Why Be Jewish?: A Testament
view counter
Swarthmore Hillel Went Too Far
Mon, 12/09/2013 - 19:00
Special To The Jewish Week
Yitzhak Santis
Yitzhak Santis

How open should campus Hillels be? This is not a trivial question, and should be treated seriously now that the Swarthmore Hillel student board, in line with a national group called “Open Hillel,” voted to defy Hillel International’s guidelines by opening their doors to anti-Israel speakers and groups.

A broad tent is not an open tent. Hillels, for instance, do not allow groups promoting the missionizing of Jews to speak and worship in their facilities. The reason is clear: missionaries seek the destruction of the Jewish religion. The same holds for the advocates of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, which seeks the destruction of the Jewish state. 

Hillel’s guidelines are clear on its support for an “inclusive, pluralistic community” and “political pluralism” regarding Israel.  It takes no position on internal Israeli political matters, allowing for a broad spectrum of viewpoints — from left to right — to be expressed under Hillel’s roof. 

Open Hillel, however, seeks to change these guidelines. It sees no reason to accept that Hillel chapters should refrain from “partnering with, housing or hosting organizations, groups, or speakers that deny the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish and democratic state with secure and recognized borders” or support BDS against Israel.

This is because Open Hillel has a political agenda. It is a partner with the anti-Israel Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), which seeks to gain entry into Hillels across the county to mainstream the BDS campaign against Israel. This partnership is clear: Open Hillel’s “Testimonials” page is dominated by video endorsements by JVP leaders and JVP refers to “our friends at the Open Hillel campaign.”

The Swarthmore Hillel student board’s statement specifically mentions JVP, lamenting that Hillel’s guidelines have “resulted in Jewish Voice for Peace not being welcome under the Hillel umbrella.” 

There are good reasons why JVP is not welcome at Hillels. At a Stanford forum last May, JVP’s executive director described her group as being “the Jewish wing of the [Palestinian solidarity] movement” and in that role “it is very important to think sort of how we plant a wedge” within Jewish community institutions regarding Israel. 

JVP’s “wedge” is in line with what Arab-American activist Hany Khalil seeks.  “For Americans to be persuaded [to support the Palestinian cause],” he said in 2004, “we have to build support across all sectors of the United States, and that will never happen without a significant and visible split within the Jewish community.”

Open Hillel is JVP’s wedge on campus. 

The Swarthmore Hillel statement also decries how Hillel’s guidelines run “counter to the values espoused by our namesake, Rabbi Hillel, who was famed for encouraging debate in contrast with Rabbi Shammai.” Its resolution further declares how “Hillel [International’s] statement that Israel is a core element of Jewish life and a gateway to Jewish identification for students does not allow space for others who perceive it as irrelevant to their Judaism.”

The irony of these two sentences is that Rabbi Hillel made “aliyah” from the Babylonian diaspora to live out his life in Jerusalem.  He went specifically to live a rich Jewish life in Zion, learning and teaching Torah. The notion that Israel is “irrelevant” to Judaism would be utterly foreign to Rabbi Hillel. 

For many within JVP this lack of relevancy about Israel is likely why JVP is officially “agnostic” on Israel’s existence. In the face of the annihilationist and overtly anti-Semitic ideologies of Hamas, Iran and its proxy Hezbollah, this agnosticism coming from a Jewish group with respect to Israel’s existence, and thus the safety of millions of Israeli Jews, represents a gross moral failure. 

It is in this light that the Swarthmore Hillel students’ decision should be seen. By embracing Open Hillel, they also hold close JVP and its lack of commitment to the Jewish people’s right to sovereign equality. International Hillel’s decision warning the Swarthmore students that they may not use the Hillel name if they pursue their policy is a correct one. Hillel will not become a party to the global delegitimization activists who seek Israel’s demise and who put Jewish lives into peril. 

Yitzhak Santis is chief programs officer at Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor.

Our Newsletters, Your Inbox


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Comment Guidelines

The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.


While I share your concern about letting BDS into Hillel, I think that its important to understand two things

1. Very, very few students, especially Jewish students, would feel the way that they do about BDS, wanting a binational state, etc if it were not for the occupied territories. If you battle that issue, BDS goes away. The only ammunition they have is the martial law in the territories, and if you take that away they have nothing. If you want to fight BDS, fight what happens in the territories. Pull the rug out from under their feet.

2. Zionism (and by extension, Israel) is a manifestation of Jewish peoplehood. If you take away the peoplehood, Zionism makes no sense. Peoplehood comes before its expression (zionism) and the logic of why Open Hillel is problematic does not address that. Simply saying "anti-zionist=bad" does not answer the question of why people are anti-zionists, how we can eliminate anti-zionism (eliminating Open Hillel does not eliminate anti-zionism).

The Swarthmore Hillel also explicitly mentions J Street, a pro-Israel organization, in their statement. In the sentence directly after JVP. "Jewish Voice for Peace, which seeks “peace and justice for all peoples of the Middle East,” has never been allowed to affiliate with Hillels. On some campuses, J Street has had a difficult time working with Hillels, and events co-sponsored by Students for Justice in Palestine or Palestine Solidarity Committees have often been banned."

Leaving that out, while claiming that somehow Open Hillel is an arm of Jewish Voice for Peace, seems to be a deliberate misrepresentation. J Street students and other J Street supporters (including me) are among the most central organizers of Open Hillel. If you think this is merely about making BDS part of the tent, you are mistaken.

a staunch two-stater, J Street supporter, and Open Hillel organizer

Lex, you wrote: "If you think this is merely about making BDS part of the tent, you are mistaken."

I don't think that is what Santis is saying. But, the effect of not having any red lines will be exactly that: bringing BDS into the mainstream because that is what this Jewish Voices of Peace group seems to want. I don't think JStreet should be fall under the same category as JVP, because I know too many JStreet members who know where to draw the line. If JStreet were to become unable to draw the line between itself and groups like JVP, then J Street will have let down its core constituency which I truly believe is pro-Israel.

"Hillels, for instance, do not allow groups promoting the missionizing of Jews to speak and worship in their facilities. The reason is clear: missionaries seek the destruction of the Jewish religion. The same holds for the advocates of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, which seeks the destruction of the Jewish state."

That is factually inaccurate. Hillel has no policy related to the propriety of missionaries being given a platform at Hillel, or if Hillel groups could or could not co-sponsor with groups who engage in such activities. If Hillel wanted to hold a joint event with a leader of the Church of Latter-Day Saints (well known for its missionary activity), discussing ideas they share and those they do not, would that be improper in a Hillel context? My answer is no. Yours might be yes. Hillel's answer currently is...nothing. It has not taken a stance. it only has done so with regard to Israel.

I think what the writer is referring to is groups like Jews for Jesus or other similar groups that claim to be Jewish, but are "fulfilled" Jews by their belief in Jesus. These groups aim their conversion efforts directly at Jews. I can't imagine a Hillel House hosting or co-sponsoring an event aimed at the missionizing of Jewish students. Can you?