+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Jewish Student Union in Berkeley boycotts J Street

The isolation of J Street and other Jewish groups that are critical of Israeli policies is evidence of a growing moral crisis in the American Jewish community

This post was updated.

A couple of years ago, while spending some time in the States, I was invited to a dinner at a Jewish friend’s home. “Just one thing,” my friend, a smart liberal lefty, said. “Don’t mention Israel by the table. The inevitable argument will ruin the evening.”

This, and a few similar experiences, led me to offer my editors in Haaretz a story about the Jewish community’s “Israel problem,” i.e., the inability to engage in a serious discussion about Israel. The working title we gave the piece was “Israel – not at the dinner table.” It was published almost year ago, and since then, things seem to have gotten worse.

Last week, the University of Berkeley’s Jewish Student Union rejected a request by J Street to join. This was the first time a Jewish chapter was denied membership in the union. Jacob Lewis, one of the leaders of the opposition to J Street at the Student Union, told San Francisco’s J Weekly that he has been suspicious J Street ever since he attended an event in which the group hosted Assaf Sharon of the Sheikh Jarrah Movement as a speaker. Sharon said that “everything beyond the Green Line is a settlement,” and Lewis concluded that this was “a virulently hateful event about Israel.”

I wonder if Lewis is not that knowledgeable on politics, or if he has joined the war on reality that some advocates for Israel have recently declared. What would you call construction projects east of the Green Line if not “settlements?” And it’s not just Assaf Sharon stating this position, but also every U.S. Administration to date.

The fact is that by Israeli political standards – which have seen a dramatic shift to the right in recent years – J Street’s positions are part of the mainstream. But even the very limited debate that is taking place in Israel seems to be too “radical” for the taste of many Jewish Americans these days (And also for the taste of many Americans. Prime Minister Rabin used to say that the occupation fuels hatred for Israel and for Jews, but repeat this in Washington today and your career might be in danger.)

Still, how could we blame 20-year-old Lewis, if the leaders of his community are too afraid to engage in those questions? Rabbi Adam Naftalin-Kelman, executive director of Hillel Berkeley, which funds the Jewish Student Union, wasn’t present at the vote on J Street, and his comments on the matter to J Week were so careful that you need another Rabbi to explain what he meant:

“We have to be very careful in how we talk about Israel and how we define our tent, because the stability and strength of Israel’s future is dependent on the strength of our Jewish community, and by that I mean every facet of our community. We always have to be careful about who we include and exclude.”

If this is all the Rabbi has to say to his students in one of their most important political decisions ever, why do you need a Rabbi at Hillel? And if students are not encouraged to deal with new – and even “radical” – positions when they are in their early twenties, what hope there is of developing a new generation of sensitive, smart and sophisticated leaders?

The debate regarding Israel is probably the greatest moral challenge this generation of Jews will face, and so far, things don’t look very good. In my last visit to the States, I got the sense that many Jews, especially from the liberal side, prefer to walk away from this problem altogether (something which is in direct contradiction to the growing interest non-Jewish liberals find in the Middle East, and in Israel/Palestine in particular). I was repeatedly told of Rabbis who wouldn’t host events on Israel, fearing that the internal debate they would spark would get out of control to a point that would endanger their own position.

The question of J Street in Berkeley is not very important for future political developments in Israel and Palestine. The resistance to the occupation will continue and the pressure on Israel is likely to grow – not because of J Street or anything else American Jews will or won’t do, but due to the simple fact that Palestinians will continue to fight for their rights as long as Israel denies them. What’s at stake in Berkeley – and in many other places all across America – is the moral integrity of the Jewish community, and its ability to examine conflicting values.

I am not a big fan of some of J street’s latest positions (which I have criticized) and still, one has to admit that J Street is trying to offer a space to engage with those issues in a way that goes beyond echoing Israeli talking points. The isolation of J Street, and other progressive Jewish groups is further evidence of the spiritual and moral crisis into which the Jewish community is sinking.

UPDATE: It seems that some people in Berkeley Hillel, including Rabbi Adam Naftalin-Kelman, regret not voicing a stronger opinion before the vote on J Street at the JSU. Rabbi Naftalin-Kelman and Barbara Davis, President of the Board of Directors of Berkeley Hillel, have sent this letter to the J Weekly (it is yet to be published):

Dear Editor

Berkeley Hillel is steadfastly committed to the support of Israel as a Jewish and democratic State with secure and recognized borders and as a member of the family of free nations.  Berkeley Hillel supports a range of student groups whose activities advance our mission.  The JStreetU chapter adheres to our Israel policy and Hillel International’s Israel Guidelines and will receive the support of Berkeley Hillel as do the broad spectrum of other Israel-focused groups working with Berkeley Hillel including, Bears for Israel (AIPAC group), Tikvah: Students for Israel,  Israel Action Committee, Tamid, and Kesher Enoshi.

