Open Hillel—as its name suggests—seeks to make Hillel International, the organization that manages the Jewish life centers on college campus, more open. For the campaign, openness means respect for all beliefs and facilitation of unimpeded dialogue.

But the campaign’s mission is fundamentally misguided: Hillel is already open. As a result, Open Hillel is only harming the Jewish community, while actually regressing on its own goals.

Hillel International’s “Standards for Partnership” state that it will not support speakers or organizations that deny Israel’s right to exist, delegitimize, or apply a double standard to Israel, or advocate the boycott of, divestment from, and sanctioning of Israel.

Open Hillel claims this policy hinders conversation—especially considering Israel as a contentious political issue. But they’re wrong.

Hillel embraces its policy because support of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is a fundamental value of Judaism. According to Judaic scripture, God gave the land of Israel to Abraham and his descendants, the Jewish people. Jerusalem (also known by its alternative Hebrew name, “Zion”) appears 850 times in the Old Testament. And since the Jews were exiled from the land of Israel nearly two thousands years ago, Zionism—the pursuit of a reestablished Jewish homeland—has been at the core of Jewish theology.  Perhaps Theodor Herzl and David Ben-Gurion were not mentioned in the Bible, but the ideas they advanced have been essential to Judaism throughout its existence. Support of Israel’s right to exist is thus central to Hillel’s role as a center for Jewish life.

Though Hillel’s constitution does imply support for Israel’s existence, it does not entail the same support for the Israeli government’s policies. In fact, Hillel’s programming provides members with multiple perspectives on controversies like Israel’s West Bank presence and its Gaza operation. Last January, for example, Ari Shavit—the outspoken critic of the Israeli government who wrote “My Promised Land”—spoke at Hillel. And in April, Sayed Kashua—a journalist who writes about the challenges Arabs face in Israeli society—also spoke to students. Perhaps most strikingly, two weeks ago, members of the Progressive Jewish Alliance, a Hillel-sponsored group, joined the Palestine Solidarity Committee for the Gaza “die-in”—even though the demonstration ran contrary to pro-Israel advocacy by drawing attention to the negative effects of only Israel’s actions as opposed to Hamas’s as well.

Furthermore, Hillel is a community center for students of all backgrounds and religions. Throughout the week and even for Friday night dinner, Jewish and non-Jewish students alike congregate at the Hillel house. And Hillel’s religious programming caters to multiple Jewish denominations. As someone who regularly attends Hillel, I can affirm there is never an impediment to open conversation.

Within this context, the organization has the right to draw a line.

Should, for example, a Palestinian supporter of Hamas be allowed to speak at Hillel? Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization, states in its charter, “Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam.” Therefore, it preaches the hatred and destruction of Israel.

The Hamas supporter’s views would be at odds with Israel existentially. And refusing Israel’s right to exist is an affront to Jewish values. Where one’s religion is challenged cannot serve as a comfortable space for religion observance. Imagine a Catholic church where the weekly sermon picked apart the legitimacy of the Vatican. This would contradict the very purpose of a religious community: to provide a safe space for people to congregate and share beliefs. Allowing a Hamas supporter to speak at Hillel would run contrary to the organization’s role as a center for Jewish life.

The same goes for Harvard’s Palestine Solidarity Committee. “Almost all Palestinian campus groups support the boycott of, divestment from, and sanctions against Israel,” according to Open Hillel. By advocating severe international treatment of Israel, these groups also pose existential threats to the state and would threaten Hillel’s safe atmosphere for Jewish students.

As a sovereign organization, Hillel has the right to determine its own policies. But even further, Hillel has the responsibility to maintain its integrity as a center for Jewish life.

By establishing a campaign barking at the heels of Hillel International, Open Hillel’s proponents are only further polarizing conversation and thereby, impeding the dialogue that they advocate. They are driving a wedge through their own community, which Open Hillel claims it is seeking to improve.

If Open Hillel’s proponents truly seek the betterment of Hillel, they should be working within the organization to effect change. Instead of merely drawing criticism to Hillel, the campaign should be looking to collaborate with Hillel International to achieve a constructive solution. Open Hillel should be working to build up Hillel rather than putting it down.

Aaron H. Miller ’18, a Crimson editorial comper, lives in Canaday Hall.