Part of the reason why most of my pro-Israel advocacy, on campus and off, focuses on building a positive, proactive Zionist vision is because much pro-Israel advocacy is depressing. The arguments go round and round. The hatred against Israel is irrational, disproportionate and often vicious.
The now-infamous video of an ISIS flag welcomed when waved at UC Berkeley – and an Israeli flag repeatedly denounced – reflects a broader epidemic of idiocy – and unfairness – on campuses. ISIS activists are sadists. Anybody who pays attention to the Middle East would find videos of these Islamosadists gleefully beheading opponents and randomly shooting at civilians, all in the name of their Islamist state. Yet despite this despicable behaviour, I am unaware of a single demonstration against ISIS on campus. Meanwhile, the demonization of Israel continues.
Israel isn’t perfect, but the pile-on against the Jewish state is disproportionate, irrational and not only about Israeli actions or Palestinian rights. Further proof of the bias has come from two exposes by honest college students who refuse to be manipulated any more by the haters.
Holly Bicerano, a Boston University student, was an Open Hillel activist. Believing in free speech and open debate, she naively joined the movement to push the Jewish umbrella organization on campus to host anti-Israel speakers. Why Jews must host anti-Israel speakers when feminist organizations never host misogynists, gay organizations never host homophobes, and anti-Israel organizations never host Zionists is beyond me. How this becomes a free speech issue when there are so many other venues on campus for anti-Israel programs, including anti-Israel “apartheid” weeks, is also beyond me. I guess I’m not a good enough academic to ignore facts and logic and simply embrace ideology.
Bicerano, however, noticed two disturbing trends at (allegedly) Open Hillel, the more she became involved. First, Open Hillel wanted to host pro-boycott speakers – that an organization devoted to openness would welcome crusaders for shutting down contacts and debate made no sense. She also discovered the intolerance of the supposedly tolerant, that “many Open Hillel leaders are intolerant of pro-Israel voices that they dislike.” In other words, much of Open Hillel was more about creating a one-sided anti-Israel Hillel, using often the only Jewish space on campus to trash the only Jewish state. She resigned, and outed Open Hillel in a Times of Israel column.
Similarly, over the summer, Anthony Berteaux, a non-Jewish, pro-Palestinian columnist at San Diego State University, noticed that Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) “demonized Israel and Jewish students” in trying to get “the public to see Israel as a terrorist state.” The rhetoric, falsely comparing Israel to annihilationist Nazi Germany and to racist South Africa, disturbed him. He watched the news and saw Israel trying to limit damage in Gaza. He read Israel’s declaration of independence and saw the commitment to “equality.” Feeling duped, realizing that “Hate… is not a pathway toward peace,” he denounced SJP and was then targeted along with other pro-Israel activists on campus as an Islamophobe, ethnic cleanser, etc.
These two undergraduates should be commended for having the intellectual integrity to go public, correct their mistakes and out their dishonest colleagues. But we should be careful. Just because there is some dishonesty on the anti-Israel side does not make Israel perfect or every Israel critic an anti-Semite. Yet there are disturbing patterns: mass blind spots demonizing Israel while excusing Palestinian and Islamist behaviour. Academics and activists with integrity should ask why while pro-Israel activists need to make sure that in our justifiable anger, we don’t go overboard and mirror our enemies by shutting down debate or demonizing enemies. Berteaux noticed that the campus pro-Israel club did not mimic its enemy. The Zionist activists had “integrity.” That’s more precious than winning the occasional debating point.