Mediocrates
03-25-2009, 09:52 AM
As Spring Semester began in January at Columbia, campus was abuzz with excitement about Barack Obama’s inauguration. The first day of classes coincided with Inauguration Day, and thousands of students gathered on the steps of Low Library to watch the new President’s swearing–in ceremony. For a smaller group of Columbia students, though, a different issue occupied their attention: Israel’s three–week long military campaign in Gaza, which had ended just as Obama assumed the presidency and Columbia reconvened for classes.
Jewish and pro–Israel leaders at Columbia decided that they should organize a rally to demonstrate support for Israel and a desire for peace. The rally boasted a crowd of nearly 150 participants and even more onlookers, many of whom proudly waved Israeli flags and displayed banners calling for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Entitled “Rally of Solidarity and Peace for Israel and Its Neighbors,” the rally expressed deep regret for civilian losses and included a prayer for the children of Gaza to conclude the event.
While acknowledging disagreement in the Jewish community about the specifics of Israel’s military tactics, the rally unequivocally backed the campaign’s moral and internationally legal justification: to return normalcy to the lives of nearly one million Israelis paralyzed by the threat of indiscriminate rocket fire. Even more importantly, however, it enhanced the vibrancy of the Jewish community by ensuring that Zionist students felt a sense of community on a campus often hostile toward Israel.
But Columbia’s Hillel was nowhere to be found. Hillel, the hub for Jewish life on campus and a branch of the largest collegiate Jewish organization in the world, officially refused to organize or endorse the event. Its inaction raises disturbing questions about the status of American Jewish leadership on college campuses and its relationship to Zionism. Why, in a moment of crisis for Israel and the Jewish world, did Hillel not proudly stand by Zionism in the public square?
***
When initially asked to sponsor the rally, one Hillel executive board member replied that Hillel’s support for the rally would “implicitly endorse all the actions [taken by Israel] in the Gaza campaign.” This, the member claimed, would hinder the board’s goals of “not taking political positions” and “discussing issues with those who are uncomfortable about Israel,” as well as reaching out to Arab student organizations. For fear of controversy, Hillel’s representatives lowered their bar so much that they resolved to respond only when campus detractors, inevitably and irrelevantly, would say that Israel has no right to exist.
Hillel defended its decision by pointing to its mission statement, which claims that the organization must serve as an umbrella for Jews, “regardless of origin or destination,” to “find their own interpretation of Jewish values, culture, community, and religion.” Intentionally missing from that list, according to the group’s argument, is politics.
Indeed, Hillel’s leadership relegates the politics of Israel advocacy to LionPAC, the Hillel–funded pro–Israel group which organized the rally. But when it comes to politics, Hillel’s executive board tries to have it both ways. To pro–Israel students, Hillel claims that it actively supports Israel through LionPAC. Yet to Jews uncomfortable with Israel, Hillel’s executive board argues that it merely provides a space for pro–Israel activity through LionPAC, and does not officially endorse any political activity itself.
Hillel’s leadership rightly avoids taking stances on overtly political issues. By plain meaning, of course, Zionism is a political issue, as it is a political solution for the Jewish people. But Zionism holds a unique place in American Jewish politics: it has united Americans across partisan lines for two generations. The vast majority of Jews, left and right, believe in Israel’s right to exist and care to help it flourish. Troublingly, however, Jewish leaders at Columbia seem not to share this view; instead, they see Zionism as primarily divisive, and preferably avoidable.
Hillel’s executive board certainly faces a difficult task. Charged with running the largest Jewish organization on campus, it is responsible for thousands of Jewish students, a large and highly diverse community. It must also maintain good relations with a wide variety of other campus organizations. As such, Columbia’s Hillel’s representatives believe that their primary concern is public relations, their chief goal not to offend.
Given Columbia’s unique history regarding Israel and Middle East issues, though, this is exactly the wrong response to take. Between Columbia’s lineup of professors demonizing the Jewish State as the last standing bastion of “racist colonialism,” students eager to relive 1968, and the scrutiny of constant media attention, this university has played host to a series of vicious disputes concerning Middle East studies. In the first two months of this year alone, a group of over 120 professors called on University President Lee Bollinger to condemn alleged “Israeli actions that deny academic freedom to Palestinians,” professor of Anthropology Nicholas De Genova accused Israel of committing an “unrelenting holocaust” against the Palestinians, and Middle East Professor Joseph Massad equated Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto.