We respect the right of the Jewish Student Union, an organization sponsored by UC Berkeley student government, to make its own decisions, but we encourage JSU to reconsider its vote and include JStreetU as a member.

Berkeley Hillel is committed to creating a pluralistic community that embraces the diversity of our Jewish tradition.  In honoring the spirit of college students, we work to guide, mentor, and facilitate their unique Jewish expression. At a time when Jewish students are seeking community, we are careful not to exclude Jewish students, and we embrace the wisdom of our namesake Hillel by embodying the value of an inclusive community.

Barbara Davis
Board President on Behalf of the Board of Directors of Berkeley Hillel
Rabbi Adam Naftalin-Kelman
Executive Director

As I said, I have a feeling we will witness many more such cases in the months and years to come.


Further reading on this issue:
Bradley Burston in Haaretz: When Jews in Berkeley vote to cut support for Israel

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. mick

      The armistice agreements specifically state that the lines established are NOT borders in any way, shape or form. If you knew anything about the politics you would know that the Arabs abandoned their legal claims to the former Mandate in order to pursue the brilliant path of fascist belligerency.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Leif Knutsen

      This has to be one of the most dishonest pieces I have ever read.

      There was no boycott, no rejection, no exclusion. Rather, an application was denied based on the bylaws of the JSU. And with a very slim majority. There was no talk of sanctions against JStreet or its members.

      Dissent and disagreement is not a sign of moral crisis, quite the contrary.

      And only a morally depraved person would hold all of American Jewry responsible for the actions of one student organization.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Mordechai ben Yosef

      Mick, If the Palestinian people resisting being forced out of their homes and land is a fascist belligerency, than the predominately foreign born and financed army that achieved this can also be called a fascist belligerency. I guess the strongest fascist belligerency won.
      Leif, of course it was a rejection and exclusion. No other Jewish group has been denied. It was the rejection of dissent and disagreement, the refusal to engage that is the moral crisis. And you know it is significantly more that one Jewish student organization.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Mitchell Cohen

      Would JStreet, who always speak about diversity of opinions, let Benjamin Netanyahu speak at one of their events, like they allowed BDS representatives to do? My impression is no (correct me if I am wrong). I guess diversity and inclusiveness is in the eye of the beholder.

      Shabbat Shalom….

      Reply to Comment
    5. Lauren

      Young American Jews are waking up and realizing the danger that the Zionists pose. The majority of people in this world do want peace. And deciding to stay away from a group that is well known for war mongering is more of a statement “not in my name”. American Jews are smart enough to see through the propaganda. These students should be applauded. They are loyal to the country where they reside.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Dannecker

      As a lifelong antizionist, I wouldnt have admitted J Street U either. Why? Last year, J Street U did the incredibly brave maneuver by removing “pro-israel” from its “pro-israel, Pro-Peace” mantra. Now they claim to be zionists? Will the real J Street U stand up?

      Reply to Comment
    7. sinjim

      FYI, Dannecker is a user who posts under multiple names, all of which are meant to support his claims to be either a Palestinian or a supporter of Palestinians.
      Invariably his opinions are so extreme as to be laughable and seem to have no other purpose than to confirm the worst Israeli stereotypes about Palestinians. The fact that he is in here needling J Street because its university branch removed “pro Israel” from its motto adds to my suspicions that this guy is neither a Palestinian or a supporter.
      I encourage people to google the name Dannecker so that they see what kind of person is posting this stuff.

      Reply to Comment
    8. Concerned Student, you’ve raised a very important point – and very true, not just regarding J Street. But what concerns me is that you don’t feel comfortable writing your name. It’s your choice, of course, but I hope it’s not because you’re worried to be seen defending J Street.

      Reply to Comment
    9. Ben

      I think a fair breakdown of the overall Jewish advocacy community on J Street reads as follows: conservatives loathe the organization, centrists don’t trust them because they keep bending over backwards to assuage the worst of the Hard Left, liberals who aren’t Leftists usually won’t engage with them (either because they expect JS to go the way of many other left-of-left I/P-focused orgs, or because their tacit acceptance of one-state/BDS views is a bridge too far), and that leaves the Left in support. That’s why J Street can be utterly dominant on the Internet…and a failure anywhere the issues move beyond that.

      Reply to Comment
    10. Dannecker

      FYI, Sinjim is a user who posts under multiple names, all of which are meant to support his claims to be either a Palestinian or a supporter of Palestinians.

      Sinjim, get a life. There is more to life than posting on 972 all day long

      Reply to Comment
    11. borg

      Is J Street U zionist or anti-zionist? Can someone answer this question?

      Reply to Comment