We, the undersigned, are Jewish students on this campus whowere troubled, most recently, by Executive Director of the Center for Jewish Life Rabbi Julie Roth’s letter, emailed to all students affiliated with the CJL, that laid out the CJL’s institutional response to a faculty petition calling for the University to “divest from all companies that contribute to or profit from the Israeli occupation of the West Bank until the State of Israel complies with UN Resolution 242, ends its military occupation of the West Bank and lifts its siege of Gaza.” The letter states that the CJL is “taking the best, positive strategic approach to defeat this action,” including a direct link to a counter-petition open to all members of the University community—as though taking such action is a foregone conclusion for our community.
Last week’s letter is emblematic of the larger bind into which Hillel International forces the CJL and our community. Hillel International has specificStandards of Partnershipthat dictate a single-line stance on Israel, and while we understand that the CJL must conform to those standards, we are disappointed by the decision to take a political stance on the ithis issue on behalf of the entire community. Doing so excludes the many Jews who do not share these views. Jews on college campuses have widely divergentviews—we need to make our Hillel — and every Hillel — an open Hillel to make room for these views.
There is no consensus within the American Jewish community on the issue of West Bank settlements. According to a recentPew survey, 44 percent of American Jews say ongoing settlement construction “hurts Israel’s security.” At the University, many Jewish students share this view. We regretthat Jewish students who support divestmentfrom companies that profit from or enable Israel’s continued settlement construction and human rights abuses in the West Bank are outside the bounds of what Hillel International considers to be acceptable opinions. Our branch of Hillelprofesses“a commitment to a pluralistic Jewish community.” It cannotuphold that important commitment properly while ascribing one view to the entire community or equating our community’s interests witha single political stance.
Though we do not here express support for or opposition to divestment, we believe it is important to clarify the meaning and language of the faculty petition, which the CJL has misconstrued. The petition does not target exclusively Israeli companies, nor does it call for a boycott of Israel; rather, it specifically refers to all companies that profit from or contribute to continuing settlement construction and human rights abuses in the West Bank.
This isnotan extreme position. Many liberal Zionists, including political expert Peter Beinart, have come out in favor of a limited boycott, which according to a recent J Streetpollis also supported by 49 percent of American Jews under 30, including some of the signatories of this letter. (J Street is also a group affiliated with our Hillel and many other schools’ Hillel chapters.)
It must not be out of bounds for Jews at the University’s Hillel, or any Hillel, to ask that Israel comply not only with statutes of international law but also with the State Department’s position on settlements, which reads: “The United States has a clear policy—we do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity. We oppose any effort to legalize settlement outposts, which is unhelpful to our peace efforts.”
The CJL letter articulated the need to take action to “ensure that every Jewish student at Princeton feels comfortable with his or her Jewish identity and safe to express their feelings about Israel,” implying that the faculty petition has created an unsafe environment for Jewish students. We are frustrated by the suggestion that the faculty boycott petition might somehow make some students “unsafe”without taking into account the effects Hillel International’s own stance will have on those Jewish students whose political views do not conform to Hillel’s narrow ideological boundaries. We have spoken with a number of Jewish students who decided not to sign this letter because they feared repercussions within the Jewish community.
The University is a place for the free discussion of ideas; even if we disagree with those ideas, discussing them and reading about them does not make us “unsafe.” Alettersent this week by the National Lawyers Guild, the Center for Constitutional Rights and other civil liberties groups to 140 university administrators voiced concern over the use of language such as “safety” and “civility” to chill political speech on campus. “Private universities … risk undermining an environment that fosters open debate and critical thinking, ideals that most institutions of higher education profess,” the letter emphasized.
Our CJL’s Israel Policy Statement reads that, “when controversy arises on campus on questions concerning Israel, the CJL will encourage a full and open discussion of the issues with all its stakeholders, including students with conflicting views.” However, by providing institutional support to oppose the faculty divestment petition, it closes the door to further communal discussion of this issue.
Consequently, we are missing out on a vital opportunity for substantive debate. Debate is an integral part of the Jewish tradition. The CJLand Hillel International would best fulfill their purpose by allowing the current discussion of boycott and divestment to proceed within the University’s Jewish community without taking a side on its behalf.
There is no political litmus test for being Jewish. There should be no political litmus test for being part of the Hillel community.
We are, sincerely,
Maya Rosen ’17Joshua Leifer ’17Lily Gellman ’17Steven S. Lyubomirsky ’16Oliver Marsh ’15Abigail Gellman ’17Max Simchowitz ’15Zander Berg GSSylvia Jacobson ’17Rachel Schwartz ’17Zachary Foster GSYossi Quint ’17Jenny Silver ’18Daniel Krane ’18Aryeh Nussbaum Cohen ’15Maya Wahrman ’16Rachel Stone ’17Joe Margolies ’15Miranda Alperstein ’17Alina Spiegel ’15Zachary Stecker ’17M. R. ’16Paul Rosen ’17Hannah Vester ’17Marni Morse ’17M. S. ’15Aleksandra Taranov ’15Noah Mayerson ’18Marissa Rosenberg-Carlson ’18Hannah Srajer ’17Claire Nuchtern ’15Isaac Lederman ’15Nadia Diamond ’17Jonathan Meisel ’15Rebecca Sichel ’17Hillel Friedman ’17Gabriel Fisher '17MatthewBlazejewski'17
Read More
Campus is isolated: Be the voice that speaks out
Wynne Conger“Although today’s encampment represents a significant and monumental stride in campus activism, the culture of the Orange Bubble must fundamentally shift in order to ensure long term change.”
Protesting for peace and justice
Nura Liepsner“To me, the work that pro-Palestine protesters at Princeton, across the nation, and abroad are fighting for can be viewed as a part of a much larger dream of liberation.”
“To me, the work that pro-Palestine protesters at Princeton, across the nation, and abroad are fighting for can be viewed as a part of a much larger dream of liberation.”
Encampments are not ‘inherently unsafe.’ Princeton should not arrest or expel students for them.
Daily Princetonian Editorial Board“We urge Princeton to cease student arrests and to refrain from expelling students simply for engaging in prolonged protest.”
“We urge Princeton to cease student arrests and to refrain from expelling students simply for engaging in prolonged protest.”
