Dylan Tatz Senior Thesis Revised

YEARNING FOR A VOLUNTARY DIASPORA:
THE PLACE OF ISRAEL IN AMERICAN JEWISH IDENTITY AS

REFLECTED IN RECENT PHILANTHROPY
by
Dylan Henry Tatz ’06

ii
A senior thesis submitted to

The Department of Religion, Princeton University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Bachelor of Arts
Supervisor:
Stanley N. Katz,
Woodrow Wilson School for Public and International Affairs
April 17, 2006

iii
This paper represents my own work in accordance with University

Regulations.
I authorize Princeton University to lend this thesis to other institutions or

individuals for the purpose of scholarly research.
I further authorize Princeton University to reproduce this thesis by

photocopying or by other means, in total or in part, at the request of other
institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research.
Dylan Tatz ’06

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO THE ROLE OF ISRAEL IN A

VOLUNTARY DIASPORA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
American Zionism’s Reaction to the Creation of the State of Israel . . . . . . . . . . .3
The Growing Divide Between American Jewry and Israel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
A Crisis of Continuity: Philanthropy as a Source for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
CHAPTER II: AN OVERVIEW OF BIRTHRIGHT ISRAEL AND THE

WEXNER FELLOWSHIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
CHAPTER III: AN ANALYSIS OF HOW THE WEXNER FELLOWSHIPS USE

ISRAEL TO FURTHER THEIR OBJECTIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
The Graduate Fellowship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
The Heritage Fellowship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
The Israel Fellowship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
The Philosophy of the Wexner Foundation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
CHAPTER IV: AN ANALYSIS OF HOW BIRTHRIGHT ISRAEL USES

ISRAEL TO FURTHER ITS OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
The Significance of the Location: What is Israel’s Role in Birthright?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
v
A Critical Exploration of the Brandeis Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
Comparative Conceptions of Israel among Birthright Providers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
The Paradoxical Problem of Birthright Follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Israel Advocacy as a Tool for Birthright Follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
The Synagogue’s Role in Birthright Follow-up: A Counter-Argument

for Jewish Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .77
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION: REFLECTIONS ON THE PLACE OF

ISRAEL IN AMERICAN JEWISH IDENTITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
While in Poland last summer, before my senior year had even begun, I started to get frantic
about my thesis. I had already conducted more than a dozen interviews and compiled a brief
outline, but I was concerned about various methodological approaches, the dangers of
literary tangents, and what I should do with the rest of my life. As usual, I expected to have
all my questions answered by dinnertime. Despite having just returned from his daughter’s
wedding, Professor Stanley Katz patiently offered the following wisdom: “Telling you to
relax is clearly stupid. But relax, Dylan. And travel back safely. Let’s talk when you get back
to Princeton.” As much as I appreciated his advice and tried to heed it, alas, it was not in my
nature. I suppose I never will relax, but I’ll always keep those words in mind as a road not
taken. Stan Katz is one of the few people I know who truly understands this duality of
mine, and I treasure his reminders.
While attempting to relax, I encountered a plethora of individuals generous enough
to offer their insights regarding my ever-evolving topic. As I quickly realized, the greatest
advantage and the greatest disadvantage of writing about Israel’s role in American Jewish
identity are the same: every American Jew thinks that he is an expert on the subject. Luckily,
for many of the 44 enlighteners whom I had the pleasure of interviewing, this was not an
exaggeration. Listed here in alphabetical order, they represent a diverse range of political
perspectives, religious affiliations and approaches to the subject, from lay leaders to Jewish
professionals to academics, but are united by their intellectual philanthropy:

vii
Steven Bayme Keith Krivitzky
Sandy Cardin Deborah Lipstadt
Steven M. Cohen Olga Litvak
Jim Diamond Larry Moses
Hasia Diner Bruce Ramer
Josh Dubler Howard Rieger
Arnie Eisen John Ruskay
Lisa Eisen Jonathan Sarna
David Elcott David Saperstein
Howard Farber Len Saxe
Wayne Firestone Evan Schlessinger
Nathan Glazer Hal Shapiro
Bob Goodkind Jeffrey Solomon
Dana Goodman Gary Tobin
Doug Greenberg Harold Tanner
David Harris Michael Walzer
Susannah Heschel Chaim Waxman
Ammiel Hirsch Jack Wertheimer
Malcolm Hoenlein Mark Wilf
Avraham Infeld Ruth Wisse
Richard Joel Julian Wolpert
Charles Kadushin Eric Yoffie

viii
In addition, Professor emeritus Julian Wolpert deserves special recognition.
Graciously sharing his contacts, serving me tea at his kitchen table, and offering the fruits of
more than 40 years advising senior theses, Professor Wolpert’s guidance was invaluable and
warmly appreciated. My roommates, Dominique van de Sompel and Nathaniel Fintz, one a
Belgian Catholic and the other a Conservadox Jew from Brooklyn (you can figure out which
is which), each offered astute insights and helped me retain my sanity. Their companionship
will be greatly missed once we part ways upon entering the real world.
Lastly, my mother, Leslie Tatz, by far the most profound influence on my view of the
world, deserves a level of recognition that cannot be expressed in words. Suffice it to say
that had she not sacrificed everything to raise me alone, somehow affording me an education
nonpareil while struggling to pay the rent, I would never have even contemplated pursuing
my dreams.
I sincerely hope that this thesis may serve as a satisfactory tribute to the overwhelming
kindness that has pervaded every word which follows.
Dylan Tatz
April 17, 2006

