Abstract
This chapter presents the field of Israel education as a rich field of educational practice that has lost its sense of direction. In many ways, Israel education is a field that is being dominated by practitioners while the theoretical discussion lags way behind. The chapter begins by demonstrating why the lack of theoretical discussion in the field is a problem. Second, and perhaps most crucially, the chapter argues that the difficulties in theorizing Israel education are not the same as the conventional difficulties often encountered in education. The primary issues in this field of education are not connected to problems of teaching and pedagogy. A great deal of current research emphasizes the phenomenon of “distancing” between the Jewish youth of the Diaspora and Israel. Again, this chapter maintains that the problem is not pedagogical. The fundamental concern of Israel education, so this paper argues, is the meaning of Israel itself. Israel is a complex and ambiguous symbol in contemporary Jewish life and clarifying its meaning – in a context in which both the reality and the symbol are very present – is essential to clarity in educational practice. The chapter suggests that the confusion that surrounds Israel is connected to the disillusionment with ideology in contemporary culture. Israel is a product of an ideology. “Israel education” was neither ambiguous nor confused when classical Zionist ideology was around to make sense of it. Israel education, like the State of Israel itself, is in need of an ideological context in which to define its continued purpose in the future. Before proposing an ideological context for the present, the chapter presents a taxonomy of practices in Israel education analyzing the purposes of each model in terms of its attitude to the ideological problem defined above. Here six models are presented and described theoretically. Following upon the taxonomy the chapter proposes that a complex and rich understanding of “peace” – and of Israel as a vehicle for bringing peace to the Middle East and to the world – as a Jewish vision that was indeed an albeit suppressed but essential component of early Zionist thought might provide an ideological context for a re-engagement with Israel in contemporary Jewish education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This has been widely demonstrated in studies with a particular focus on the United States. See for example (Cohen, 2008; Cohen & Kelman, 2007a), also (Chazan & Cohen, 2000, pp. 76–82). From these studies the picture emerges that less than 25% of North American Jews younger than 35 define themselves as Zionists. More than 60% of North American Jewry has never visited Israel and furthermore, a very large portion of them no longer considers Israel to be a major component in their Jewish identity. Having said this it is important to mention that there is some debate about the social reality. See for example (Saxe, Phillips, Sasson, Hecht, Shain, Wright, and Kadushin, 2009) who argue that the Birthright trips to Israel have a profound effect of deepening attachment to Israel among its alumni. Given that this study is confined to Birthright alumni, it is hard to determine how significant the widespread ripple effect of these findings might be.
- 2.
The taxonomy depicting common pedagogical strategies used in the field of Israel Education that I shall present in this section is hypothetical. The list is illustrative, not exhaustive. While it does reflect actual curricula and observed practices, it is not the product of a systematic survey done in the field. As a result, I shall make no attempt to describe educational practices and pedagogies in detail.
- 3.
The discussion of the ethics of Zionism’s totality was particularly precipitated by Edward Said’s Orientalism that provoked a striking Israeli response. See for example Kalmar and Penslar (2005).
This ideological position was championed by the so-called New Historians whose reanalysis of the events of 1948 underlined the inability of the founders of the state to identify the claims of the Palestinian people to both national identity and self-determination in the land of Israel as morally viable. See for example, Morris (1995, 1999, 2004) and Pappe (1992)
- 4.
- 5.
One of the more outspoken proponents of this approach is Gil Troy. See for example Zionist Dreams (2002)
- 6.
My use of “tight” in this context echoes Erving Goffman’s (1971) xiii.
- 7.
An example of this is Tuvia Book’s curriculum, For the Sake of Zion (2004). The curriculum emphasizes Zionist Jewish heroism with a particularly striking emphasis on male and military role models.
- 8.
Lisa Grant voiced this criticism in an unpublished paper submitted to the Think Tank on Israel Education that I organized at the Melton Centre for Jewish Education in the Hebrew University in January 2008. Grant writes, “I hardly mean to suggest that using Israel as a means of building and reinforcing Jewish identity is a bad thing. Neither do I mean to belittle or diminish the impact that Israel experiences have had on participants. Nonetheless, from an educational perspective, this instrumental focus on Jewish identity seems incomplete, not to mention the fact that in congregational schools, day schools, and Jewish summer camps Israel education seems to have had little or no impact on how American Jews’ attitudes towards Israel are shaped.”
- 9.
A curricular example of this is a curriculum sponsored by the Jewish Agency (Israel, 2003).
- 10.
Dan Ehrenkrantz, “The Primacy of Peoplehood” Contact (Spring 2008). See also Brown and Galperin’s discussion of Mordechai Kaplan’s role in generating this model in ibid. 13–16
- 11.
