While participating in a panel discussion on campus anti-Semitism in Toronto recently, it again struck me that Hillel organizers seem still to be clinging uncritically to strategies that may not be working and that have not been seen to protect Jewish students against the abuse and intimidation that all too often comes their way from those who seek to delegitimize Israel and demonize supporters of Jewish statehood.
It is well recognized that there has been an alarming increase in the number and intensity of anti-Zionist activities at universities and colleges around the world over the past few years, and there is little to suggest that we might see this waning in the foreseeable future. And while it is true that Canadian campuses, on the whole, have been relatively less affected than some schools in the United States and England, for example, this is certainly not a reason for complacency. The problems we face are not insignificant, and we can’t afford to ignore them.
There are obviously valid differences of opinion on the meaning and process of advocacy – and there are usually very reasonable defences for one or another approach, depending on what the objectives might be at a particular time. But when such approaches, regardless of their perceived robustness, fail to produce their intended outcomes, honest review is needed and more effective models need to be explored.
In its interpretation of advocacy, Hillel appears to rely heavily on the constructs of “shared values,” “dialogue” and “outreach.” And while each of these in turn – when applied appropriately – likely has some merit in the promotion of Israel and the interests of Jewish students, none of them is especially helpful in countering the highly organized and usually very aggressive anti-Zionist campaigns that continue to pollute our campuses.
So when I sit and listen to a past associate director of Hillel of Greater Toronto admitting that she is hesitant to discuss anti-Semitism on campus because she prefers to “focus on building bridges through dialogue with other members of the campus community,” and when I hear her talk, in all seriousness, about a “successful” Hillel program that involved Jewish and Arab students making pudding together, I am, regrettably, left with a better understanding of why so many Jewish students are so poorly equipped to deal with the realities of campus anti-Zionism.
It must surely be apparent that fundamental changes are required in the way that Israel advocacy is conducted on our campuses. What’s needed is an entirely different paradigm, one that vigorously promotes responsible activism and empowers our students to more confidently stand up for their rights as Jews.
Conciliation, in whatever form, has run its course, without much success. Something new and proactive now needs to be tried.
