“Open Dialogue” on Israel/Palestine Is Not Enough

More

open hillel

Vassar College professor Hua Hsu wrote in the New Yorker recently that “There should be nothing controversial about everyday kindness; civility as a kind of individual moral compass should remain a virtue. But civility as a type of discourse – as a high road that nobody ever actually walks – is the opposite. It is bullshit.”

Open dialogue, very much like civility, exists as both a venerable ideal and a carrot-on-a-stick style tool of discipline. When it comes to critiquing Israel, particularly from a non-Zionist or anti-Zionist approach, open dialogue becomes a mechanism that avoids the acknowledgement of underlying power imbalances and the foundational inequality of our respective ideologies.

The idea of “open dialogue” sets up a framework that requires balancing ideologies of Zionism with anti-Zionism. However, anti-Zionist and Zionist ideologies are not on an even playing field. To be clear, anti-Zionism carries with it no semblance of the same amount of institutional power as Zionism. Particularly as articulated by Palestinians, whose voices ought to be considered with primacy, anti-Zionism has historically been (and remains) the target of political repression and disenfranchisement. Trying to gain a balanced view from both an anti-Zionist and a Zionist perspective would imply those two ways of seeing the world having the same kind of organizational backing; this is simply not the case.

Moreover, conversations between anti-Zionists and Zionists, even liberal Zionists, never play out on equal ground. The fact that Hillel International, the largest Jewish student organization in the world, states it “will not partner with, house, or host organizations, groups, or speakers” that have explicitly non-Zionist politics provides one very important instance in which an institution represses challenges to Zionism. Unsurprisingly, Hillel invokes Hsu’s concept of civility in prohibiting those that “foster an atmosphere of incivility” in campus Hillels. With such exclusive rules in place, an anti-Zionist student pursuing an open dialogue is only ever entering a Hillel house on the prescriptive terms of the institutional power. How open is that dialogue, then? Not at all. As soon as any one part of a conversation refuses to acknowledge the power differentials that exist between itself and the other parts, open dialogue becomes chimerical.

Anti-normalization activists reject this mainstream erasure of the power differences between Zionist and anti-Zionist voices – especially when those voices belong to Palestinians. Instead, they advocate for the open acknowledgement of these power imbalances and a commitment to justice and equal rights for all. Normalization, defined originally by a coalition of Palestinian civil society groups, involves “participating in any project, initiative or activity … designed to bring together Palestinian and/or Arab youth with Israelis (whether individuals or institutions) which is not explicitly designed to resist or expose the occupation and all forms of discrimination and oppression inflicted upon the Palestinian people.” Normalization does not apply to internal Jewish conversations between Jews with varying opinions on Israel and Palestine, although in those cases there is still a power difference at play.

Open Hillel, a student-led campaign to remove Hillel International’s exclusive and alienating policies, has invited BDS advocates and anti-Zionist activists to be a part of the conversation, acknowledging that theirs are the voices Hillel International and many other powerful institutions continue to marginalize, demonize, and restrict. Open Hillel does this not because it subscribes to normalization or anti-normalization. As a Jewish group interested in changing Jewish community conversations, it takes no position on these ideologies. Some members of the Open Hillel movement, including myself, have strong opinions about these issues of power differences and have asked that our community have a conversation about them. Such demands have been met with the claim that Open Hillel has “indoctrinated people to hate Israel.” In reality, Open Hillel seeks only to reframe the conversation surrounding Israel/Palestine in a way that is more honestly open. If Hillel International wants its claims of “open enough” to be taken as genuine or effectual, it must start from an understanding of the problems surrounding power differences in dialogue, especially in conversation between anti-Zionist and Zionist voices.

Such acknowledgement must include a commitment to considering the ways that existing power imbalances between Zionist and anti-Zionist voices, particularly when those anti-Zionist voices belong to Palestinians, can continue to silence and limit the exchange of ideas even when there is a pretense of openness. Despite efforts by Hillel International to drive a wedge between groups that criticize Israeli policy by inviting groups such as J Street into its fold while still barring Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace chapters, Open Hillel advocates for the right of these more marginalized voices to be heard.

Open Hillel has committed to continuing the difficult and important work of transforming Jewish spaces from monolithic echo chambers of unquestioning support for the State of Israel to spaces of vibrant debate that will enable us to grapple with the most urgent moral and political questions facing our Jewish communities today.

A sophomore at Vassar College, Henry Rosen majors in film studies and participates actively in the Vassar Jewish community. He counts cooking on Fridays for Vassar Jewish Union Shabbos dinners among his favorite activities at school. Henry lives in Los Angeles when not at Vassar.

18 thoughts on ““Open Dialogue” on Israel/Palestine Is Not Enough

  1. Do you know what “anti Zionism” means? It’s the promotion of the annihilation of a state, the one an only Jewish state in the world. So you’re going to sit on your high throne and promote the destruction of an entity that people died defending. You really want that voice on an equal playing field while you would not suffer the consequences of promoting it? That is just wrong. Who are you you open up a debate on an issue that does not effect your life?

    • Sam, that is such a false and irresponsible claim to make. Not every criticism of Israel crimes or abuse of power is an indication of desire to destroy Israel and all the Jews! You and others like you need to grow up and stop using this type of tactics to silence others and defend Israel crimes and path to self destruction . There are legitimate concerns by Jews and non Jews about the way Israel has behaved and treated, or mistreated and ethnic cleansed the Palestinians for all those years. Look at the facts on the grounds and realize that the world is watching. Israel is not the only home for the Jews, most Jews live all over the world and have a very good and decent lives, if not very good lives and businesses. This is a legitimate concern by other Jews ,who do not live in Israel; What Israel does have a negative effect on the rest of the Jewish people, as Israel and Zionism managed to give the false impression that it does it with the full name and consent of all Jews. Its almost a hijacking of the none Israeli Jewish consciousness , and that is not right and its changing.