Rabidly anti–Israel rhetoric is business as usual at Columbia. But the most controversial of these incidents occurred in 2004, when a number of Jewish students accused Columbia Middle East professors, Joseph Massad prominent among them, of bullying pro–Israel students inside and outside the classroom. The instructors implicated in the allegations, along with their supporters, branded the young Jewish students as McCarthyist thugs. They indicted the wider Jewish community with committing the worst of all sins at the University: attempting to smother academic freedom, being disinterested in “productive dialogue,” and infecting Columbia with “external intimidation” from outside organizations.
The charges undoubtedly stung. Jewish student leaders and administrators became acutely sensitive to improving and maintaining public perception at all costs. They hoped to avoid controversy on Israel by not discussing it. Anything more than a reactionary response was deemed a provocation, an incitement, a position too strong for the establishment to endorse.
Yet as the training ground for the future of Jewish leadership, Hillel cannot remain above the fray without answering crucial questions about what principles we as a community choose to endorse—or whether we need principles at all. By refusing to rally behind Israel in a time of crisis, Columbia’s Hillel indicates that it no longer considers Zionism a value worthy of its public support.
***
Hillel at Columbia acts as though Zionism is beyond the pale. But it remains a core value for American Jews. And it is certainly a core value for the national Hillel, a major American Jewish organization that governs all local Hillel branches. Hillel’s basic policy statement announces that it is “steadfastly committed to the support of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State with secure and recognized borders and as a member of the family of free nations.” Most significantly, the organization emphatically declares that it “helps Jewish college students take pride in Israel and to defend the Jewish state against detractors on campus” (emphasis added).
Many local Hillels at major universities took proper cue from this directive, and organized pro–Israel rallies across North America—from Brown to Toronto, Pittsburgh to Oklahoma. Most of these events struck a line similar to Columbia’s non–Hillel–affiliated rally, such as at the University of Texas, where their “Pro–Israel, Pro–Peace” demonstration emphasized the need for a peace where “both sides are able to live without fear.” At Purdue, Hillel Director Philip Scholssberg provided the most lucid reasoning behind the need for a rally. “Nearly a million Israelis are living under the threat of indiscriminate, constant bombing,” he told the Purdue campus newspaper. “We’re here to let people know that there are people in the community who support Israel’s right to defend itself.”
Unfortunately, it seems, Columbia’s Hillel leadership was not prepared to make that kind of statement.
Jewish and pro–Israel leaders at Columbia decided that they should organize a rally to demonstrate support for Israel and a desire for peace. The rally boasted a crowd of nearly 150 participants and even more onlookers, many of whom proudly waved Israeli flags and displayed banners calling for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Entitled “Rally of Solidarity and Peace for Israel and Its Neighbors,” the rally expressed deep regret for civilian losses and included a prayer for the children of Gaza to conclude the event.
While acknowledging disagreement in the Jewish community about the specifics of Israel’s military tactics, the rally unequivocally backed the campaign’s moral and internationally legal justification: to return normalcy to the lives of nearly one million Israelis paralyzed by the threat of indiscriminate rocket fire. Even more importantly, however, it enhanced the vibrancy of the Jewish community by ensuring that Zionist students felt a sense of community on a campus often hostile toward Israel.
But Columbia’s Hillel was nowhere to be found. Hillel, the hub for Jewish life on campus and a branch of the largest collegiate Jewish organization in the world, officially refused to organize or endorse the event. Its inaction raises disturbing questions about the status of American Jewish leadership on college campuses and its relationship to Zionism. Why, in a moment of crisis for Israel and the Jewish world, did Hillel not proudly stand by Zionism in the public square?
***
When initially asked to sponsor the rally, one Hillel executive board member replied that Hillel’s support for the rally would “implicitly endorse all the actions [taken by Israel] in the Gaza campaign.” This, the member claimed, would hinder the board’s goals of “not taking political positions” and “discussing issues with those who are uncomfortable about Israel,” as well as reaching out to Arab student organizations. For fear of controversy, Hillel’s representatives lowered their bar so much that they resolved to respond only when campus detractors, inevitably and irrelevantly, would say that Israel has no right to exist.
Hillel defended its decision by pointing to its mission statement, which claims that the organization must serve as an umbrella for Jews, “regardless of origin or destination,” to “find their own interpretation of Jewish values, culture, community, and religion.” Intentionally missing from that list, according to the group’s argument, is politics.
