charge toward the two-state solution that will allow all parties to live their lives in peace and prosperity?
To date, we are still waiting for the courageous leaders of our community to stand up and face the hard truths. Will Hillel International, a partner organization with J Street nationally, honor its commitment to protecting the right of J Street U chapters to organize under the Hillel umbrella, as is the case at many Hillels across the country? In the aftermath of the events at BU, we are still waiting for Hillel International to publicly affirm the benefits of its partnership with J Street, and for it to support engagement between the organizations at the campus level. Such a statement would, while maintaining the independence of different Hillel branches, be an important signal to the Jewish community that J Street’s concerns are legitimate. We are waiting to see if the communal leaders who make up the Conference of Presidents will recognize the value of engaging a complete view of the issues affecting Israel’s future or if they will choose to remain in the comfortable position of ignoring the facts staring us right in the face?
When J Street defines itself as pro-Israel, it is not doing so to trick people into believing we’re something we’re not. It is to demonstrate that our work comes from a desire to protect Israel’s Jewish and democratic character. By supporting the drive for a two-state solution through a negotiated settlement, and fighting for Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, we are doing the best thing possible for Israel’s future. We will not allow people to redefine the term pro-Israel to exclude those who worry about her future existential threat from public discourse.
Solomon Tarlin is a student at Boston University.
