Members of Jewish Student Group Test Permissible Discussion on Israel

[SecularMotion]

At Harvard, the Jewish student group Hillel was barred from co-sponsoring a discussion with a Palestinian student group. At Binghamton University, a Hillel student leader was forced to resign his position after showing a film about Palestinians and inviting the filmmaker’s brother to speak. And on many other campuses, Hillel chapters have been instructed to reject collaboration with left-leaning Jewish groups.

At American colleges, few values are as sacred as open debate and few issues as contested as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But Hillel, whose core mission is to keep the next generation of Jews in the fold, says that under its auspices one thing is not open to debate: Those who reject or repudiate Israel have no place.

This month, the students at the Swarthmore Hillel rebelled, declaring themselves the first “Open Hillel” in the nation. They will not abide by Hillel guidelines that prohibit chapters from collaborating with speakers or groups that “delegitimize” or “apply a double standard” to Israel.

The Hillel dispute has amplified an increasingly bitter intra-Jewish debate over what is permissible discussion and activism about Israel on college campuses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/us/members-of-jewish-student-group-test-permissible-discussion-on-israel.html?hp

[Jefferson23]

1. The fools are finding it harder and harder to control the narrative.

They should just let it go already. If Israeli policy is defensible they would not
fear students who welcome viewing a film like 5 Broken Cameras.

K&R

[aranthus]

2. Let me get this straight.

Swarthmore Hillel refuses guidelines that prohibit collaborating with speakers or groups that “delegitimize” or “apply a double standard” to Israel.

Yet most Jews, and virtually all of those in Hillel, believe that delegitimizing Israel is hateful, and anyone with any moral sense knows that applying a double standard is wrong and unfair.

Now, I recognize that these students have every right to have speakers that are hateful and/or unfair, or even to be hateful and/or unfair themselves. But why do they have the right to misappropriate the banner of Hillel to do it?

[Violet_Crumble]

3. How does J Street and Avraham Burg delegitimise Israel?

From the article:

'But some students active in Hillel say the lines are either muddy or wrong. Hillel’s adult staff members on more than a dozen campuses have refused to allow J Street U, an affiliate of the liberal group J Street, to co-sponsor events. The explanation was that donors to Hillel do not support J Street, which supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but is critical of Israeli settlement building and the occupation of the West Bank.'

For the same reason I oppose boycotts of Israeli academics, I also oppose restrictions on prominent groups and individuals who talk about the conflict....

[aranthus]

4. Those chapters are going beyond the guidelines that Hillel has set.

That much is said in the article. Probably in violation of Hillel's own rules. If Hillel has the power to do something about it, then it should. And if Hillel has the power to do something about it and won't, then pressure should be put on the National. But what those chapters are doing isn't Hillel policy so it's no excuse for Swarthmore saying they are refusing to abide by it.

[Violet_Crumble]

5. Welll, we're in agreement on those ones then n/t