1
CHAPTER I:
INTRODUCTION TO THE ROLE OF ISRAEL
IN A VOLUNTARY DIASPORA
Dry with thirst, oh let my tongue cleave

To my palate – let my right hand
Wither off, if I forget thee
Ever, O Jerusalem –
-Psalm 137, quoted in the opening lines of
Heinrich Heine’s poem, “Jehuda ben Halevy” 1
Although Psalm 137 implicitly expresses the literal essence of Diaspora, a mournful
wish to return to a relatively utopian world which exists no longer, its wording focuses
instead on the value of memory in recreating this pursuit. Heinrich Heine quotes this Psalm
extensively in his biographical poem “Jehuda ben Halevy” to make an identical point:
physically attaining a life in this paradise by returning to the world from which one was
exiled, he contends, is not the purpose of this yearning. Rather, one dreams of the
homeland so as to return through memory – in Heine’s case, this takes the form of a poem –
and this cerebral connection in and of itself satisfies the urge to return, thus rendering the
real-life journey obsolete.
1 Heinrich Heine, “Hebrew Melodies,” from The Complete Poems of Heinrich Heine: Volume III:
Romanzero. Translated by Hal Draper. (New York and Frankfurt: Suhrkamp and Insel Publishers, 1982), i:
1, p. 102
Introduction to the Role of Israel in a Voluntary Diaspora 2
While Heine returns to the idyllic 12th century Spanish world of Halevy through his
poetic tribute, Halevy fulfills his similar desire to return to Jerusalem by actually traveling
there. Despite his admiration for Halevy, Heine shows how Halevy’s long journey was
unnecessary because, as in The Wizard of Oz, he never needed to leave home to begin with. 2
It is in this way that Heine is most creative: in “Jehuda ben Halevy”, he takes the standard
Diasporic notion of Halevy – the concept that in order to fulfill the Diasporic urge to return,
one must literally go live in the homeland – and restructures it, instead substituting in a
paradigm which can be entirely satisfied by living in the memory of this place. Heine
intricately describes a jewel box later in the poem to show precisely how a physical element –
here, the pearl necklace of Alexander – is not at all necessary to link us to the past, since
poetry itself can fully transport us and alleviate this urge through mere memory.
Heine’s examination of Halevy’s Diaspora, as coupled with his own Diaspora, creates
an intricate parallelism: a Diaspora within a Diaspora. That is, just as Halevy lives in exile
from the wonderful world of the Second Temple, and thus travels to Jerusalem to reclaim
this life, Heine, in turn, envisions Halevy’s world as idyllic as compared to his own. In
writing this poem and evoking the magic of 12th century Muslim Spain, where he notes that
self-identifying Jews freely interacted with non-Jews and served as integral members of
society as Jews, Heine makes a journey of his own, similarly pursuing a better life by
envisioning that of Halevy.
2 For additional reading on the urge to return home as an essential element of the Diaspora see Gershon
Cohen, “The Blessing of Assimilation in Jewish History (1966),” from Jewish History and Jewish Destiny
(New York, N.Y.: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1997), p. 515 and Khachig Tölölyan,
“Rethinking Diaspora(s): Stateless Power in the Transnational Moment.” Diaspora 5: 1996, p. 3-36
What would Jehuda Halevy think of the six million Jews living in America in the year
2006 who have the freedom to make aliyah at any moment, yet elect to live in exile instead? 3
To Halevy and to the generations of Jews for whom this was a distant dream, any
rationalization of a voluntary Diaspora would be utterly foreign, and a return via memory
insufficient. Yet, to Heine, with his layered Diaspora of relative comforts, this decision
would be quite logical: why not consider 21st century America as a modern Zion?
***
AMERICAN ZIONISM’S REACTION TO THE CREATION OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
Before the establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948, Jewish attitudes toward the
proposed Jewish State could be divided into three schools of thought: first, there were the
Zionists, who saw the Jewish people as a nation suffering from a fundamental defect –
national homelessness; second, the anti-Zionists, who argued against the establishment of a
Jewish state either on the grounds that Judaism was a religious faith not a nationality or that
a state should wait for the coming of the Messiah; and third, the non-Zionists, who accepted
the idea of Israel as a possible refuge for Jews in distress but did not conceive of Jews
around the world as a singular nation. 4
The Zionists argued that historically, attempts to gain acceptance in the Diaspora
were inevitably doomed to failure, and that the only true home for the Jewish people was the
land of Israel. 5 However, there was variation even among Zionists: most American Zionists
championed Israel as a possible refuge for Jews in distress, but were not necessarily willing
3 The term Aliyah, literally “to ascend” in modern Hebrew, refers here to the action of migration to the land of
Israel for permanent settlement.
4 Gideon Shimoni, introduction to Carol Diament, editor. Zionism: The Sequel. (New York, N.Y.: Hadassah,
The Women’s Zionist Organization of America Press, 1998), p. 3

5 I use the term “Israel” in place of the more accurate term “Palestine” to avoid any political overtones.
to emigrate, whereas most European Zionists felt that all Jews should move there
immediately. In this way, American Zionists blurred the line between non-Zionism and
Zionism: they offered monetary and political support for the development of a Jewish State,
but most did not entirely partake in the exclusionary philosophy of the Zionist movement. 6
The emergence of the State of Israel, in the eloquent words of Irving Howe, “sped
the dissolution of the ideologies that had prevailed among immigrant Jews. Old disputes
between socialists and Zionists now lapsed into mere habits of recall or were dropped
entirely. . . How one responded to Israel had no necessary connection with past views about
Zionist ideology. One could believe that Zionism had been mistaken in crucial respects yet
support the state founded by the Zionists.” 7 These pragmatic, ambivalent supporters of
Israel (many of whom loosely referred to themselves as “Zionists”) encountered strong
criticism from those who felt that anything less than a complete rejection of the Diaspora
was a subversion of Zionism.
One such critic, David Ben Gurion, Prime Minister of the new State of Israel,
rejected the use of the term “Zionist” to describe “Jews who consider themselves a part of
the America, the British, or the French people” and “do not feel and understand that they
are living in exile.” 8 This “pseudo-Zionism”, he argued, constitutes “a danger to the future
of Jewry” because it degrades the term itself; moreover, it accelerates the process of
assimilation in the Diaspora by leading its adherents to believe falsely that they are as
connected to Israel as they were to their home country. For Ben Gurion, echoing the
sentiments of Jehuda Halevy, it was utterly inconceivable that any Diaspora Jew would
voluntarily choose to live in Exile after the emergence of Israel as a realistic alternative.
6 Shimoni p. 4
7 Irving Howe, World of Our Fathers. (New York, N.Y.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Press, 1976), p. 627
8 David Ben Gurion, “Zionism and Pseudo-Zionism,” in Diament, ed. p. 45-46
In this way, Ben Gurion ascribed to the Zionist concept of shlilat hagolah – literally
the “negation of the Diaspora” – the process by which an exiled minority struggles to gain
acceptance by the host majority, inevitably fails and is persecuted, and has but one choice in
the end: to make aliyah. Even worse, he felt, were those who made the illogical decision to
remain in the Diaspora yet still called themselves Zionists: anything less than making aliyah
and devoting one’s life to the land of Israel, he argued, was a betrayal of the term “Zionist”.
Ben Gurion’s provocative stance did not sit well with many American Jews: taking
offense at the concept of shlilat hagolah, Rose Halprin, the leader of Hadassah: The Women’s
Zionist Organization of America, declared, “the concept of golah [Diaspora] connotes
coercion. It does not apply to us and we refuse to accept it.” 9 Jacob Blaustein, President of
the American Jewish Committee, put this rhetoric into action during a meeting with David
Ben Gurion in 1950. Concerned that the establishment of the State of Israel would fuel anti-
Semitic accusations of dual loyalty on the part of American Jews, the two statesmen signed
an historic covenant that articulated three conditions for American Jewish support for Israel:
(1) that Jews of the United States, as a community and as individuals, have only one political
attachment, namely to the United States of America; (2) that the Government and people of
Israel respect the integrity of Jewish life in the democratic countries and the right of the
Jewish communities to develop their indigenous social, economic, and cultural aspirations, in
accordance with their own needs and institutions; and (3) that Israel fully accepts the fact
that the Jews in the United States do not live ‘in exile’, and that America is home for
them.” 10
Though he still taunted those “sympathizers from afar” 11 whom he deemed hypocrites, Ben
Gurion was forced to undermine his convictions by signing this agreement so as to ensure
9 Qtd. in Shimoni p. 9
10 Qtd. in Jonathan Sarna, American Judaism: A History. (New Haven, Connecticut; London: Yale University
Press, 2004), p. 334-335
11 Howe p. 628
continued American Jewish monetary and political support for his infant country. 12
However, even as he embraced the useful financial means that American Jews provided, he
degraded them in a strikingly ironic tone, writing that the Diaspora could be best
characterized as a state of “material and moral impoverishment.” 13 Ben Gurion’s aide at that
meeting, a Ukrainian woman who had previously lived in America, reflected in a similar
ideological vein, “Why are we not allowed to say that after the emergence of the State a
Zionist is only he who packs his bags and comes to Israel? What else can a Zionist aspire
to?. . . I am the last to underestimate the tears of sorrow or the tears of joy of the Jews in
America, and I have seen both. They wept at moments of great danger for Israel and they
wept at moments of great joy for Israel. They wept from afar [however, and they] must not
acquiesce in the idea that the Diaspora will be permanent.” 14
By the time this woman, Golda Meir, was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1969,
American Jewry’s conception of Israel had altered dramatically. No longer was Israel seen as
an infant state in constant peril; rather, following Israel’s decisive victory in the 1967 war,
confidence in Israel’s security was at an all-time high, and the previously maternal American
Jewish community realized that Israel could survive on its own. 15 Meanwhile, on the other
12 Tangentially, Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg has observed that in this agreement, “Israel was looking to the
Diaspora to be its warehouse of usable parts that would always be well-stocked and available for the
purposes of the Jewish state; the Diaspora was looking to Israel to furnish it with pride and verve with
which to continue its life and its journey. Each wanted something that the other was not really prepared to
grant, so there was trouble brewing from the very beginning (Article in Steven Bayme, editor, Israel On My
Mind: Israel’s Role in World Jewish Identity. Report by The Dorothy and Julius Koppelman Institute on
American Jewish-Israeli Relations, The American Jewish Committee. (New York, N.Y.: The American
Jewish Committee, 2006).
<http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-
D25925B85EAF%7D/IsraelOnMyMind_2005.pdf>, p. 10).”
13 Ben Gurion p. 47
14 Golda Meir, “What We Want Of The Diaspora,” in Diament, ed. p. 56-57
15 In this respect, little has changed since 1967, prompting the following thought experiment from Harold
Shapiro: if, in the year 2006, the State of Israel suddenly ceased to exist, what would happen to Judaism?
Without a doubt, it would be traumatized, but it would continue. Reversing the question hints at another
issue: if Judaism suddenly ceased to exist, what would happen to Israel? It would cease to exist as a Jewish
state, thereby nullifying its unique significance (Personal interview. January 19, 2006 (in-person)).
side, Zionists like Ben Gurion who supported the philosophy of shlilat hagolah were forced to
reconsider the wisdom of attempting to convince all of Diaspora Jewry to make aliyah. 16
Despite these mutual concessions to reality, the joint elation and solidarity of American
Jewry and Israel which peaked during the 1967 war was short-lived. 17 Soon after, a corrosive
blend of core ideological incompatibilities and symptomatic political developments led to
what some have deemed an irreconcilable divergence between American Jewry and Israel. 18
***
THE GROWING DIVIDE BETWEEN AMERICAN JEWRY AND ISRAEL
As early as 1955, Mordecai Kaplan, the revolutionary rabbi, philosopher, and founder of the
Reconstructionist movement, attempted to bridge the gap between the polemics of David
Ben Gurion and the rhetoric of the American Zionists unwilling to relinquish their loyalty to
the United States by contemplating how Zionist ideology might be revised to acknowledge
the value of the Diaspora in an attempt. Kaplan wrote in A New Zionism, “Zionism has to be
redefined so as to assure a permanent place for Diaspora Judaism. Such a redefinition, while
affirming the indispensability of Eretz Yisrael as the home of Judaism for Jews throughout
the world, would have to stress the peoplehood, or the oneness and indivisibility, of world
Jewry.” 19 The similarly prolific Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg expanded upon Kaplan’s thesis in
1979, pointing out how shlilat hagolah had backfired: “Zionism is supposed to make Jews
realize how uncomfortable they are in the Diaspora and how such living has too little
16 Some exceptions do exist: Hillel Halkin, for instance, has written that the Diaspora communities are fated to
disappear and that the Jews of Israel bear no special responsibility to prevent that inevitability from
happening (Letters to an American Jewish Friend: A Zionist’s Polemic. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1977)).
17 See J.J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment. (Reading, Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley Press, 1996), p. 345.