The implementation of this model in American community day schools has been studied by Ezra Kopelowitz (2005)
- 12.
This idea echoes Immanuel Kant’s conception of the modern state as a peacemaker. For a fascinating critique of the assumption, made most explicit in the writings of Thomas Hobbes, that secular nationalism can bring war to an end see William T. Cavenaugh (2009), pp. 314–337
- 13.
Martin Buber, wrote in his (1976) article, “The Spirit of Israel and the World of Today” 186, “Our purpose is the upbuilding of peace…. for only an entire nation, which comprehends peoples of all kinds, can demonstrate a life of unity and peace, of righteousness and justice to the human race…”
References
Ariel, J. (2007). Your people shall be my people: Notes on nurturing Jewish peoplehood. In The peoplehood papers. New York: UJC.
Book, T. (2004). For the Sake of Zion: Pride and Strength Through Knowledge published by the board of Jewish education in New York and the Jewish Agency.
Brown, E., & Galperin, M. (2009). The case for Jewish peoplehood: Can we be one? Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing.
Buber, M. (1976). Israel and the world: Essays in a time of crisis. New York: Schocken Books.
Cavenaugh William, T. (2009). The wars of religion and the rise of national state. In J. Milbank & S. Oliver (Eds.), The radical orthodox reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Chazan, B. (2004). “Schechter’s Lament: Israel and Jewish Education Once Again” in, Agenda: Jewish Education 18 (Winter 2004) 4–6
Chazan, B., & Cohen, S. M. (2000). What we know about American Jewish youth: Some implications for birthright Israel. Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 77(2).
Cohen, S. M. (2008). The Uncontestable, Incontrovertible, & Absolutely Convincing Case for the Distancing from Israel Hypothesis. Paper presented at the Association for Jewish Studies.
Cohen, S. M., & Kelman, A. Y. (2007a). Beyond distancing: Young adult American Jews and their alienation from Israel. New York: Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies.
Cohen, S. M., & Kelman, A. Y. (2007b). The Continuity of Discontinuity: How Young Jews Are Connecting, Creating, and Organizing Their Own Jewish Lives. www.rebooters.net.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Micro studies of the public order. New York: Basic books.
Gringras, R. (2006). “Wrestling and Hugging: Alternative Paradigms for the Diaspora-Israel Relationship,” Paper written for Ma-kom, Israel Engagement Network. www.makomisrael.net.
Israel, S. (2003). Connecting to Community: Jewish Peoplehood – Belonging and Commitment. The composition of this curriculum was sponsored by the Jewish Agency and published by the Maor Wallach Press
Kalmar, I. & Penslar, D. (Eds.). (2005). Orientalism and the Jews, Tauber Institute for the Study of European Jewry Series
Kopelowitz, E. (2005). “Towards What Ideal Do We Strive? A Portrait of Social and Symbolic Israel Engagement in Community Day Schools” RAVSAK Report.
Margolis, D. (2005). “Towards A Vision of Educational Re-engagement with Israel”, Agenda: Jewish Education 18
Morris, B. (1995). “The New Historiography: Israel Confronts its Past,” Tikkun, November 1995
Morris, B. (1999). Righteous victims: A history of the Zionist-Arab conflict 1881–2001. New York: Vintage Books.
Morris, B. (2004). The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (Cambridge Middle East Studies), Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Pappé, I. (1992). The making of the Arab-Israeli conflict, 1947–1951. London: Tauris.
Raz-Krakotzkin, A. (2005). The Zionist return to the west. In Orientalism and the Jews. Brandeis University Press Lebanon New Hampshire 2005.
Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.
Sarna, J. (1996). A projection of America as it Ought to be: Zion in the mind’s eye of American Jews. In A. Gal (Ed.), Envisioning Israel – the changing ideals and images of North American Jews. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
Saxe, L., Kadushin, C., Hecht, S., Rosen, M., Phillips, B., & Kelner, S. (2004). Evaluating Birthright Israel: Long-Term Impact and Research Findings. Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, November 2004. http://www.cmjs.org/files/evaluatingbri.04.pdf
Silberstein, L. J. (1999). The Postzionism debates: Knowledge and power in Israeli culture (pp. 69–82). New York and London esp: Routledge.
Troy, G. (2002). “Zionist Dreams as North American Dreams”, Why I am a Zionist: Israel, Jewish Identity, and the Challenges of Today. The Bronfman Jewish Education Center, Montreal.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Isaacs, A. (2011). Israel Education: Purposes and Practices. In: Miller, H., Grant, L., Pomson, A. (eds) International Handbook of Jewish Education. International Handbooks of Religion and Education, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0354-4_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0354-4_28
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-0353-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-0354-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)