Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

J Street U brings pro-peace, pro-Israel message to Wellesley

Opinions Editor

Published: Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Updated: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 22:02


 

On Sunday, Feb. 12, a group of more than 80 students from across New England gathered at Brandeis University to promote a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. Organized by J Street U, a student-run network of young Jewish and non-Jewish activists who champion a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, the event was entitled "The Future of Pro-Israel." Recently, J Street U has grown in prominence on college campuses throughout the nation. Although the Wellesley College chapter of J Street U is still in its fledgling stage, the organization was able to send a seven-member delegation to the event.

"I think that overall, the assembly was a huge success," Ariel Robinson '13, founder and co-president of the Wellesley College chapter of J Street U (WCJStU), said. "We reached our goal for attendance. We had some really great conversations with leaders and with our peers in the community who are also interested in finding a peaceful, sustainable solution to the conflict."

Back in 2004, left wing Israelis and their American sympathizers founded J Street U under the name Union of Progressive Zionists (UPZ). The organization was created to provide a forum for college students who wish to engage in an open conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without feeling stigmatized for critiquing the traditional "Israel or bust" stance. UPZ became the J Street Education Fund, Inc. in 2009, and the branch of the organization that was responsible for on-campus activities is now known as J Street U.

"J Street U aims to provide a space where students can learn about and discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and where those who choose to can become effective activists for stronger U.S. involvement in promoting a two-state solution," Robinson said.

"J Street U offers a space for nuanced conversations about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a forum in which to translate principles, like the importance of a Jewish and democratic Israel [or of] human rights and self-determination, into action," WCJStU's co-president, Hayley Malkin '13, echoed.

The assembly featured an array of student speakers and activities. Students were also given time to have one-on-one conversations with their peers.

During the first conversation, students were asked to share the reasons behind their commitment to J Street U. Becca Lucas '14, a member of WCJStU, shared her story with a student from Tufts University. "I grew up in a really progressive community, but Israel was one of those things where values such as ‘ask questions' and ‘figure it out' just disappeared," Lucas said. Lucas went on to describe an accepting community and family life that was not so accepting of a dissenting dialogue on the issue of Israel.

Dan Resnick '12, the Tufts student with whom Becca spoke, sympathized with her belief. "The funny thing is, in Israel, the dialogue about this issue is a lot more open than it is here [in the United States]." Resnick, who was born in Israel, added, "A lot of the grayness of the Israel-Palestine issue goes away when you're farther away."

Conversations similar to this one filled the room until three J Street U students took to the stage to co-moderate a panel with Larry Sternberg, the Director of the Brandeis Hillel, and Rabbi Andrew Vogel of Temple Saini in Brookline, Mass., about their perspectives on J Street U's involvement in the movement toward a pro-Israel state.

In answering student questions, both Sternberg and Vogel shared personal anecdotes about their commitment to Israel and emphasized the importance of student activism in promoting a solution to the political issue.

"You're a bridge to Jews and a bridge outside the Jewish community," Sternberg said. "And no one does it better than passionate students informed by values."

Vogel reiterated Sternberg's points, while also emphasizing that students should make stronger attempts to learn more about Israel's past.

"Knowing your story, understanding where you come from, understanding your values and understanding your vision—I think that's really important," Vogel said. "Part of being pro-Israel is knowing the story of Israel's founding."

In his responses to student questions, Sternberg stressed the idea of balancing pro-Israel support with political pluralism. "A community that is at war with itself is not a community that anybody wants to join," Sternberg said. "There are substantial elements in Congress and within the [Obama] administration that already align with the J Street solution."

According to Robinson, Wellesley's chapter of J Street U also prioritizes the importance Sternberg places on non-polarizing discourse surrounding Israel.

"People are entitled to their own opinions; all we ask is that everyone treats each other with respect," Robinson said. "One thing J Street U really values is an open dialogue and conversation, which means there's room for people with all sorts of different opinions."

As for the future of WCJStU, Robinson and Malkin are hopeful. Malkin describes the organization as "growing," but Robinson states that she wants the organization to gain strength before they begin focusing on gaining new members.

 "We've had a number of students express interest in our work, as well as support of it," Robinson said. "Right now, though, because we're so new, we've been working on solidifying our internal structure, rather than trying to expand our reach."

