“There’s a lot of dialogue and but it’s the silent minority. The loud majority doesn’t want dialogue,” said Gila Hashkes, Israel Fellow at UC Berkley Hillel. “We (at Berkeley) had a whole week during apartheid week, we had a big tent with a sign that said: “Let’s Talk.” And it was really interesting.”
The tent was open to anyone curious or interested in Israel. It wasn’t, per say an invitation specifically to students from Muslim or Palestinian student groups. Nor was it even a collaborative event to bridge the divide between the politically opposed Jewish students, a constant tension on Berkeley’s campus. But it was a start.
“What we found,” Hashkes told me, “was that the majority of accusations many people have aren’t about the wall or the settlements. These are all legitimate. Many people don’t see how the Jewish people can have a national, and not just a religious, identity. They don’t see how the Jewish people deserve their own state.” According to Hashkes there are also a lot of common misconceptions about the reality that is modern day Israel. “A lot of people don’t recognize that there is a majority with a secular Jewish identity,” she said. “But there are more than just Jews in Israel. There are the children of many kinds of immigrants and there are Arabs. They are all Israeli. How would we give these people identity in a Jewish state? It’s a challenge in Israel and we’re working on it. If it’s in the spirit that the Jewish people don’t deserve a state, it’s really hard to have this conversation. But it’s an important conversation that needs to be had.”
The problem is that there’s a climate of fear and distrust that keeps these conversations from rising to the surface, even in class. “At Berkley, it’s not like you saw here today,” Hashkes gestured towards the plaza behind us at SFSU where just moments ago the drum circle and dancers were raging. “Where the students were obviously Palestinian or Muslim or somehow connected to those groups. Half of the FJP (Students for Justice in Palestine) are Jewish. One of the leaders is Israeli. It’s not anti-Semitism. But if the staff of the Middle Eastern studies department supports divestment it’s hard to raise your hand in class and say something.”
This, (oh my goodness it’s almost over-Ahh!) spring semester a dialogue event almost happened at UC Berkeley featuring visiting Israeli journalist Ben-Dror Yemini and Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian. The almost event was the brainchild of a graduate student and active member of Students for Justice in Palestine, Emiliano Huet-Vaughn.
“I had initiated this in a personal capacity,” Huet-Vaughn explained. “But I’m certain Students for Justice in Palestine would have supported the event. The MSA (Muslim Student Association) had no part in the planning of the event, though certainly their membership would have attended, among others.” The event was officially canceled by Yemini’s representative at the SF Jewish Federation due to scheduling problems. But Huet-Vaughn doesn’t buy it. “I’ve searched for debating partners to take up Israel’s side, ranging from leaders at the JCRC to those at Tikkun to professors at Cal,” he said. “Yet all of them have timidly stepped down and deferred the chance to explain why they oppose BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) and why they do not join Palestinians, even in principle, in their chosen form of non-violent resistance to an unjust occupation. That they could not honor their commitment speaks more to the indefensibility of their position and their understandable hesitancy to defend such a position in a public forum where they can be challenged with intellectual rigor.”
When I talked with Hashkes and Brian Maissy, co-president of the student group Tikvah, the self-declared “Zionist voice at Berkeley”, neither said that they were opposed to events discussing the situation in Israel/Palestine. It was more the attitude of this proposed event that concerned them.
“We did not oppose the event,” said Maissy, representing Tikvah. “We simply had some input on it, particularly on the specific topic. We thought that a debate about BDS would give the movement legitimacy which it does not deserve. We were going to discuss possible alternative titles for the event, but it was apparently canceled due to a scheduling conflict before I even had a chance.” Hashkes said that for herself, she would like for Hillel to welcome all opinions, to have events where students can connect to the Holy Land, “give them the tools,” and then let them decide for themselves what to think and feel about Israel. But when the collaborators have an attitude of competitive advocacy, of debate instead of dialogue, she said that it becomes almost impossible for Hillel to host these kinds of events. “Divestment and boycotts, those are actions not opinions. That’s when it becomes a problem. Then it becomes advocacy where the point is to prove how he is wrong and I am right and what he says is a lie, that’s not dialogue,” said Hashkes. “Advocacy means that you’re not listening.”
Fortunately, I had the opportunity to speak with Israeli journalist Ben-Dror Yemini while he was here, about the Nakba, about the Jewish nature of the Israeli state, about legitimacy, identity, and justice. Stay tuned for a full-fledged article about all of the above, coming soon to a New Voices webpage near you.
But as for the student body of UC Berkeley, it looks like it will be quite some time before campus fosters a climate where opinions, facts, and emotions can be publicly exchanged between students without a barrier of prejudice and distrust.
