How the two Jewish student groups became one
Over the summer, the
landscape of Jewish student groups at SAIC has undergone a
radical change. Hitherto, we had the Jewish Student Organization
(JSO), a nonpolitical group that organized Jewish cultural
events, and Students for Peace in the Middle East (SPME),
a political, pro-Israeli group who organized and participated
in events that dealt with Israel.
As of this semester, the two Jewish groups have merged to
form a new student group called “SAIC Hillel: Artists
for Israel.” What does this merger mean? Is there any
significance to the fact that the only remaining Jewish 
student
group on campus is pro-Israeli?
I sat down with three of the leaders of SAIC Hillel: Anna
Polischuk, Noam Tenner, and Ruth Karanski, to get their perspective
on the new group. I began the conversation by airing my belief
that since SAIC Hillel is now the only Jewish show in town,
they have an important responsibility not to alienate any
members of the Jewish student body. Our discussion centered
around their mission statement, which includes the following
statement: “...Anyone who affirms Israel’s right
to exist as a democratic Jewish state within secure borders
is welcome in the group.” I told them that I read this
sentence to mean that anyone who does not share this political
view is not welcome in the group. Noam Tenner responded by
saying “Being pro-Israeli is hardly political...Far
from alienating people, we attract more people than JSO ever
did.” Ruth Karasik agreed: “JSO had fallen apart
pretty much and were doing very little.”
I pushed the point a bit, stating that I felt that some Jewish
students who are critical of Israel might feel uncomfortable
with the wording of their mission statement. Anna Polishchuk
said that “no anti-Israel people were part of JSO,”
and that “there’s a big difference between affirming
Israel’s right to exist and taking a pro-Israeli stance...There
are a wide range of political opinions re-presented in the
group.” I then ask-ed whether there had been any discussion
about the possibility of alienating some Jews on campus wheny
the groups had decided to merge. Ruth Karasik answered, “There
was discussion and both groups agreed that no one would feel
alienated.” Anna then said that she wanted to make it
clear that if there did happen to be a Jewish student at SAIC
who held an anti-Israeli point of view, they should feel welcome
at SAIC Hillel’s cultural events, if not their political
ones.
One could easily have walked away from such a discussion feeling
like this merger was merely a pragmatic move. Joining up with
the national Hillel means more money for events and therefore
could benefit all Jews on campus. If we look closely, however,
the merger seems more problematic. There were two arguments
being posited in its defense. First, that there are no Jewish
SAIC students who would both be interested in Jewish cultural
events and disagree with the politics of the Hillel. Second,
even if these students did exist, they should feel comfortable
at the cultural events despite the fact that the same organization
holds political events that may be contrary to their conscience.
With all due respect to the SAIC Hillel leaders, these arguments
are weak.
Regarding the first argument, I will declare in no uncertain
terms that I am a Jewish student at SAIC interested in Jewish
cultural events who feels alienated by the politics of this
group. And, despite their protests to the contrary, it seems
clear to me that they have a political agenda. They are called
“Artists for Israel” and these words connote a
very particular political perspective. As for the second argument,
how could anyone who has different political views feel comfortable
attending an event, cultural or otherwise, that is organized
by a group who in its mission makes it clear that people with
differing political views are not welcome?
The fact that the only Jewish student group at SAIC has a
clear pro-Israeli agenda is a reflection of contemporary American
Jewish identity. There has always been a strong pro-Israeli
Jewish lobby in this country, but today we are witnessing
a different sort of phenomenon. American Jews are now using
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to define their identity.
One of the reasons that this is happening is because the conflict
is on the news every day, much like Chicago baseball fans
rooting for the Cubs, American Jews find themselves rooting
for the Israelis. This process is only exacerbated by one
of the great travesties of contemporary Jewish politics: The
misuse of the word “anti-Semitism.” Unfortunately,
this term has come to be used as a blunt political instrument
for striking out against anyone who does not toe an unquestioning
pro-Israeli line. This is sad, because as a result, one’s
attention is diverted away from the real phenomenon of anti-Semitism,
which is still a serious problem worldwide.
This very publication has been accused of anti-Semitism for
an article that I wrote which was mildly critical of certain
Israeli policies. It’s not that as a Jew I cannot be
accused of anti-Semitism. Far from it! It’s that, as
a critic of Israel, I should not necessarily be characterized
as anti-Semitic without further qualification. And there are
no further qualifications in this case, because I’m
not an anti-Semite.
The fact that one can assume these days that a Jewish organization,
or in our case a Jewish student group, will have unconditional
pro-Israeli politics, means that there are larger social forces
at work. It is precisely these forces that I think need to
be criticized and resisted. For the time being, making the
point that a person can be critical of Israel without being
an anti-Semite seems much more important to me than demonstrating
that being critical of Israel can be a mask for anti-Semitism.