Robinson also underscored that J Street U is open to all Wellesley students, not only the Jewish community at the College. "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is relevant to people other than Jews," Robinson said. "It is an important factor in American foreign policy, and affects internal politics in the nation as well."

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

1 comments

Anonymous
Thu Mar 1 2012 22:16
Daniel Gordis: In the Tent, or Out: That is Still the J-Street Question No. 8077 May 27, 2011 On May 3, Daniel Gordis addressed J Street Leadership Mission to Israel and Palestine. The following column is based on his remarks that day. Good morning and welcome to Jerusalem. It's a pleasure to meet with this leadership mission; I understand that there are some first-time visitors to Israel among you, so a particular welcome to those of you who've never been here before. Before we got seated, one member of your group conveyed a message from the Israeli consul-general in his home community. The message was that I shouldn't speak to you. As you can imagine, I received similar advice from a wide array of people after I received your invitation, but I've chosen to ignore it. As most of you know, I disagree strongly with much of what you do. But I think that we have an obligation to meet with people with whom we disagree. Given the extent of the forces aligned against Israel, seeking to delegitimize the very idea of a Jewish state, the pro-Israel camp needs a big tent. Neither Israel nor the Jewish people will survive if we work only with those with whom we agree. A big tent, by definition, means including people with whom we disagree passionately, but who still share our basic goals. Even a big tent, though, has its limits. There are things that one can say, or do, that place a person or an organization outside that tent. You know very well that there are many people who believe that J Street is outside the tent, not in it. I'm not yet certain. That's why I'm here. LET ME begin with a basic assumption: I assume that we want the same thing. We seek two states in this region, one a thriving, Jewish, democratic Israel, and the other a thriving, non-Jewish, democratic Palestine. Of course, there are Israelis on both ends of the political spectrum who do not wish this. Some Israelis no longer believe in the importance of a Jewish state and would prefer a state "of all its citizens" between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. But as that would make Jews a minority in this country and thus end the Zionist project, I'm utterly opposed to that. There are also Israelis who still resist the idea of a Palestinian state and who would prefer to either exile millions of Palestinians or forever keep them under our thumb as non-citizens, either of which would be morally obtuse. But the vast majority of Israelis, if presented with a genuine opportunity to live side by side in a democratic, transparent, peaceful, demilitarized Palestine, would accept it. So, assuming that's what you also seek, I assume our disagreement is about how to get there. You believe that people who are not willing to make major territorial concessions to the Palestinians right now are not serious about a two-state solution. You think that those of us who claim that we favor a two-state solution but who are not willing to give up the store at this moment are bluffing. Or we're liars. Or, at best, we're well-intentioned but misguided. But bottom line, if we're not willing now to make the concessions that you think are called for, then we're not really pursuing peace. But that is arrogance of the worst sort. Does your distance from the conflict give you some moral clarity that we don't have? Are you smarter than we are? Are you less racist? Why do you assume with such certainty that you have a monopoly on the wisdom needed to get to the goal we both seek? IN PREPARING for this session, I did a bit of reading of statements that you've issued on a whole array of issues. One, just released, is a perfect example of the certainty and arrogance of which I'm speaking. Reacting to the most recent Fatah-Hamas agreement, this is what J Street had to say: "In fact, many who oppose a two-state deal have, in recent years, done so by arguing that divisions among the Palestinians make peace impossible. Obviously, reconciliation [between Fatah and Hamas] reduces that obstacle - but now skeptics of a twostate agreement have immediately stepped forward to say that a deal is impossible with a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas." "Obviously," you say, reconciliation reduces the obstacle to a peace treaty. But I would caution you against ever using the word "obviously" when it comes to the Middle East. Nothing here is obvious. If you think that something is obvious, then you simply haven't thought enough. Why is it obvious that Fatah's signing a deal with Hamas, which rejects Israel's very right to exist, reduces obstacles to peace? Isn't it just as plausible that it makes peace impossible, or that signing a deal and returning large swathes of land to a group still sworn to our destruction would be suicidal? I suppose that reasonable minds could debate this matter, but how is it "obvious" that this is good news for peace? And then you go on to say that "skeptics of a two-state agreement have immediately stepped forward to say that a deal is impossible with a...






log out