Ariel View

Welcome to our newsletter and to the work of Makom – the Israel Engagement Network!

Our field of endeavor is the engagement of North American Jews and Israelis and we are responding to the growing evidence that younger Jews all over the world are embodying fewer and fewer ties that bind us to each other, and a sense that Israel – as a constitutive element of vibrant Jewish life – must be renewed. As a collaborative initiative of the Jewish Agency, Jewish community leadership and philanthropic partners, we have been given a mandate to try to be innovative.

Amongst the many challenges that we are seeking to meet – which will be the subject of future newsletters – one challenge is to reconfigure the art of conversation amongst Israelis and North American Jews. A helpful resource in that task is a slim volume by Theodore Zeldin, an Oxford don, entitled simply "Conversation". During our December 2005 network meeting, I tied Zeldin’s principles to our efforts to create tools for a new dialogue on Israel and formulated four fundamental categories of questions:

What is your definition of a meaningful conversation? When do North American Jews have meaningful conversations on Israel that are not crisis-related? What ambience is favorable to a productive conversation?
Should conversations between Israelis and North American Jews be about their similarities or differences? The type of conversation reflects the relationship between the interlocutors: We may have a thin, polite conversation in which similarities are pointed out with a passing interest that remains a superficial exchange; conversely we may have a more determined interaction in which the differences are laid bare risking an abrupt end to communication; and if the speakers have adopted a “family" model, in which Israel belongs to all, both similarities and differences can be expressed openly.
What is your cognitive map of engagement with Israel? What is “your” Israel? Is it the same Israel that you present in your conversations, your interactions? How do our feelings, thoughts and beliefs affect our words and how do they in turn affect our thinking? For example, if we advocate for Israel, does this affect our own image of Israel? What would be your desirable cognitive map of Israel and which conversations are you currently missing to complete the picture?
What risks to your own position are you willing to encounter when you immerse yourself in conversation? The fault lines in the Jewish world may well not be along Israeli/Diaspora lines, but rather along other lines (e.g., hawk/dove or liberal/sectarian). One aspiration might be to risk having the kind of conversation in which the other’s truth is heard unhindered, and where one's interlocutors may persuade you of their position…or vice versa. Are we up to the challenge?

The Israel Engagement Network was established at a time of emergency, when, naturally, most of the discourse on Israel was crisis-driven. Crisis-driven advocacy efforts flourished – leading to the launching of new organizations, websites and educational programs. These continue to play an important societal role. However, it is doubtful that advocacy can form the foundation for one’s relationship with Israel – rather, it is an expression and function of this relationship.

The exploratory, open conversation that Makom seeks to encourage is aimed at strengthening and deepening the foundations of one’s connection to Israel. To achieve this type of conversation, it is helpful to develop a consciousness of the kinds of dialogue we have (see box below). For me one of the great treasures of conversation is the unexpected. Not the outrageous, nor the gaudy, but the comment that is the produce of a fertile mind absorbed in the messiness of reality. A sharp observation enriches me – even as I weigh its efficacy.

We look forward to Makom being the place to talk through the issues of Israel engagement, amongst the other vital things that we all do.

To help characterize the type of conversation Makom seeks to stimulate, we'd like to bring here a summary of an extract from a book called Dialogue in Teaching: Theory and Practice (Teacher College Press, 1993) by Nicholas Burbules who distinguishes between four types dialogue:

1. Inclusive and divergent – “dialogue as conversation”: The speaker seeks to understand his/her partner (inclusive) without necessarily aiming to reach an agreed conclusion (divergent).

2. Inclusive and convergent – “dialogue as inquiry”: The speaker fosters tolerance and interest in his/her partner’s views (inclusive) and aims to reach a definite and agreed conclusion (convergent).

3. Critical and divergent – “dialogue as debate”: Each speaker is skeptical of the other (critical), and the dialogue does not necessarily aim toward agreement (divergent).

4. Critical and convergent - “dialogue as instruction”: The speaker does not try to understand his/her partner since the partner is lacking in knowledge (critical). The speaker seeks to move the discussion toward a definite, agreed conclusion (convergent).

It can be useful to explore the models of conversation that we adopt in various situations. In your view which of the four modes are most needed by various sectors of the Jewish People as they seek to engage with Israel? How might we help our educators, rabbis and cultural arts programmers to more successfully engage their students, congregants and participants in an appropriate Israel conversation? Which settings are conducive for which kinds of dialogue?

Convergent

Divergent

Inclusive

Inquiry

Conversation

Critical

Instruction

Debate