What could be less relevant than organizations that, by embracing all viewpoints, don’t stand for any?
By ROBERT HORENSTEINUS and Israel flags 370(photo credit: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun)
At a meeting of the local Jewish Community Relations Council, a new member shocks the committee by declaring his belief that Israel is an apartheid state. Should this opinion disqualify him from serving on the council? The university Hillel is approached by Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP), which supports the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, to cosponsor a panel discussion on Israel. Since Hillel professes support for dialogue and inclusion, can it in good conscience refuse to partner with JVP? The organized Jewish community in the US has made great strides in lowering the barriers to entry for non-observant Jews, interfaith families, and members of the gay community. But to what degree should this openness to diversity extend to the wide spectrum of Jewish political views on Israel? Just how big should the tent be? More than any other issue, the debate over “who’s in and who’s out” has sown deep divisions within the American Jewish community. In a late-May Jewish Telegraphic Agency op-ed, for example, two Jewish college seniors called for a reassessment of national Hillel guidelines that prohibit cosponsorship with groups that delegitimize, demonize or apply a double standard to Israel. The students, from Brown and Cal Berkeley, argued that it’s “un-Jewish to deny full participation to any Jews simply because of their political beliefs.”“If Hillel fails to make political pluralism a priority, we fear the ominous vision some have about the Jewish community’s future will become a self-fulfilling prophecy,” the students wrote. “Those alienated will choose to build their families and communities outside of what they see as outmoded institutions, or worse, simply check out of Judaism entirely.”To be sure, Jewish umbrella organizations should embrace a diversity of views, including well-meaning opinions that challenge conventional thinking. Hillels, Jewish Community Relations Councils and federations need to be seen as safe spaces where individuals who are otherwise supportive of a secure Israel can question or criticize Israeli policies without being vilified as “anti-Israel.” At the same time, there need to be limits on who is welcomed into the tent. No Jewish organization should be compelled to partner with a group that expresses views it considers offensive or antithetical to its core mission.There are groups – yes, even Jewish ones – that go beyond opposition to Israeli policies and oppose Israel’s very existence as a Jewish state. BDS proponents are a case in point. They don’t belong inside the tent. Nor, for that matter, does any farright group that espouses ideas that are equally abhorrent. For instance, would Hillel, in the name of pluralism, cosponsor a forum with a group that condones “price tag” attacks by Jewish settlers against Palestinians? There’s no denying that political litmus tests alienate those who are made to feel unwelcome because of their views. Yet, based on my experience with Jews who back BDS, I have found that either they have no interest in connecting with the Jewish establishment or they merely seek to leverage the credibility of mainstream Jewish groups to advance their anti-Israel agenda – for example, JVP requesting to have an information table at a recent Hillel conference.None of this is to suggest, however, that individuals who are ambivalent about Zionism or who express their disapproval of Israeli settlement policy through targeted boycotts of products manufactured in the West Bank should be ostracized. But the way to engage them is through dialogue and education – not by giving the delegitimizers a place at the table.Those who believe (usually from a liberal perspective) that everyone belongs in the tent insist that the “old guard” institutions will cease to be relevant if they don’t reflect the incredible diversity of Jewish identity and expression found in today’s world. Inclusivity is definitely important, but not to the point of accommodating views that are profoundly out of touch with core communal values.If the tent were to include far-left groups that protest at an Israel Day parade as well as far-right groups that are Islamophobic, it would virtually preclude the organized Jewish community from providing unequivocal and meaningful support for Israel and a two-state solution.And what could be less relevant than organizations that, by embracing all viewpoints, don’t stand for any? Robert Horenstein is Community Relations Director of the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland, Oregon
if(catID != 151){
var cont = `Take Israel home with the new Jerusalem Post Store
