“It
is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to use a well-established
term to define a group (pro-Israel) when that group and its members such
as yourself admit that the meaning of the well-established term does
not in fact apply.” This was one of the many responses I received after
my op-ed last month, “Hillel Student Board Votes to Reject J Street U at
Boston University”. While most responses were positive and supportive,
telling me and J Street to keep up the good work, the negative feedback,
and this one in particular, taking issue with our description as a
“pro-Israel organization,” illuminated for me the value of our work at J
Street U.In fairness, if being “pro-Israel” means refusing to criticize the country’s policies, taking an incomplete view of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and ignoring that the occupation threatens the very existence of Israel’s character as a Jewish homeland and democratic state, then the commenter may have a point. However, this is an unnecessarily limiting definition of the term. When I call myself pro-Israel, I mean that I care about Israel’s future, that I proudly support the existence of a secure homeland of the Jewish people, and that my love for Israel has caused me to spend countless hours working to ensure that Israel continues to be a place I can love and support. There is therefore no intellectual dishonesty in declaring this position pro-Israel; in fact, I ask all who care about Israel to have the same honest conversation about the existential challenges facing Israel today.
If I thought this commenter had an isolated viewpoint, I would ignore it; however, it is clear that these concerns reflect the current stance of a significant portion of the Jewish community today. This portion includes Boston University Hillel, whose guidelines around Israel programming are more stringent than those of Hillel International, and exclude a sizable portion of the pro-Israel community, including, for now, J Street U BU. In March, we invited Lara Friedman, Director of Policy at Americans for Peace Now, to speak about the status of negotiations. Our conversation centered around an attempt to protect Israel’s character and long-term security. We spoke about the status of negotiations, gave the American, Israeli, and Palestinian takes on the prospects of an agreement, and discussed what the future of the region would look like without a two-state solution. It was a thoughtful event, from which all attendees learned and challenged their beliefs.
Continue reading.
Love Israel? Follow our board
page.
No comments:
Post a Comment