Photo Credit: J Street U website
J Street U students

The Open Hillel (OH) movement, which rejects National Hillel’s Israel guidelines, and J Street, which seeks to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel, are trying to assert control over Jewish discussions about Israel.

These two organizations insist on campuses and in the media that their position represents the objective truth – and the only morally acceptable position – on the Arab-Israeli conflict.  As a result, those who differ with them are labeled morally deficient and inferior.


Capitalizing on western society’s natural aversion to war and violence, these groups have succeeded in marketing themselves to the masses. They quickly label opposing groups and individuals as “warmongering” and “rejectionist.” Traditional Zionist thought is labeled with that hateful term, “conservative,” while those who hold it are portrayed as the opponents of peace. The marketing has been very successful.

According to its website, J Street is “the political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans.” It also claims as its mission being “pro-human rights, pro-justice and pro-Palestinian,” and to seek having an “open and honest discussion about Israel.” OH’s mission statement proclaims itself as “a student-run campaign to encourage inclusivity and open discourse at campus Hillels.” Given these groups’ stated devotion to diversity and openness, one would assume that everything would be up for debate, including what it means to support peace in the Middle East.

But rather than allow for different conceptions of what it means to be “pro-Israel” or “pro-Palestinian” or “pro-human rights,” members of these two groups claim an inviolable monopoly over these terms. They refuse to allow debate on what it means to advocate for solutions in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The same people fighting for inclusion in the Hillel “pro-Israel tent,” are simultaneously delegitimizing and peremptorily rejecting those with alternative perspectives.

In an article by the President of J Street U’s National Student Board, “Hillel And Its Donors Repress Real Conversation About Israel” Jacob Plitman writes,“as some conservative donors demand a tighter conversation and enforce their political values, we risk losing that generation of young progressive Jews who won’t settle for tired hasbara and an Israel right-or-wrong approach.” J Street U Communications Co-Chair Benjy Cannon followed suit in Haaretz, where he opined that “Hillel’s tactic is no better than that of the ASA: It serves to exclude the very voices it should engage.”

The hypocrisy in their cry for “openness” is breath-taking, given J Street’s relentless insistence that only its beliefs are kosher.

J Street’s bullying is on display in an article by Plitman and Rachel Cohen in The Daily Beast. They write: “pro-Israel advocates cannot support the two-state solution in name only; we must all work to provide support for the Kerry initiative as a whole and for each of the difficult concessions necessary to reach an agreement. True backing means mobilizing support for peace talks based on pre-1967 borders with agreed-upon land swaps and robust security guarantees.”

Talking about conflict resolution in such absolute terms endangers the very democracy they demand. They believe and assert that “true backing” can only be achieved by endorsing J Street’s policy positions. According to Plitman and Cohen, if you do not back peace talks based on pre-1967 borders, you are not a true supporter of Israel. Rather than present their opinions as just that, opinions, they present their perspective as infallible, absolute truth.

Hussein Ibish is a Senior Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine and a frequent J Street U guest speaker. Eugene Kontorovich, a constitutional and international law scholar, is avowedly both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian.

In a recent article in Commentary, Kontorovich explained the fallacy of labeling Israel’s treatment of Palestinian Arabs as undemocratic. In response, Ibish tweeted that “even by the standards of the Comintern (‪@Commentary) pro-occupation cult, this is certifiably insane & barking mad.” In place of an intellectual response to Kontorovich’s article, Ibish dismissed and labeled Kontorovich, and everyone at Commentary, as insane and “cultish.”

On January 8th, Ibish tweeted:“Anyone, Arab, Jewish or otherwise, opposed to a two-state solution is a fanatic and part of the problem. This is clear.” Ibish – a J Street U favored speaker is unabashed: if you do not see the resolution of the conflict on his terms you are a fanatic and an obstacle to peace. Such narrow-mindedness sets up a single rigid dichotomy: “intellectual peaceniks” on one side and “bloodthirsty idiots” on the other.

On January 7th, Alan Elsner, Vice President of Communications for J Street, penned an article attacking Israeli Knesset member Naftali Bennett. Elsner characterized Bennett as only offering, “many spurious arguments, among them that the demographic clock is working in Israel’s favor and that whenever there are peace negotiations terrorism increases.“

“This is the nature of the opposition to peace. We can’t say we haven’t been warned,” Elsner concluded. Rather than attempting to explain why he thinks Bennett’s statements are wrong, Elsner jumps to an intellectually dishonest conclusion that fits perfectly into J Street’s marketing message: Bennett opposes J Street’s position, ergo, Bennett is an opponent of peace.

For Elsner, for J Street, for Open Hillel, to oppose the imposition of its favored peace plan on Israel by the United States (which is not a party), makes even a democratically elected member of the Israeli government an opponent of peace.