      • Monir, Israel is the oly thriving democracy in the Middle east. It’s build a high tech knowledge based economy that gives the world a lot more than just black gold. As for having a home all cover the world. may I remind you that Jews who resided in Arab countries for over 1000 yeas were kicked out…you know ethnically cleansed. Please compare the percentage of Jews in neighboring Arab countries to the percentage of Arabs in Israel and comeback and we can talk about ethnic cleansing,

      • Monir, I seem to recall you expressing justification for anti Semitism over the period of 2000 years. What was it you suggested, Jews were trouble to every and they asked for it? Try not to mince words. Say what your really feel rather than pretending you have an ounce of moral fiber.

  2. Do you know what “anti Zionism” means? It’s the promotion of the annihilation of a state, the one an only Jewish state in the world. So you’re going to sit on your high throne and promote the destruction of an entity that people died defending. You really want that voice on an equal playing field while you would not suffer the consequences of promoting it? That is just wrong. Who are you you open up a debate on an issue that does not effect your life?

    • Unfortunately Lauren , your statement here is a perfect indication of how valuable the points of this article are, as you and others like you who wish not to have any open debate / discussion about what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians, with the false impression that it does it with the full authority and name of ALL Jews. People are entitled to give their opinion , you like it or not, that does not give you or any other the right to silence them as most of the Jewish/ Zionist organization has done and still do , including Hillel. The paranoia of most Zionists has reached its limits,as the have even developed more names to silence others, like;” a self hating Jew”.? What is this all about, can you take a minute and think about it? I understand sometimes the label”Antisemite” ,but even now that is exaggerated and over used. Can you ,Israel defenders just stand behind the facts and your own argument to defend Israel crimes, and not revert to silencing, labeling and intimidation? When you don’t, its just very telling, and you expose yourselves!

      • Monir, nowhere in your meltdown of a comment above do you address the substance of the piece I linked to, which documents the ugly reality that Open Hillel is not open at all, but rather a front for BDS, a campaign that seeks to abolish Israel and to cause economic harm to Israeli Jews in order to achieve that objective. Your refusal to deal with that reality is very revealing.

        • Lauren, 2 things yo need t know a boy Monir
          1. He wants Israel eliminated, period
          2. He/she once went on a long tirade about how Jews created their own misery over the corse of 2000 years. For once Tikkun did the right thing and removed the response.

        • Monir, I seem to recall you expressing justification for anti Semitism over the period of 2000 years. What was it you suggested, Jews were trouble to every and they asked for it? Try not to mince words. Say what your really feel rather than pretending you have an ounce of moral fiber.

  3. If you want to look at imbalance of power, widen your scope. Compare the population and wealth of Israel to all its neighbors who are the coreligionists of the Palestinians and do nothing to help the Palestinians, who let them rot in refuge camps to try to use the “plight” of the Palestinians as a reason to destroy Israel. If the money sent by the Arab countries into Palestinian to help them fight Israel were spent on developing the palestinian economy, there would be nothing to fight about.

  4. The “underlying power imbalances” clearly favor the anti Zionist and anti semite crowd. There are more than 20 Arab countries and 60 Islamic countries, many of which are extremely wealthy and powerful. Jews have been persecuted for the past 2000 years. The writer of this article ignores facts, context, history and reality to create a ridiculous narrative which will only serve to promote racism and hate.

  5. Open Hillel isn’t really ‘student lead’, since it’s fiscally sponsored by the ‘washington peace center’, a psychotically anti-Israel NGO (one of hundreds).

  6. “Trying to gain a balanced view from both an anti-Zionist and a Zionist perspective would imply those two ways of seeing the world having the same kind of organizational backing; this is simply not the case.”
    Not even remotely. We have conversations like this every day: About the drone war, about NSA surveillance, about countless issues where the full power of the United States government lies behind (and implements) one side.
    Dialogue *for the sake of educating* can still function in that environment, it can still educate. “Dialogue” for the sake of propaganda (admittedly, the interest of most activists on both “sides”) may struggle in the presence of an other side – this is what both BDS and Hillel are fighting against, and people interested in educating people rather than recruiting soldiers for a war ought to reject both.
    For an organization like OpenHillel, which certainly advertises itself as committed to open dialogue rather than the propaganda campaigns of any entity, to “engage with” barring dialogue is silly. They should invite Abunimah and Barghouti or whoever people are interested in hearing to speak on campuses, but to entertain the idea of constraining the debate would be to utterly betray their mission.
    A few other notes: Using Hillel International, or any Jewish organization, to support the contention that “conversations between anti-Zionists and Zionists, even liberal Zionists, never play out on equal ground” is ludicrous, akin to saying that there can never be a fair debate on gun control because the NRA doesn’t allow it at its events. Hillel has shown its colors, but “the largest Jewish student organization in the world” still doesn’t govern all debate in this this country.
    Discussing “efforts by Hillel International to drive a wedge between groups that criticize Israeli policy by inviting groups such as J Street into its fold while still barring Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace chapters” is frankly dishonest. JStreet and SJP do not share a tent, JStreet has been “driving that wedge” since the day it was founded.

    • “Anti Zionism” and BDS are not about criticizing Israeli government policy, they are about eliminating Israel a sovereign Jewish state standing as equal to the surrounding Arab states. You have no idea.

  7. The number of Jewhating NGOs, UN seats, and high level US Arabist lackeys entirely dwarfs the enfranchisement of civil rights for Jews.
    To imply otherwise is both laughably absurd and disingenuous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *