Doc's Talk: The Hillel identity crisis

Sunday, June 26, 2011

The Hillel identity crisis

Jewish-American student organization Hillel Foundation in hot seat over anti-Israel activities including 'Apartheid Week,' financial boycott of Israel. Hillel: We won't allow anyone calling for boycott against Israel to be part of us

Yoaz Hendel
Published: 06.26.11/ Israel News

On a wall at the entrance to the prestige Berkeley University campus in California posters hung with anti-Israel slogans. Apartheid, genocide, Nazism – they read. Nearby stood representatives of Muslim organizations and acted out a blockage scenario, accompanied by anti-Israeli chanting behind them.

There are nearly 5,000 Jewish students in UC Berkeley, but only mere few were willing to protest the event and others like it. Missing most of all, it seems, is any censure by the Hillel Foundation – "the largest Jewish campus organization in the world." The Hillel Foundation was established in the 1920's in order to enrich the lives of Jewish students across college campuses in the United States. Present in 500 colleges and universities in the US, Hillel took it upon itself to encourage the students to support the State of Israel.

However, internal political shifts within the Jewish community in the US, and especially the weakening of ties between young American Jews to Israel, have allowed for anti-Israeli voices to penetrate the organization.

This shift has created a paradox: A national pro-Israeli organization under which anti-Israeli activities are being held across some US universities. At times, it means simply turning a blind eye to hostile events; but at other times there is actual and intentional criticism against Israel.

The bottom line is that many Hillel centers are being swept away in the tidal wave of pro-Palestinian protests. Not all Hillel centers take part in these anti-Israeli demonstrations, but these events are a sign of what's yet to come for the future generation of Israeli and Jewish American ties.

'Wake up call'

In the spring of 2010, UC Berkeley became the first university to declare a boycott against companies that do business with Israel. The message behind the bill, proposed by the members of the Students for Justice in Palestine organization, was to cause financial harm to Israel and its supporters.

Pro-Israeli activist John Moghtader was present at that meeting and was surprised to see members of the Hillel organization "Kesher Enoshi" ("human contact") speak out against Israel. "They introduced themselves as Hillel members, spoke about their Jewish identity and at the same time discussed their great objection to the 'war crimes' committed by the Jewish State," said Moghtader.

The UC Berkeley student senate voted 16-4 in favor of the divestment bill. "The fact that the student senate condemned Israel for alleged war crimes, called it an apartheid state – it was a wake up call for us."

However following an Israeli diplomatic effort and a roaring objection, the Berkeley student body president overturned the decision.

But the damage had already been done and similar events began to take place across other well-known universities in the country.

'Ground is ready for extremism'

These anti-Israeli incidences are not happening by chance. There has always been a great duality amongst liberal American Jews towards Israel, which has only increased in recent years, manifesting into antagonism.

A recent survey showed that Jewish Americans under the age of 35 would not consider the disappearance of the State of Israel to be a great personal loss.

"Unlike their grandparents and parents, these youngsters are not connected to Israel by past traumas," explained researcher and author Shmuel Rosner.

"They have stronger identity circles than Israel… In college they are detached from their parents for the first time and begin to rebel. "That kind of ground is ready for extremism."

Anti-Israeli Muslim organizations recognized this phenomenon and realized the best way to harm Israel is by convincing American Jews that Israel is doing them wrong. These organizations chose to fight it out in the greenhouses of politicians, economists, intellectuals and industrialists – in the prestige American universities.

One such organization is the Muslim Student Association, known to be behind infamous anti-Israeli protests like the Israeli Apartheid Week. With over 600 branches across the US and a public connection to the Muslim Brotherhood movement, the Association's agenda is to display Israel, and sometimes the US, as the enemy.

The Association provides lectures across US campuses under the names "Holocaust in the Holy Land" and "Israel – a third Reich state." It was also previously linked to organizations defined by the State Department as terror organizations.

Atmosphere effects Jewish students

This harsh atmosphere has a negative effect on the Jewish students.

"As a Jew, the feeling in the campus isn't good," described Jonathan Weinberg, a former student at UC Berkeley. "Those who chose to support Israel risk their careers… There were violent acts in the past. I felt like I was walking around with a target on my back."

Weinberg added that they had tried to get Hillel to object and get involved, but said they refused to cooperate. They even declined to place Israeli flags in Berkeley claiming some find them disturbing.

Berkeley was only the beginning. "There is an atmosphere of fear and terror here," said Tammi Benjamin, a lecturer at the University of California Santa Cruz. "It's turned into a situation in which you can say anything against Israel and the Jews in the name of freedom of expression, including caricatures and hate marches. If such things were being said against Hispanics, Afro-Americans and even about Muslims the university would have objected."

"Those who support Israel pay a heavy personal price when it comes to promotions and social ties. It's obvious that one should stick to doing research and keep his head down. It's no wonder that students cannot fight this phenomenon, because in doing so they would be going against their lecturers and hurting their grades," she added.

In light of such feelings one would think a Jewish organization like Hillel would not be linked to anti-Israeli movements. However this has not stopped Hillel from being apart of such events.

It seems the anti-Israeli organization become a lot more powerful when their claims are being backed up by Jews and Israelis.

Hillel - an empty vessel?

In once such incident, in September 2009, the Students for Justice in Palestine organization invited two Israeli girls, who wrote an anti-Israeli petition, to an event conducted by Hillel's Kesher Enoshi. The event called for a boycott against Israel.

In 2009, the organization held a rock concert together with Kesher Enoshi members composed of anti-Israeli songs comparing the State to a Nazi regime and to an apartheid state.

A few months late some Breaking The Silence activists, sponsored by the Students for Justice in Palestine, Muslim organizations and Kesher Enoshi, took the stage. In February 2011, a Sheikh Jarrah representative was there as well.

Meanwhile some worried citizens have tried to object. Dr. Ealon Joelson, 44, a neurologist, established a pro-Israeli organization by the name of Israel Peace Initiative.

"Organization like Hillel are empty vessels. If those in charge were better directors they would be able to turn it into a pro-Israeli organization," claimed Joelson.

Professor Abraham Miller of the University of Cincinnati and a former consultant to the National Institute of Justice on counter terrorism recalled his time in UC Berkeley.

"I saw a lot of slogans and posters against Israel. I didn't see such things against any other group…. When Jewish student organizations cooperate with this it's unbearable," said Miller.

When lecturers expressed their wish to talk about Israel from a positive perspective, the Hillel organization said they would rather not bring in people who speak about controversial issues.

"Hillel is committed to creating deep and supportive relations with the State of Israel and everything we do it with that in mind," said Berkeley Hillel Executive Director Rabbi Adam Naftalin. "We will not allow anyone calling for a boycott against Israel to become part of us."

The Hillel administration at Washington University stated: "The foundation is the cornerstone of pro-Israeli activities in north-American campuses, working together with the Jewish Agency and other organizations to provide students of different backgrounds the opportunity to build a relationship with Israel."

"The foundation has established rules and regulations intended to prevent activities with organizations calling to boycott Israel," they added.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk