Many of the Dialogue participants, including those who are highly Jewishly engaged and committed, do not feel that they know enough about the controversies in Israel to form an educated opinion or take a position. As we have seen, the current sociopolitical-constitutional conflict in Israel has occasioned a great deal of curiosity and desire to learn more about Israel and its political and social life. This should be capitalized upon to increase and expand Israel Education (not Israel advocacy!) in the Diaspora. Ideally, engaged Jews should be able to place today’s controversies in the broader context of Zionist and Israeli history, as well as a sophisticated understanding of Jewish collective identity (see below12).
As a result of such exposure, participants would learn that Zionist identity and ideology accommodates a broad spectrum of opinions and attitudes on such issues as the territory of the Land of Israel, the interplay of religion and state, and relations with the neighboring Arab populations.
Two basic strategies emerged when we asked participants how they thought polarization could be mitigated. One strategy emphasized the things all (or most) Jews share, such as religious or cultural heritage, and ethical values. As one participant wrote: “Building a greater understanding of what we have in common. Focus on what is important to have fundamental unity even when we disagree on particular issues…” Another suggested “highlighting our commonalities and the need to work together in the face of external and internal threats.”
Participants who adopted this approach pointed to joint meetings or activities that Jews of various and even opposing opinions could participate in, and where emphasis would be placed on what Jews have in common. As one participant from New York said, “We should convene groups and identify what we agree on and where we disagree…”
As a result of such meetings, participants might realize that although they have serious disagreements in regard to certain issues, they agree on far more of the basic and foundational aspects of Jewish life. Presumably, such as exercise would enable them to put their disagreements in perspective and mitigate polarizing forces.
We further suggest that this emphasis on what opposing approaches hold in common be supplemented, as suggested by some participants, by the adoption by Jewish leadership of clear and public criteria as to who can participate in Jewish communal events and in the ongoing “conversation” concerning values and policy, both within the Jewish Diaspora communities and in Israel. Some participants tied this to making participation more inclusive. As one participant wrote:
“Make a concerted effort to build a broader tent that includes younger and other progressive Jews. Don’t automatically walk away from a table just because there’s someone – Jewish or not – with whom we disagree on Israel.”
We suggest that Jewish leadership groups accept the notion that all who affirm explicitly and publicly the right of the Jewish people to sovereignty in its ancient homeland can legitimately participate in Jewish communal events.
The other approach raised by some participants, emphasized listening techniques. For example, one wrote that what is needed is “a slower and more thoughtful convening in Israel and in the Diaspora and the willingness of both Israelis and Diaspora Jews to HEAR each other.” Another recommended “using the research on reducing racism and homophobia/transphobia and apply it to reducing prejudice against Israel and Israelis and breaking down barriers and building trust and personal relationships – changing hearts and minds. The personal is the political.” A third simply offered “connecting and listening more.”
Participants also suggested various tactical approaches such as meeting in
small groups with moderators who could structure the dialogue so that participants are encouraged to listen to each other despite their differences rather than just reacting to stimuli that induce emotional overreactions. Another suggested “bring diverse voices from Israel with diverse views on issues; so people can hear them; [they] will be better able to hear from Israelis.”
Regarding small group meetings: presumably, if you meet others who hold a totally different position on a “hot button” issue in a small group, you would be more inclined to view them holistically, and as having many commitments and beliefs some of which are identical or similar to your own. Thus, one might be less inclined to demonize them or charge them with disloyalty. In other words, these strategies suggest employing techniques that encourage viewing one’s ideological opponents as whole people and that, in turn, might dispel hostility and mutual demonization.
These strategies are intended to be employed cumulatively. More Israel and Zionist Education is meant to be complemented by noting and even
emphasizing what the various, and often opposing, approaches have in common, and by settings and arrangements that encourage listening and not just “knee jerk” emotional reactions.