18 Steven Rosenthal, Irreconcilable Differences?: The Waning of the American Jewish Love Affair with Israel.
(Hanover, New Hampshire; London: University Press of New England for Brandeis University Press, 2001)
19 Mordecai Kaplan, A New Zionism. (New York, N.Y.: Herzl Press, 1959), p. 41
dignity. In the United States, Zionism has acted to the contrary – to make Jews more
comfortable in the Diaspora and a greater force within the society at large.” 20
As Kaplan and Hertzberg recognized, there were tensions between the leaders of the
State of Israel and the leaders of the American Jewish community from the start. During
Israel’s tumultuous and vulnerable first two decades, both sides set aside their ideological
differences in the interest of a common goal – securing Israel to prevent a genocidal
massacre at the hands of its neighbors – but as the relevance of this goal deteriorated with
Israel’s increasing military prowess, the underlying conflict resurfaced. 21 This unified
support for the common goal of an impregnable Jewish state reached an all-time high,
quantitatively speaking, in 1967 when Israel was at its most vulnerable.
After flaunting their rhetorical bravado for months with proclamations of how the
anticipated conflict would “push the Jews into the sea”, the combined forces of Egypt,
Jordan, Syria, and others gathered along the Israeli borders in Jordan and the Sinai peninsula
in late May 1967, preparing to attack and destroy the Jewish State once and for all. Many
American Jews correctly saw Israel as out-gunned and out-manned, a small nation of Jewish
refugees who barely escaped Hitler and would have no chance to defeat almost a dozen Arab
armies attacking from all sides.
The majority of concerned American Jews expressed their anxiety with their
checkbooks, and the result was dramatic: the United Jewish Appeal raised over $100 million
in less than a month. Others even went so far as to lobby Congress on Israel’s behalf, and a
20 Arthur Hertzberg, “Zionism in America,” in Being Jewish in America: The Modern Experience. (New York,
N.Y.: Schocken Press, 1979), p. 220
21 For a compelling analysis of this “retreating affection,” as I will call it, see Steven M. Cohen & Arnold Eisen,
The Jew Within: Self, Family, and Community in America. (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press,
2000), p. 189
brave handful enlisted in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) themselves. 22 Many American
Jews with no previous connection to Israel, let alone delusions of Zionism, stepped forward
in May 1967 to help prevent what they saw as a potential second Holocaust. 23
On June 5, 1967, the Israeli air force bombed the airfields of Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and
Egypt in a pre-emptive strike, and the war began in earnest. Just six days later, to the shock
of the international community, especially American Jewry, Israel emerged as an
overwhelming victor, conquering vast news territories and reuniting the city of Jerusalem. 24
For many American Jews, this victory served as the first major source of Jewish pride after
the devastating victimization of the Holocaust just two decades earlier, and because of their
involvement, they too basked in the jubilation of Israeli supremacy and the romantic glory of
Israeli heroism. 25 For centuries, the world’s image of the Jew was that of an impotent, feeble
bookworm, unable to defend himself against attack, but now, a new race of suntanned,
muscular Israelis demolished this stereotype along with their Egyptian foes. This new image
enabled many American Jews to take pride in their Jewishness visa vis Israel after the
prolonged embarrassment of the Holocaust. However, this solidarity faded quickly: it flared
22 Hasia Diner, Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000. (Berkeley, California; London: University of California
Press, 2004), p. 322
23 This fear of a “second Holocaust” was also partially a function of the resistance on the part of Israel’s allies,
including the United States, to provide military and diplomatic support. For many, President Johnson’s
indifference indicated that once again the Jews were on their own, alone in their fight for survival (Steven
Bayme, Understanding Jewish History: Texts and Commentaries. (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav Publishing House,
in association with the American Jewish Committee, 1997), p. 412). Some scholars, such as Howard Sachar,
dispute this point and defend President’s Johnson’s efforts as passionate and genuine (A History of the Jews
in America. (New York, N.Y.: Knopf Press, 1992), p. 733).
24 The brevity of the war also let American Jewry off the hook: had it lasted longer, or had the result been less
lopsided, the U.S. government’s indifference in the matter would have encouraged scrutiny and put
American Jewry in an awkward situation (Naomi Wiener Cohen, American Jews and the Zionist Idea. (New
York, N.Y.: Ktav Publishing House, 1975), p. 134).
25 Diner p. 323. This can also be seen through the newfound interest among American Jews concerning their
European heritage in the 1970s, particularly in the klezmer music revival.

up again during the Yom Kippur War in 1973 with a brief renewed threat of destruction, but
its trajectory was decidedly downward. 26
Israel’s progressively less perilous situation encouraged two attitudes among
American Jews: first, a sense of confidence and complacency, which, in turn, evolved into
apathy; and second, a sense of entitlement to evaluate the policies of the Israeli government
critically. I’ll begin with the latter. Before 1967, Israel’s vulnerability represented the
paramount concern of American Jewry, which meant that no pro-Israel American Jew would
conscionably put Israel’s very existence in jeopardy by criticizing its actions. With fears of
anti-Semitism still very much on their minds, American Jewish supporters of Israel avoided
any actions that could conceivably undermine Israel’s support among non-Jews, instead
putting forth a unified front despite their personal objections. The crucial role that
American Jewish support played in Israel’s victory in the 1967 war strengthened American
Jewry’s connection as stakeholders in Israel, thus bringing the two closer. However, at the
same time, Israel’s newfound security opened the door for increased criticism of Israeli
policies, which, when sparked by certain political events, ultimately drove them away.
In the late 1970s, changes in the composition of the Israeli government gave these
critics reason to object. In May 1977 the right-wing Likud party, led by Menachem Begin,
unexpectedly defeated the liberal secularist Labor party which had led Israel since 1948. The
majority of American Jews who held more left-wing political views suddenly found
themselves at odds with the policies of the Israeli government. In addition, Begin differed
dramatically from the dashing, romantic image of the Israeli that American Jews had come to
26 Although the vast majority of scholars acknowledge this growing divide, quibbling only over the precise date
that it began and which events exacerbated it, Steven M. Cohen has argued quite compellingly that the
relationship is best characterized as stable, not changing (“Did American Jews Really Grow More Distant
from Israel, 1983-1993? – A Reconsideration,” article in Allon Gal, editor. Envisioning Israel: The Changing
Ideals and Images of North American Jews. (Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes Press, Hebrew University; Detroit,
Michigan: Wayne State University Press, 1996), p. 372).
love: Begin, a short, stocky man with thick glasses and an even thicker Polish accent, was
hardly an inspiring figure, and a far cry from the urbane sophistication of Abba Eban or the
swashbuckling muscle of Moshe Dayan that had captured the imagination of so many
American Jews looking for a hero after the Holocaust. 27 Soon, Begin received overtures of
peace from Egypt’s new leader Anwar Sadat, and for the first time in its existence, Israel’s
next move was not clear-cut. Unlike its objective while under attack – to survive by
whatever means necessary – Israel found itself saddled with the prospect of trading land for
peace, a difficult decision whose only certain result was the fact some American Jewish
supporters would disapprove either way. Given the Likud party’s right-wing inclinations,
many American Jews were not pleased with subsequent Israeli decisions.
Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 further widened the rift between American
Jewry and Israel by painting Israel in the role of the aggressor for the first time. Although
some would argue that the constant shelling of the Northern Galilee by the Palestinian
Liberation Organization (PLO) from their position in southern Lebanon necessitated the
invasion, most American Jews at the time felt that the incursion was altogether
discretionary. 28 Some American Jews were also critical of what they saw as the main
objective of the mission – the suppression of Palestinian nationalism – an aim which they
felt to be hypocritical for any Zionist. 29 This ambivalence was compounded by the Sabra
and Chatilla massacres, which further humanized the Israeli government as fallible, a
27 The afore-mentioned Golda Meir constituted one of the rare exceptions to this American image of Israel.
This idealized image of the Israeli as a roisterous pioneer also fit in well with the American ideal of the
rugged frontiersman, as described by Frederick Jackson Turner, among others. For a detailed analysis of
pre-1948 Israel as a “model state cast in the American mold,” see Jonathan Sarna, “Zion in the Mind’s Eye
of American Jews,” article in Gal, ed. p. 41.
28 In the end, Begin’s legacy was mixed: he was a strong supporter of the settlement movement and launched
the 1982 Lebanon invasion, but also negotiated the Camp David Accords, which gave land for peace with
Egypt. Indeed, every Israeli Prime Minister since Begin has moved his platform to the left after his election,
with Ariel Sharon as the most dramatic example.
29 This action also elicited an unprecedented barrage of protests and demonstrations within Israel when the
Israeli army disregarded its self-imposed twenty-five mile limit and marched on to Beirut.
transformation which would have been almost inconceivable during the idealized fictional
heroism of Ari ben Canaan in Israel’s early years.
Jacob Blaustein’s fears of potential accusations concerning dual loyalty were realized
in 1985 when Jonathan Pollard, an American Jew, was arrested on charges spying for Israel.
Suddenly, American Jews became defensive and insecure in their Diasporic home, and many
sought to distance themselves from Israel and reaffirm their primary loyalty to the United
States. 30 Indeed, many American Jews took the lead in demanding that those Israelis
responsible be brought to justice, further antagonizing Israelis, who viewed American
Jewry’s connection to Israel as “self-serving and self-validating.” 31
The first and second Palestinian Intifadas, which erupted in 1987 and 2001
respectively, put the finishing touches on what was rapidly becoming a fragile, if not already
broken alliance between American Jewry and Israel. When American Jews (many of whom
had been at the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s) saw television images
of Israeli soldiers beating Palestinian youth which recalled Bull Connor’s police in
Birmingham, Alabama, many felt that their Jewish values compelled them to oppose Israel.
Ironically, the Zionist ideal of the right to self-determination, as coupled with the Jewish
ideal of charity for the needy, fueled the reversal of many American Jews’ compassionate
30 Many scholars also cite the 1988 “Who is a Jew?” controversy as a key point of division between American
Jewry and Israel (see, for example, Goldberg, p. 337-340). This incident came about when Israeli Prime
Minister Yitzhak Shamir insulted many Reform and Conservative American Jews by supporting legislation
which would only recognize the Orthodox definition of a Jew – someone born of a Jewish mother or
converted in the Orthodox tradition – in the Law of Return, which defines Israeli immigration and
citizenship. I have relegated this incident to a footnote because I feel that it was not nearly as much in the
American Jewish consciousness as other political events that I have mentioned, and thus did not significantly
alter American Jewry’s connection to Israel. As Steven M. Cohen wrote in 1990, “despite the publicity
surrounding the ‘Who is a Jew’ affair in 1988, just 38% of the 1989 sample [of surveyed American Jews]
could claim that they knew (or guessed) that non-Orthodox rabbis cannot legally marry couples in Israel”
(“Israel in the Jewish Identity of American Jews: A Study in Dualities and Contrasts,” article in David M.
Gordis & Yoav Ben-Horin, editors. Jewish Identity in America. (Los Angeles, California: University of
Judaism Press, 1991), p. 124).
31 The use of the phrase “self-serving and self-validating” to describe American Jewry’s connection to Israel
was coined by Larry Moses in a very different context (Personal interview. December 23, 2005 (in-person)).
sympathies: whereas these dual forces had previously led them to embrace Israel as a nation
of oppressed victims without a homeland, after the first Intifada, they began to support the
Palestinian cause for similar reasons. 32
By 1990, three quarters of American Jews declared themselves to be in favor of talks
with the PLO, and Yitzhak Rabin’s election as Israel’s Prime Minister in August 1992 further
augmented the divide between American Jewry and Israel. 33 Until 1992, much of the
“retreating affection” displayed by American Jewry toward Israel came from the majority of
American Jews who identified with liberal, left-wing political causes. Throughout these
controversies, there remained a minority of right-wing American Jews (many of them
Orthodox) who never flinched in their support for Israel. However, even their steadfast
advocacy was called into question with Yitzhak Rabin’s willingness to trade land for peace,
which climaxed in the Oslo Peace Treaty of October 1993 and shortly after incited Rabin’s
assassination at the hands of a right-wing American Jew. From the election of Menachem
Begin to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the collection of historical events that I have
detailed transformed Israel in the eyes of American Jewry and played a crucial role in
providing the political sparks which forced the deep-rooted ideological divide to take
practical form. However, American Jewry was far from a constant force during this period,
and so one must also consider the ways in which the related factors of generational
difference and changes in American society contributed to this retreating affection. In this
way, American Jewry developed a sense of confidence and complacency, which, in turn,
evolved into apathy.
32 In addition, the legacy of Vietnam War left a certain sympathy for national liberation movements of all kinds,
as well as a distrust for those who stifled them (Douglas Greenberg. Email correspondence of May 2, 2005).
33 Rosenthal p. xix
Unlike their parents’ generation, American Jews born after World War II do not
remember a time when Israel did not exist, and those born after 1967 cannot even fathom
the possibility of Israel itself being destroyed. Chaim Waxman, Professor of Sociology at
Rutgers University, agrees that “newer generations of American Jews don’t know how it is
without Israel. They take Israel’s existence for granted, and their connection is subliminally
reinforced by these factors.” 34 Since 1973 – debatably the last year that Israel’s very
existence was legitimately endangered – the mobilization and vigilance of American Jewry
with respect to Israel has understandably dropped off in the absence of any existential crisis
in Israel. Whereas in Israel’s first five years, North American philanthropic funds
constituted one third of the budget of the Israeli government, today’s gifts are not only
fewer and less generous, but must also be recontextualized given Israel’s 2005 Gross
National Product of more than $100 billion. 35
In 1948, more than 50% of New York Jews contributed to the United Jewish Appeal
Federation (UJA) Israel campaign, raising more than the modern equivalent of $500 million.
In contrast, the UJA annual campaign in the year 2000 raised $130 million, with only one out
of every seven households contributing. 36 One might also cite the decline of Zionist youth
movements in America, which had become all but extinct by the late 1970s, to conclude that
while American Jews still write checks to Israel from time to time, they are less viscerally
involved in the state of Israel because their constant sustenance is no longer required. 37
34 Chaim Waxman. Personal interview. April 21, 2005 (in-person)

