The goal of Hillel is to create an environment in which all Jewish students can feel comfortable, a task that is certainly daunting on a campus with so large a Jewish population and with so much diversity of opinion. We are continually engaged in a discussion with all of our subgroups about how to effectively reach the plurality of Jewish opinion on campus.

“Al Nakba” is a term that makes many Jewish students feel uncomfortable, so an event with “Al Nakba” in the title is not something Hillel will co-sponsor. In using the inflammatory term in its title, the week-long program eliminates the possibility of dialogue and understanding.

In belittling the significance of the term, David Judd’s argument delegitimizes why “Al Nakba” is painful to many Jewish students on campus. The term “Al Nakba” refers to the “catastrophe” (literal translation) suffered by the Palestinians in 1948. When Al Nakba Day annually coincides with Yom Ha’atzmaut, or Israel Independence Day, the term names not only the plight of the Palestinians but also the creation of the state of Israel a catastrophe. There is a fine line between calling Israel’s 1948 independence a catastrophe and delegitimizing Israel’s right to exist. And, instead of making a humanitarian statement that respects the needs of the Palestinian people, the term politicized a serious humanitarian situation.

I would like to counter Judd’s assertion that Hillel fails to respect “Al Nakba Week.” Since when is not co-sponsoring failing to respect?

Hillel is not protesting or obstructing the week’s programming in any way. We recognize that there are historical disagreements and differences of opinion among students on this campus, and all those opinions must be allowed the space to express themselves.

However, events labeled with “Al Nakba” are not models that will successfully engage in dialogue if a discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict has to be based on the premise that Israel’s creation was a catastrophe. Labeling the week-long initiative with the term makes it very difficult for any supporter of the state of Israel, regardless of his or her opinions of Israeli policies, to engage in this dialogue, since it is predicated on delegitimizing their opinions.

Hillel’s official policy supports a Jewish and democratic state in Israel. That policy encompasses the range of opinion among Jewish students concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict, as the policy calls for the unconditional support of the existence of the state of Israel, not the specific policies of the government of Israel.

Furthermore, celebrating the independence of Israel as a UN-recognized state that has contributed immensely to the world in its sixty years of existence in no way discredits the plight of the Palestinians. We are pro-Israel, but we are certainly not anti-Palestinian, and we hope for a day in which Palestinians and Israelis can live comfortably and safely. Have the sixty years been idyllic? Certainly not. It is a story of pain suffered on both sides. The important thing is to respect the right of both sides to express their opinions and to channel their emotions in productive and meaningful ways.

It is fitting that this week coincides with International Holocaust Commemoration Week. The Jewish community and the international community are commemorating the greatest tragedy that befell the Jewish nation. We know what it means to suffer. Had the week’s events focused on human rights issues and presented a panel of speakers representing the range of humanitarian concerns in the region, Hillel would be interested in engaging with these events. The five-letter word Nakba, like some other inflammatory four-and-five-letter words, is not the beginning of dialogue.

The author is a Columbia College sophomore majoring in history. She is the president of the Columbia/Barnard Hillel.