When an Israeli student at Carleton College complained that the school’s Jewish organization had made no official statement recognizing Israel’s right to exist, Jewish student leaders at the small liberal arts school in Minnesota found themselves stuck between two poles. They wanted to make the Israeli student feel comfortable, but they didn’t want didn’t want to alienate community members by presenting them with deep misgivings about the Jewish state.
So, the Jewish Students of Carleton, which fills the role of a Hillel for the school’s tiny Jewish community, set out to reach a middle ground. In the process, the group ran into a semantic problem that has become increasingly prevalent on campuses in recent months.
“If ‘pro-Israel’ means agreeing that Israel has a right to exist and wanting to do good things with the state, then we’re pro-Israel,” said Ari Fine, president of JSC. But “people had different connotations about what the word actually meant.”
That debate took place last year, but the issue has grown more pressing recently, as the left-wing Israel lobby J Street has staked its bona fides on claiming “pro-Israel” as a descriptor of its two-state agenda. While some wonder whether J Street can use the term while promoting policies that oppose the positions of the Israeli government, others wonder why the group feels the need to adopt a phrase that has largely been used by its political and ideological foes.
J Street U, the lobby’s national student organization, decided that while it calls itself pro-Israel, individual campus chapters are given leeway in their self-presentation. This drew considerable attention during J Street’s first annual conference in October, sparking a debate over the meaning of the phrase to a new generation of Jewish student activists.
“There’s a decline in Israel engagement, but there’s a huge decline in calling yourself pro-Israel” between older and younger Jews, said Steven M. Cohen, research professor of Jewish social policy at the New York campus of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. “For young people, [pro-Israel means] the reality of Israel; for older people, it’s the ideal. Young people are more politically progressive than their elders, less inclined to see Israel through rose-colored Zionist glasses, more inclined to be critical.”
In the end, Carleton’s JSC didn’t use the term pro-Israel in its statement. Rather, the organization settled on language, which read, in part, “The JSC recognizes the inalienable right of the state of Israel to exist.”
The debate doesn’t only take place on campuses of small liberal arts colleges. When asked whether the fact that his organization calls itself pro-Israel turns off some Jewish students, Jonathan Sachs, president of the University of Maryland’s Terrapin Students for Israel, laughed. “No, absolutely not,” he said.
But not all Jewish student leaders at the school agree. The school’s J Street U chapter president, Aimee Mayer, said that her chapter usually calls itself pro-Israel but she’s wary of using the phrase, because of the political associations it carries for many Jewish students.
“Any time you make a statement to a student, you essentially have 10 seconds before they stop listening,” Mayer said. “They don’t listen to what pro-Israel means when you say it. They think it’s what AIPAC or ZOA means when they say it, and they stop listening at that point. They say, ‘I don’t agree with them, and so I probably don’t agree with you.’”
Mayer says that when she is speaking publicly about the group, she decides based on the audience when to mention the phrase. “The pro-Israel term is usually in there, but it’s usually around second 11 or 12,” she said.
Sachs, who calls his group a “moderate pro-Israel voice,” thinks that students misunderstand the term pro-Israel. “Being pro-Israel, in my opinion, means that you understand the importance of Israel to the United States, to the Jewish people and to the world in general, and the contributions that Israel is making as a world citizen,” he said. “The way that [pro-Israel] has been stigmatized is unfair.”
Dov Lieber, president of the UM chapter of the Zionist Organization of America, shares none of Mayer’s ambivalence, and yet defines pro-Israel entirely differently from Sachs. “Saying you’re pro-Israel means not only do you think Israel has a right to exist, but you want it to exist,” Lieber said.
Some say that calling oneself pro-Israel on campus can be a challenge. “It’s very easy to say that you’re pro-peace,” said Jordanna Birnbaum, a junior at New York University and a participant in the advocacy group StandWithUs. “It’s more difficult to say that you’re pro-Israel.”
While J Street and some of its campus allies hope to change what pro-Israel means, others want to ditch the term altogether.
“It’s an empty word. It’s lost all meaning,” said Roey Kruvi, an Israel-born junior at University of California, Berkeley, and leader of Kesher Enoshi, a campus group that works on social justice issues in Israel. “Those terms usually raise more questions than they answer.”
Kruvi told of how the local Jewish Community Relations Council tried to convince his group to sign a statement circulating among area Jewish organizations that supports Israel’s right to exist as a democratic Jewish state. His group refused. Kruvi explained: “People who want to come to Kesher Enoshi are social justice activists who want to change Israel for the better, but people have different ideas about what that is.”
Contact Josh Nathan-Kazis at nathankazis@forward.com
These days, everyone wanting to make a living as a blogger, many seek their own audience niche in order to have a little business. It’s in their interest, therefore, to crowd out competing voices, even if saying the same thing. That’s how “revisionist” academics used to keep things in the 1980s until the USSR collapsed. But the issue here is not making a living off of a crisis but promoting responsible dialogue on how the US should get involved that reflects social responsibility, not profit motive. J STREET faces a marvelous opportunity to promote Zionist-Zionist, Jew-Zionist, Zionist-goy, Zionist-Arab, Zionist-Jihadi dialogue on campuses all over the country. Teach-ins promoting MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE, as during Vietnam War, achieve common ground. The kind of hate demonstrations and outrage programs, all monologues for one side or other, just turn people off. Dialogue draws attention from many and interest from quite a few. No one loses and no one gains if the standard rules of academic civil discourse are followed as occurred in most Vietnam War debates. I supported US support for South Vietnam and, though in the minority, enjoyed fair and open debate platform from the New Left. The Middle East can be the issue on which university students cut their teeth hearing all sides and then having to do their own thinking. It would be a great gift to social responsibility on campus and could lead to similar, not activism, but think-ivism as we could see even when students were vulnerable to the draft. Israel can only gain by promoting civil dialogue for its reputation now on campus is utterly in the toilet. This results not only because of actions but because of the promotion of monologue and censorship of diversity by ifs frightened supporters. BE NOT AFRAID and see how much you gain from students maturing in discourse as opposed to drowning in hasbara and hate speech and slander against J STREET.
When the left surrenders patriotism to the right, as happens all too often, they hurt their own cause. Those who want to see peace for Israel would do well to make clear that they act in support of Israel. To do otherwise betrays not only Israel, but their own aspirations for peace.
I remember not too long ago when critics of George Bush were accused of being anti-American. How foolish. Now Jewish peaceniks are afraid to say they support Israel's existence for fear of appearing to support every Israeli action and every Israeli government. That's equally foolish.
The eternally tiresome question of Israel's so-called "right to exist" is a red herring as Israel's existence is not in doubt, nor is its "right to," whatever the hell that actually means, but the herring is purposefully and continually dragged across the road to draw attention from the true question, which is: What is Israel to exist as? A militarized theocracy and enclave of primitive tribalism or as the pluralist democracy?
The answer, of course, is the former as long as the Israel Lobby lives, breathes, and continues to bribe, intimidate, and bully.
history is filled with stories of self hating " jews " so j street is nothing new. we will outlive j street as we have outlived the others
The UN Partition Plan (UNGAR 181) of November 1947 approved by 2/3rds vote in favor of the establisment of a JEWISH state and an Arab state to replace the League of Nations Mandate in Palestine. Much earlier, the League of Nations in 1922 ruled in favor of the reconstitution of the JEWISH National Home in Palestine to be administered by Britain in the interim. So why is this even a point of discussion, much less controversy? That Israel is the homeland and state of the Jewish people is enshrined in international law. Does a Jew living in Ireland contest that Ireland is the homeland of the Irish people?
Italy which became a republic in 1900 has a right to exist. the czech republic has a right to exist. The republic of china has the right to exist. Germany has a right to exist. South Africa has a right to exist. So does Uganda,Zimbabwe,Malawi and so do the Seychelles. And Israel too.
Grif,
Agreed. The question, "Does Israel have a right to exist?" is a red herring.
Sorry, the previous post went up before I finished...
I disagree, lately the right of Israel to exist has been seriously questioned. Just go on the Huffington Post if you disagree. And as Nathan-Kazis said, it more about whether you want Israel to exist. Its really not a trivial question either. No one would doubt that Israel now has the upper hand from an existential perspective. But one serious misstep and Israel could cease to be. The numerical proportion in land and population between the Muslim world and Israel ensure that Israel cannot take actions to end the existence of the Islamic nation, but the Islamic nation could end Israel (even if such an event is unlikely at the moment). Israel could (depending on what you believe) abuse away, but there's no chance that it will end the existence of the Palestinians (i.e. the abused) On top of which, the Israel public and leadership has no desire to end the existence of the Islamic nation, while the Islamic nation on the by and large desires to end Israel. For example, one nuclear explosion is enough to destroy Israel in its entirety. I'm not saying this means we should go around bombing anyone we think might be a threat, but its an important fact to keep in mind. Plus, if your for Israel, and for a just society, the manner by which the Islamic groups chip away at Israel isn't too healthy either. Terrorist (or militant, if thats how you prefer to read Hamas and Hezbollah) attacks undermine Israeli civil society, myopic-izing opinions as well as pushing the country rightwards, in addition to distracting from important issues such as human rights and corruption. This doesn't imply Israel (or anyone) should pursue their safety through violence. But if a group being attacked responds with peace, it has to ask itself if the attacks will stop (for more than just a transient time) when it gives into its opponents demands. For Israel, this issue is compounded by the worry that if it makes a missetp, it could have hurt itself and empowered its enemies in an environment where (all its the neighbors wish it ill, and) it can still be seriously messed with, and eventually destroyed. I want to be perfectly clear: I'm not saying that anything which I've describes justifies any particular Israeli action, or really justifies anything at all. But as a previous poster mentioned, dialogue is important (I used to help run my college's Dialogue group) and to dialogue you have to hear other people's concerns and thoughts before you knee-jerk to a response, whether its what you read on ZOA or the latest quote from HRW or Electronic Intifada. Too often when the topic of Israel and Arabs/Islam comes up all civility and rationality goes out the door... kinda like chimps fighting but with more eloquent screeching
I am not trying to deliberately mislead or draw attention away from what has been said, just ...added what is written inscripture, about it.
A decoy is some one who says their a jew and does not look to G-D but man for help. Mankind is the decoy! The right for Israel to exist, is up to G-D, who's name He has placed down on this nation.
Jewish Students of Carleton decided that Israel has a right to exist. What a relief!
The right for Israel to exist....has been written down by the words G-D placed down into Isaiah. In the book of Isaiah chapter five you will read...Anger Not Yet Turned. G-D words given to Isaiah, are utterance expresses anticipated mourning for those who are sure to die for their unacceptable behaviou. The mood is sadness. In the first woe sayings, there is not even any deathly intervention form G-D. It is as though the behavior condemned itself and carries the verdict of death.
Isaiah uses the image of a bundle of sins all tied up and carried, as a peasant might carry produce. Jerusalem has a full load of sin!
Read this chapter G-D with his outstretched hand, that is with direct, forcible engagement. Indeed, the negative forse of G-D is so strong as to evoke images of death.
It is up to G-D....he is on the move....take heed...put out sin. Trust in no man....put your trust in G-D alone...