35 John Ruskay, “Jewish Identity and Beyond: President’s Study Forum on the Diaspora: A Speech delivered at
Beit HaNasi (President’s House) in Israel on February 20, 2005.” UJA Federation of New York website.
<http://www.ujafedny.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8539>
36 Jeffrey Solomon, Reinventing North American Jewish Communal Structures: The Crisis of Normality.
(Arnulf M. Pins Memorial Lecture, Paul Baerwald School of Social Work, The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, March 5, 2000), p. 11
37 Gary A. Tobin, The Transition of Communal Values and Behavior in Jewish Philanthropy. Report by The
Institute for Jewish & Community Research. (San Francisco, California: Institute for Jewish & Community
Research, 2001). <http://www.jewishresearch.org/PDFs/Transition_Phil_2001.pdf>, p. 18
Although the current situation with Iran might temporarily reverse this trend, these factors
have contributed to an overall complacency on the part of American Jewry with regard to
Israel’s security, a phenomenon which Richard Joel, President of Yeshiva University, has
referred to as “a love affair that’s beyond the flare stage.” 38 This complacency, in turn, has
yielded a sense of apathy regarding Israel; studies show that American Jews are not nearly as
well-versed in Israeli politics and culture as they were a generation ago. 39
This sense of complacency is also linked to several changes in American society since
the 1960s, most notably the shift from Anglo-conformity to the embrace of one’s ethnicity
as exhibited by the Civil Rights movement and the academic revolution in ethnic studies. 40
Overall, the diverse practices and beliefs of the American people have been increasingly
glorified, and have largely eliminated the homogenizing forces that encouraged universalist
conformity in the early part of the 20th century. Not coincidentally, anti-Semitism has also
declined dramatically in the past 50 years, and no longer poses an immediate threat to most
American Jews. 41 Consequently, American Jewry’s public identification as such has risen
steadily since the 1960s, and now it is not uncommon to see a student wearing a kippah at
some of the most prestigious university campuses in America. Indeed, as Steven Bayme has
noted, the fact that Monica Lewinsky’s Jewish heritage was not considered a major factor
38 Richard Joel. Personal interview. January 30, 2006 (in-person)