Indeed, Hillel’s leadership relegates the politics of Israel advocacy to LionPAC, the Hillel–funded pro–Israel group which organized the rally. But when it comes to politics, Hillel’s executive board tries to have it both ways. To pro–Israel students, Hillel claims that it actively supports Israel through LionPAC. Yet to Jews uncomfortable with Israel, Hillel’s executive board argues that it merely provides a space for pro–Israel activity through LionPAC, and does not officially endorse any political activity itself.
Hillel’s leadership rightly avoids taking stances on overtly political issues. By plain meaning, of course, Zionism is a political issue, as it is a political solution for the Jewish people. But Zionism holds a unique place in American Jewish politics: it has united Americans across partisan lines for two generations. The vast majority of Jews, left and right, believe in Israel’s right to exist and care to help it flourish. Troublingly, however, Jewish leaders at Columbia seem not to share this view; instead, they see Zionism as primarily divisive, and preferably avoidable.
Hillel’s executive board certainly faces a difficult task. Charged with running the largest Jewish organization on campus, it is responsible for thousands of Jewish students, a large and highly diverse community. It must also maintain good relations with a wide variety of other campus organizations. As such, Columbia’s Hillel’s representatives believe that their primary concern is public relations, their chief goal not to offend.
Given Columbia’s unique history regarding Israel and Middle East issues, though, this is exactly the wrong response to take. Between Columbia’s lineup of professors demonizing the Jewish State as the last standing bastion of “racist colonialism,” students eager to relive 1968, and the scrutiny of constant media attention, this university has played host to a series of vicious disputes concerning Middle East studies. In the first two months of this year alone, a group of over 120 professors called on University President Lee Bollinger to condemn alleged “Israeli actions that deny academic freedom to Palestinians,” professor of Anthropology Nicholas De Genova accused Israel of committing an “unrelenting holocaust” against the Palestinians, and Middle East Professor Joseph Massad equated Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto.
Rabidly anti–Israel rhetoric is business as usual at Columbia. But the most controversial of these incidents occurred in 2004, when a number of Jewish students accused Columbia Middle East professors, Joseph Massad prominent among them, of bullying pro–Israel students inside and outside the classroom. The instructors implicated in the allegations, along with their supporters, branded the young Jewish students as McCarthyist thugs. They indicted the wider Jewish community with committing the worst of all sins at the University: attempting to smother academic freedom, being disinterested in “productive dialogue,” and infecting Columbia with “external intimidation” from outside organizations.
The charges undoubtedly stung. Jewish student leaders and administrators became acutely sensitive to improving and maintaining public perception at all costs. They hoped to avoid controversy on Israel by not discussing it. Anything more than a reactionary response was deemed a provocation, an incitement, a position too strong for the establishment to endorse.
Yet as the training ground for the future of Jewish leadership, Hillel cannot remain above the fray without answering crucial questions about what principles we as a community choose to endorse—or whether we need principles at all. By refusing to rally behind Israel in a time of crisis, Columbia’s Hillel indicates that it no longer considers Zionism a value worthy of its public support.
***
Hillel at Columbia acts as though Zionism is beyond the pale. But it remains a core value for American Jews. And it is certainly a core value for the national Hillel, a major American Jewish organization that governs all local Hillel branches. Hillel’s basic policy statement announces that it is “steadfastly committed to the support of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State with secure and recognized borders and as a member of the family of free nations.” Most significantly, the organization emphatically declares that it “helps Jewish college students take pride in Israel and to defend the Jewish state against detractors on campus” (emphasis added).
Many local Hillels at major universities took proper cue from this directive, and organized pro–Israel rallies across North America—from Brown to Toronto, Pittsburgh to Oklahoma. Most of these events struck a line similar to Columbia’s non–Hillel–affiliated rally, such as at the University of Texas, where their “Pro–Israel, Pro–Peace” demonstration emphasized the need for a peace where “both sides are able to live without fear.” At Purdue, Hillel Director Philip Scholssberg provided the most lucid reasoning behind the need for a rally. “Nearly a million Israelis are living under the threat of indiscriminate, constant bombing,” he told the Purdue campus newspaper. “We’re here to let people know that there are people in the community who support Israel’s right to defend itself.”
Unfortunately, it seems, Columbia’s Hillel leadership was not prepared to make that kind of statement.