The New American Zionism

6. Direct Engagement

144 > 145 Jewish young adults, an “Israel experience” has become a normative rite of passage. • In the domain of public opinion, the level of emotional attachment to Israel expressed by American Jews of all ages has remained more or less stable. There is no evidence of decline, and in fact the most recent surveys have shown increased attachment in the youngest cohort—the group that, because of the surge in Israel experience programs for teenagers and young adults, is also most likely to have visited Israel. Based on the available evidence, scholars, organizational leaders, public officials, and journalists who depict American Jews as distancing from Israel appear to be mistaken. The modes of American Jewish engagement with Israel, however, are clearly changing: the organizational vehicles through which American Jews relate to Israel are multiplying and diversifying; political advocacy is becoming more contentious , partisan, and polarized; and the connection to Israel is becoming more personal and experiential. As a consequence of these developments, this book has argued that the mobilization model of centralized, consensus-oriented advocacy and philanthropy is weakening. Increasingly, American Jews directly connect to Israel by expressing their own political views, targeting donations to favored causes, touring, studying, and volunteering in the country, consuming Israeli news and culture, and embracing the orientation of sober realists rather than wide-eyed idealists. Taken together, these changes represent the emergence of a new direct engagement paradigm for the diaspora-homeland relationship. Mobilization to Engagement It is useful to analyze in greater detail the distinguishing characteristics of the mobilization and direct engagement paradigms. The typical practices and signature organizations associated with each model are summarized schematically in Figure 6.1. In the domain of political action, although centrist, consensus-oriented organizations (e.g., AIPAC, AJC) that take their cues from Israel continue to dominate the field of Israel advocacy, today these organizations are flanked by an increasing number of groups on their right (e.g., ZOA) and left (e.g., J Street) advocating 146 > 147 Paradigm Political action Philanthropy Tourism/immigration Mass media Public opinion Mobilization 1967 —present Practices Consensus-oriented political advocacy, focused on gaining U.S. diplomatic and financial support for Israel. Centralized fundraising by federated charities. Funds transferred to Jewish Agency for Israel. Educational tourism sponsored by major denominations, coordinated by Jewish Agency. Immigration managed by Jewish Agency. News of Israel filtered through U.S. media, Jewish press, and Jewish opinion leaders. Idealism: “Israelolotry” Signature organizations AIPAC American Jewish Committee Jewish Council of Public Affairs Conference of Presidents United Jewish Appeal United Israel Appeal Jewish Agency for Israel National Federation of Temple Youth United Synagogue Youth Jewish Agency New York Times The Jewish Week Direct engagement 1993 —present Practices Partisan political advocacy, focused on influencing both U.S. and Israeli government policy. Decentralized fundraising by Israeli NGOs. Donations made directly to Israeli organizations. Educational tourism sponsored by private organizations and featuring mifgashim with Israeli peers. Immigration managed by private organizations. News of Israel received directly from websites of major Israeli newspapers. Realism Signature organizations Zionist Organization of America Stand With Us J Street “American Friends” organizations New Israel Fund One Israel Fund Birthright Israel BRI Trip Providers Nefesh B’Nefesh Haaretz.com JPost.com TimesofIsrael.com Figure 6.1. Mobilization and Direct Engagement Paradigms 148 > 149 continue to relate to Israel mostly through mobilization-type practices and organizations and to identify with Israel mainly as a symbol—and often in mythic terms.3 However, the mobilization paradigm is no longer the locus of growth and creativity, and it does not appear to be the direction of future development. Explaining the Paradigm Shift How can we explain the rise of direct engagement practices and organizations ? In part, the new model expresses the broader forces of globalization . As a consequence of the declining cost and increased wealth, international travel has increased throughout the developed world. Similarly, as a consequence of technological innovation, especially the advent of the Internet and digital technology, information flows across national boundaries more freely than ever. Increased travel to Israel and consumption of Israeli news, film, and culture thus reflect and express a much broader pattern: the shrinking of the globe and increased permeability of national boundaries.4 Increased travel to Israel and consumption of Israeli news contribute to increasing partisanship. The more American Jews know about Israel—and the more Israelis they know personally—the more likely they are to exercise individual judgment in the...