39 Tobin p. 30. Although, as I will show, such a political connection does not necessarily serve as an accurate
barometer of one’s true connection to Israel and Jewish peoplehood.
40 However, as Olga Litvak has noted, the high enrollment rates in Jewish Studies classes at major universities
cannot necessarily be seen as an indication of students’ desire to reaffirm their Jewish identity any more than
a student taking a course in biology could be seen as reaffirming his identity as a carbon-based life form
(Personal interview. February 16, 2006 (in-person)).
41 Leonard Dinnerstein, Antisemitism in America. (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1994).
during the controversy, and that her role did not trigger any significant anti-Semitism in the
media, indicates just how implicitly accepted Jews have become in American society. 42
Linked to this monumental change in American society is the shift in the political
perception of Israel. 43 Until the Palestinian cause achieved substantial publicity in the 1980s,
Israel was a national liberation movement in the eyes of many leftist American Jews; what
has changed, says former Princeton President Harold Shapiro is “the moral high ground”. 44
Additionally, as I have shown, the Vietnam War altered many Americans’ perceptions of
what precisely constitutes a legitimate struggle against an established military power. Doug
Greenberg, Professor of American History at the University of Southern California, even
goes so as far as to say that we have returned to the hostile division between Zionists and
anti-Zionists that was commonplace in the American Jewish community before 1948. 45
Although one could argue that no citizens of any country have been as committed to
the success of another as American Jews have been to Israel, it is equally arguable that Israel
has had little effect on the religious and cultural life of American Jews. 46 Even when
American Jewry supported Israel without question in its infancy, American Jews related to
Israel primarily through their identity as Americans, relishing and accentuating Israel’s virtues
as a secular, progressive, democratic state. 47 It was a lucky coincidence, then, that the
42 Steven Bayme. Personal interview. May 7, 2005 (in-person). However, as I will discuss in the next section,
along with acceptance into American society, many American Jews have turned away from Judaism, thereby
creating what I call “the paradox of assimilation”. Put more succinctly, when Jews succeed, Judaism suffers.
43 Some critics, such as Professor Ruth Wisse, have argued that the ideological shift since 1967 can be traced
back to the success of Arab rhetoric in making their cause the liberal fight (If I Am Not for Myself: The
Liberal Betrayal of the Jews. (New York, N.Y.: Free Press, 1992)).
44 Shapiro interview, January 19, 2006
45 Doug Greenberg. Personal interview. May 19, 2005 (phone)
46 Rosenthal p. xv
47 Jerold Auerbach, Professor of History at Wellesley College, has contended that these “liberal pro-choice
values” are to blame for “the continued dilution of Judaism.” In Auerbach’s view, the secular Zionism of
American Jewry (and mainstream Israeli Jewry as well) as led it to demise via assimilation. The only solution,
he says, evoking a religious rationale for shlilat hagolah, is to emulate the passionate West Bank settlers, and
work toward a greater Israel, both in terms of territory and population (Are We One?: Jewish Identity in the
United States and Israel. (New Brunswick, N.J.; London, UK: Rutgers University Press, 2001)).
widespread assimilation into American society that characterized American Jewry in the
1950s, and which consequently minimized the importance of religion in their lives, coincided
with the arrival of another avenue through which to assert Jewish affiliation: Israel. In this
way, Israel represented a convenient, low-commitment, far-removed way to assert one’s
Jewish identity: one need only write a check from time to time and check the newspaper
headlines to affiliate. Unlike attending synagogue services, being Jewish by supporting Israel
did not require getting up early on Saturday mornings, publicly flaunting one’s Jewishness, or
even being concerned with anything within a radius of 5,000 miles.
However, the connection of American Jewry to Israel as a means of Jewish affiliation
did have its drawbacks. In the following list, the connection is characterized through five
dichotomies that underline the inherently problematic nature of centering one’s Jewish
identity around Israel: 48
1) Symbolic, not substantive
2) Political, not cultural or spiritual
3) Public, not private
4) Circumstantial, not continuous and constant
5) Motivated by fear and associations with Arab hostility and anti-Semitism,

not, ironically, by Hatikvah (“the hope”, the title of the Israeli Anthem)
This final dichotomy is perhaps the most disturbing: as Steven M. Cohen, Professor of
Sociology at Hebrew University, has noted, this vision of “nightmares, not dreams” results in
an American Jewish community for whom Israel is merely a way of relating to the Gentiles,
48 Inspired by Steven M. Cohen, “Israel in the Jewish Identity of American Jews: A Study in Dualities and
Contrasts,” p. 119
not to other Jews. 49 In his recent book The Jew Within: Self, Family, and Community in America,
co-authored with Arnold Eisen, Professor of Religious Studies at Stanford University, Cohen
writes of the growing popularity of private Judaism. Unlike public Judaism, private Judaism
emphasizes spirituality and family, and, Cohen and Eisen argue, is linked to the trend of
“increased alienation” regarding Israel. 50
For many American Jews, reading in the newspaper about suicide bombings and
peace negotiations constitutes their sole connection to Israel. These moderately affiliated
Jews know little about the richness of Israeli culture, and might never have met an Israeli in
person. Their symbolic, exclusively political connection to Israeli rests upon the guilty
assertion that, as Jews in a non-Jewish world, they are expected to publicly defend the Jewish
State, while in private, this connection could not matter less. 51 In this way, their connection
is highly variable and situational, flaring up around instances of terrorist activities, and
almost disappearing from view in calmer times. 52 By connecting to Israel in this highly
disengaged fashion, these moderately affiliated American Jews associate Israel with the most
victimized aspects of Jewish identity, a connection which resonates with atonal dissonance
with the many Israelis, such as former Justice Minister Yossi Beilin, who fiercely reject this
fear-driven support of Israel. 53 At least, notes Steven Bayme, Director of the Contemporary
Jewish Life Department and the Koppelman Institute on American Jewish-Israeli Relations
at the American Jewish Committee, there exists some sort of connection, given that
49 Ibid. p. 126-128
50 Cohen & Eisen, p. 189, etc. In fact, these distinctions are rooted in the Haskalah (the late 18th century Jewish
Enlightenment), but they are also particular and therefore relevant to our American context.
51 In a different context, Arnold Eisen has referred to Israel as “the principal symbol and prop of Jewish
identity” (Qtd. in Samuel G. Freedman, Jew vs. Jew: The Struggle for the Soul of American Jewry. (New
York, N.Y.; London, UK: Simon & Schuster, 2000), p. 162.
52 One might also ask the leading question: do those who are critical of Israel (as opposed to those who take
the “rubber stamp approach” to Israeli policy) tend to be more substantively connected? Can one assume
that those who are critical of Israel are at least engaging with the issues in a more substantive fashion?
53 Yossi Beilin, His Brother’s Keeper: Israel and Diaspora Jewry in the Twenty-first Century. (New York, N.Y.:
Schocken Books, 2000), p. 22