As it stands now, It is impossible to have a productive discussion about who is really pro-Israel with J Street and its ilk because when others disagree they are labeled as insane and barking mad (Ibish), opponents of peace (Elsner), or conservative and exclusive (Plitman).

With their monopoly on morality, the last thing that these groups can claim is to encourage dialogue and discussion. Their policies are not a subset of the “open conversation” but rather the precursor. Rather than having a solution as a result of discussion, the “agreed upon conclusion” is established before anyone begins talking. J Street U Brandeis’ mission statement epitomizes the greater demand that specific policy trumps actual, open conversation: “Our mission is twofold: (1) Primarily, we are working to achieve a two-state solution through creating an informed and invested student body that will influence Congress to push for American diplomatic leadership on this issue. (2) Simultaneously, we are working to engage the American Jewish community in an honest and open conversation about Israel.”


Previous articleWhy Is Germany Telling Jews Where to Live?
Next articleStudents Training Seeing Eye Dogs
Daniel Mael is a junior at Brandeis University. He is from Newton, MA, and the co-founder of Brandeis Students for Accuracy about Israeli and Palestinian Affairs.


  1. Thanks for this, but we need to move forward from framing ideas to creating concepts, and then presentations of those concepts and eventually, actions. For example, right now there are already two states – of "Palestine": Fatahland in Judea and Samaria and Hamastan in Gaza. A tactic would be to challenge J Street true-believers to agree that first, Israel need demands that the Pals. get their act together and create one political entity, make peace among theior own factions and then approach Israel (we'll save the end of the official incitement of the Pal. Authority and their refusal to recognize Jewish national ethos for later).

  2. You can go to the Open Hillel facebook page to see what type of dialogue they promote. When my support of Israel was called racist, terrorist, and similar to supporting the Ku Klux Klan, that was considered reasonable dialogue. But when I point out the antisemitism inherent in some anti-Zionist views, the spokesman for the group excoriated me for using "tactics of silencing and name calling". There is a reason that Hillel must exclude those who wish to use Hillel as a platform to promote that Zionism is racism. It is the same reason that Open Hillel wishes to exclude my views from their forum. In the words of an Open Hillel spokesman " I know that the sure-fire way to destroy dialogue, however, is to tell people they should feel uncomfortable speaking and implying that they and their views are on par with racism." Hillel's guidelines on Israel protect pluralism and dialogue by drawing the line on antisemitism. For more information see my facebook group Do Not Open Hillel to Antisemitism.

  3. I'm confused. Open Hillel is grouped with J Street U with all sorts of negative characterizations, but then it is only J Street U that is mentioned with any sort of concrete criticism. There is no evidence provided for Open Hillel not being open to dialogue. If the author has examples, by all means he should have provided them, but as it stands, this article doesn't actually criticize Open Hillel. It just holds it as guilty for associating with J Street.

    The author has put together sentences like "For Elsner, for J Street, for Open Hillel, to oppose the imposition of its favored peace plan on Israel by the United States (which is not a party), makes even a democratically elected member of the Israeli government an opponent of peace." This sentence doesn't make sense. What does "its" refer to here? It must be J Street…since Open Hillel has no favored peace plan, and yet it is phrased as if Open Hillel has articulated policy positions — which it has not. Open Hillel has no favored peace plan. It has no policy positions at all regarding Israel-Palestine.

    If you're going to argue that Open Hillel isn't open, you have to actually say why. It's not enough to say that J Street U isn't open, and that therefore Open Hillel, by associating with it on some level (there is no official connection between the two, but many individuals supporting Open Hillel also support J Street U), shares its opinions and ways of thinking.

  4. Lex,

    It seems that the Open Hillel movement’s sole mission is to have Hillel allow all opinions of Israel under its tent. But as of now, the only opinions the Hillel guidelines do not allow are those opinions that support BDS and demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state. Because of this, it’s reasonable to conclude that Open Hillel aims to give a voice to Israel haters (I consider anyone who supports BDS and demonizes and delegitimizes Israel to be an “Israel hater”). Unfortunately, these Israel haters promote environments of intolerance and condemn open discussion about Israel; these Israel haters do exactly what Daniel said in the above article: they define what it means to be “pro-peace” and “pro-Palestinian” and they label anyone who defines these terms differently as “anti-peace” and “anti-Palestinian.” So, by basing a movement around wanting to give a voice to people who condemn open discussion, Open Hillel is fostering an environment of intolerance and closed-mindedness.

  5. Hussein Ibish is the contemporary equivalent of Jabah the Hutt. He is pure human garbage. He is a fitting confederate for the Judenrat of J Street, the useful idiots and self-hating traitors who are trying to destroy the State of Israel because of their own, sick psychological baggage.

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...