On the issue of Jewish belonging, I have always pushed for as wide a tent as is necessary to accommodate the range of Jewish experience. Inclusion, rather than ideational boundaries, has been my watchword.<\/p>\n
But now, since the Open Hillel conference held at Harvard in October \u2013 which billed itself as helping create a \u201cJewish community that all Jews can feel included in, not just those who pass a political litmus test\u201d \u2013 I\u2019ve been feeling a little bit more prescriptive around what values should matter, especially around the centrality of Israel to Jewish life.<\/p>\n
On one hand, I\u2019m instinctively positively predisposed to a movement like Open Hillel. Previous reports of a Hillel student board member stating he was forced to step down because he sought to host a Palestinian solidarity activist speaker following the screening of a Palestinian documentary give me chills. And I find Hillel\u2019s guidelines about rejecting speakers who hold Israel to a \u201cdouble standard\u201d frustratingly enigmatic. There is good conceptual reason to hold Israel, a democracy, to a different standard than Syria, for example. And there is an understandable reason to \u201csingle out\u201d Israel when we, as Diaspora Jews, devote more emotional, financial and political resources to the Jewish state than to almost any other.<\/p>\n
But, now, my doubts. First was LGBTQ and Palestine solidarity activist Sarah Schulman\u2019s Facebook remarks about the conference. In her post, she railed against the \u201cbullshit of LGBT Birthright,\u201d accusing it of being a forum for \u201cpinkwashing.\u201d I\u2019m partly sympathetic to the pinkwashing charge, awareness of which Schulman herself helped propel in a 2011 New York Times<\/em> op-ed. There is much to be criticized in Israel\u2019s hasbarah efforts, especially in light of the government\u2019s apathy towards the morally corrosive occupation. But there is a gap: Where is the desired opportunity among Open Hillel activists and participants like Schulman to encourage a deep and textured cultural and political engagement with Israel? Birthright may not be the answer. But what is?<\/p>\n Echoing my thoughts were Steven M. Cohen\u2019s reflections, also posted publicly on Facebook. There, Cohen praised the Open Hillel conference for opening up a much-needed debate on Israeli policies, including criticism of the occupation, but he lamented the apparent \u201cabjuring of the primacy of Jewish or Israel attachment\u201d among participants.<\/p>\n And then came an essay by Holly Bicerano in the Times of Israel<\/em>, where she criticizes Hillel International\u2019s \u201cVision for Israel,\u201d which states that \u201cHillel desires that students are able to articulate why Israel plays an important role in their personal Jewish identities and how Israel continues to influence Jewish conversations, global Jewish peoplehood and the world.\u201d<\/p>\n Bicerano is concerned that, \u201cThis particular vision is predicated on the supposition that having a Jewish state must be an integral part of every deserving Jew\u2019s identity.\u201d<\/p>\n My personal, liberal variant of Zionism abhors the occupation, desires to redress political inequalities among the state\u2019s ethnic groups, and opposes the general trend towards illiberal legislation in the Knesset. But, at the very least, I see an important role for Israel\u2019s existence in the life of the Jewish people. While theological commitments are subject to the debates of rationalists, Israel helps secure a sense of peoplehood. Where Jews now speak the languages of their host societies, Israel\u2019s Hebrew revival reminds us of our shared heritage. Where Diaspora Jews must negotiate a minority identity within a majority culture, Israel enables a sense of collective Jewish autonomy.<\/p>\n It follows that were I to find myself in the position of coordinating a campus-based, non-denominational Jewish organization such as Hillel, I would surely encourage students\u2019 right to wrestle with, criticize and protest the policies of Israel. But I would rue the day that the notion of Israel as a component of collective Jewish identity was simply left at the curb.<\/p>\n So, I support the diversity of political views around Israel that were given an airing at the Open Zion conference and I welcome a much-needed, on-the-record conversation about the indignities of the occupation. But if, like Cohen, I am troubled that some of the Open Hillel proponents reject the relevance of sensitive and textured Jewish cultural and political engagement with Israel writ large, what am I to conclude about the fledgling movement?<\/p>\n What I conclude is that we must encourage more Open Hillel gatherings to be held. We must convene discussion not only among the converted. In the marketplace of ideas and attachments, we must realize that the most compelling identity markers will win. Therefore, we must seek to understand how, if Israel is so central to the Jewish identity of so many, it is precisely not this way to so many others. And, if it happens to be decades of Israeli settlements and occupation that have helped push younger Jews away, we must double down \u2013 as if we needed a further reason \u2013 to do something about those policies too.<\/p>\n