It’s been said one thousand times before, I know, but someone missed the memo.
Hillel calls itself “The Foundation for Campus Jewish Life” and that description sums up the organization’s mission, at least. Whether or not it’s effective in realizing that goal is a different story, but Hillel does have a variety of social justice, cultural, religious and Israel-oriented programming that attempts, in my experience, to give students a comprehensive Jewish experience.
The problem arises, however, when that Israel programming becomes the focus of what Hillel is trying to do, in effect taking one aspect of its programming and prioritizing it over the rest. In a JTA piece today about Israel advocacy on campus, Jay Tcath presumes that Hillel’s purpose is to get students to support Israel.
This presumption is wrong on a number of levels. First of all, one of the beauties of Judaism is its adaptability to different modes of human experience. It can manifest itself as a religion, culture, civilization, ethos, lingual community, literary circle, social action movement or nation, to name but a few. To be Jewish, a student need not be involved in Israel activities and to involve students in campus Judaism Hillel need not–and should not–drive every student toward participation in Israel advocacy programs.
Moreover, to suggest, as Tcath does, that “we must not leave our Israel advocacy efforts to chance” begs the question of what “Israel advocacy” means. Tcath mentions AIPAC: does that mean that groups not sponsored or sanctioned by AIPAC are not “pro-Israel?” What about groups that engage less in advocacy and more in dialogue, like Washington University in St. Louis’s Students for a Peaceful Palestinian-Israeli Future (SPIFF), where I was active for four years? What about culture groups? What about non-Jewish progressive organizations that support Israel but criticize it from time to time? Does “Israel advocacy” mean shaping students to fit one mold of political opinion? For the sake of intellectual freedom and fair dealings with the student community, I hope not.
What Hillel should do is provide students with a variety of options on students’ own terms. That means supporting Jewish student groups no matter what they have to say about Israel, and not forcing any students, especially those exploring Judaism, to support or even pay any attention to Israel activity on campus. unless they want to.
I’m glad that this was my experience at Wash. U. The Hillel there worked with SPPIF several times and there were only several instances during my four years when I felt that Hillel was acting as an Israel advocacy tool (one of those times, in the aftermath of Cast Lead this past January, several of us complained). I cannot speak, however, for Hillels at other campuses.
Hillel isn’t an advocacy organization. It isn’t even an Israel organization. It’s a foundation that exists to let students express Judaism on their own terms, whether or not–or however–that would involve the Jewish State. If Hillel wants to stay true to its model it would do well to distance itself from Tcath’s model, because Judaism is not Israel, and Israel advocacy is perhaps one part of, but not the categorical defining feature, of campus Jewish life.
