Waltham, Mass. — Less than 48 hours after the tragic bombing in Tel Aviv that killed 20 young Israelis, the first of nearly 3,000 young diaspora Jews landed in Israel as part of the Birthright Israel program. Debate had been intense about whether the safety of those visiting could be assured, and sharp differences emerged between those in North America and those in Israel.
Despite the bombing, it appears now that more than 70 percent of expected participants did come after all.
The progenitor of this ambitious program is former Justice Minister and author Yossi Beilin. In his book, “His Brother’s Keeper,” Beilin argued that the relationship between diaspora and Israeli Jews needed a new foundation, one based on a “partnership of equals” and a strengthened Jewish identity.
He proposed that young diaspora Jews have the chance to reclaim their birthright and visit Israel on an educational trip paid for by the Jewish community. Philanthropists Charles Bronfman and Michael Steinhardt embraced his proposal, providing initial funding and leadership to develop Birthright Israel, known in Hebrew as Taglit (Discovery).
Since the program was launched, nearly 50,000 diaspora Jews between the ages of 18 and 26 who had never been to Israel applied for an educational trip. Nearly 20,000 young Jews, mostly college students from North America, were selected and have now participated. The largest groups are sponsored by Hillel campus organizations. Participants spend 10 days in Israel visiting historical and religious sites and learning about traditional and modern Israel.
The novelty and excitement of Birthright Israel has eclipsed one remarkable aspect of the program — its status in the Jewish world as perhaps the community’s largest-ever social experiment.
Partly in recognition of the uniqueness of the initiative, my colleagues and I at Brandeis University have had support to study participants by joining actual groups and interviewing both those who went and those who did not. Our goal is to understand how experience in Israel with a peer group affects participants’ lives, their Jewish identities and their engagement in the Jewish community.
Lasting effects
Our consistent finding is that the program is tremendously powerful. Participants, who reflect the denominational diversity of the North American Jewish community, uniformly describe their Birthright experience as extraordinarily meaningful. Compared to non-participants, participants have stronger Jewish identities and feel a love of Israel that’s not evident among those who didn’t go.
That these findings should be obtained shortly after participants return from Israel may not be surprising. What is also now clear is that the effects last over time.
We recently surveyed those who had applied for the “launch” program 14 months after their trips. The participants’ ratings of the trip were as positive after one year as they were after three months. Many said that the experience was as “vivid” today as it was when they returned.
It is also evident that after a year the participants look very different from non-participants, as well as from themselves a year and half earlier.
Their Jewish identities seem sharper and better defined, although their new-found interest does not necessarily translate into action. And although they are more involved in Jewish activities than non-participants, after a year, many have not yet found a way to be comfortably engaged.
Perhaps the most significant question is why the trip has had such impact. My working hypothesis is that Birthright Israel provides participants with a group experience that is missing from their highly individualistic and assimilated lives.
From the moment they board the plane, through their experiences with Israelis, the sense of groupness is reinforced. In the words of participants, being a Birthright Israel-ite provides a sense of being part of “something bigger” — the Jewish people. There is an unsatisfied hunger in their secular daily lives and infrequent interactions with Judaism for such an experience.
Is it essential that young Jews come to Israel? What our data suggest is that the experience is, for many, transformative and puts young Jews on a different trajectory.
But what about balancing the benefits with the risks? Doing so is no doubt difficult and varies depending on one’s perspective.
From the Israeli perspective, just as Oklahomans didn’t flee their city after the bombing of the Federal Building, Israelis see their country as safe — they have to. For them, abandonment of Israel by Americans visitors reinforces their sense of isolation and the lack of solidarity with the diaspora. It suggests the asymmetrical relationship that Beilin wanted so much to deconstruct.
For North Americans, it looks different in part because the bond between the diaspora and Israel is relatively weak. Israel is perceived as a destination and the feelings of security that come from being at home are absent.
Martin Buber once wrote, “Next to being the children of God, our greatest privilege is being the brothers of each other.” Birthrighters seem to learn the essence of Buber’s notion and come to see themselves and the world differently. They see the “we” of Jewish peoplehood, not the “I” of Western individualism.
Time will tell whether this bold attempt to stem the tide of Jewish assimilation will be effective. But for now, Birthright Israel is creating bonds between Israel and the diaspora that would otherwise go unfilled.
Leonard Saxe is a professor of social policy and director of the Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University. He is principal investigator of an evaluation of Birthright Israel being conducted with Professor Charles Kadushin.
Loading ...