indifference represents “the worst sin of all.” 54 However, one might argue that as long as
this connection remains an externalized, fearful entity, what separates it from indifference?
Jonathan Sarna, Professor of American Jewish History at Brandeis University, agrees
that American Jews tend to imagine a Zion that fits their needs, and “never had a realistic
notion [of Israel].” 55 Indeed, says Sarna, Israel’s “largely peripheral” place with respect to
American Judaism can be traced back to Jewish educational trends from the time of Israel’s
infancy. In the late 1950s, a survey of Jewish education showed that only 48 out of more
than a thousand teachers “reported teaching Israel as a subject of study.” 56 Additionally, a
1951 survey found that much to their chagrin, “not a single book has been published since
the establishment of the Jewish State which deals with any of the numerous social aspects of
the great events taking place at present in the country.” 57 Even during the 1950s, when
Israel’s fragile existence made it a major focus of the American Jewish community, it was
apparent that those who connected to Israel did not do so in a substantive way. True, some
synagogues introduced prayers for Israel into their liturgy, and others stocked Jewish
products in their gift shops, but the connection remained a largely superficial one, governed
by political developments thousands of miles away. 58
Additionally, as both American Jewry and Israeli Jewry became further removed
from their common heritage of European Jewish culture – Yiddishkeit in particular – their
ability to communicate in a shared language, both literally and figuratively, vanished. In the
American Jewish Committee’s 2006 publication, Israel On My Mind, S. Ilan Troan, Professor
of Israel Studies at Brandeis University, expands on this point:
54 Bayme interview, May 7, 2005

55 Jonathan Sarna. Personal interview. December 26, 2005 (in-person)
56 Qtd. in Sarna p. 335
57 Ibid.
58 Ibid. p. 337
Although Americans and Israelis share a common past, they interpret it differently. That
certainly has been the case with the shtetl and even the Holocaust. Israeli scholarship or
theatre could not have produced World of our Fathers or Fiddler on the Roof. After World War
II, Americans related to their European roots with nostalgia and sentimentality. In Zionist
thought and practice, the exile was to be rejected. The shtetl reflected a world of poverty,
suffering, and tragedy immeasurably deprecated further because Jews did not engage in
proper “productive” labor nor did they adequately defend themselves. Interpretations of the
Holocaust affirm this negative bias. In Israel, memorialization of the Holocaust is part of
the national civic culture and is commemorated as “Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance
Day.” During Israel’s first decades, ghetto fighters and partisans enjoyed far greater prestige
than victims. Visitors to Yad Vashem are invited to consider Israel the proper response to
the Holocaust, a suggestion heightened by its location in Jerusalem, the rebuilt and vital
capital of the Jewish state. The same message is made explicit to Israel’s young who
participate in the March of the Living to the camps in Poland and in public rhetoric back home.
The message of the Holocaust Museum in Washington is necessarily more universal and also
bears a distinctively American perspective. A carousel near the exit offers continuous videos
featuring survivors who now live in America and who express gratitude to the land that
enabled them to rebuild their personal lives. 59
Not only has American Jewry become further removed from Israel as a substantive entity,
even when the two do get together for a conversation, as Troan shows, it is difficult for
these “friends” to progress beyond superficial small-talk. Those American Jews who identify
as Jewish because of Israel rather than any other more sustainable element of Jewish
peoplehood therefore possess an affiliation whose weak foundation leaves it highly
susceptible to the powers of assimilation. 60 Israel’s place as an apparently corruptible
method of affiliation appears to be a uniquely American phenomenon by virtue of the way in
which American Jews simultaneously identify as Jewish and American. In other Diasporic
communities, especially in Europe, where nationalism is framed such that one’s Jewish
identity is mutually exclusive with one’s national identity, a substantive Jewish identity may
indeed be formed around Israel alone. Without one’s allegiance to America clouding one’s
59 Article in Bayme, editor, Israel On My Mind: Israel’s Role in World Jewish Identity, p. 48-49
60 There are some notable exceptions to this rule, that is, Jews who became strongly attached to their Judaism
exclusively through Israel. Some examples include: Louis D. Brandeis, Theodore Herzl in the romanticized
version of his “conversion” during the Dreyfus affair, and an Egyptian named Moses (although he didn’t
have much religious law as an alternative during his formative age).
Jewish identity (and also with geographic proximity enabling more frequent visits), Israel is
free to play a larger role.
This is not to say that Jews in other Diaspora communities do not strongly identify
as patriotic citizens of their country, but, as my research on the Athenian Jewish community
has demonstrated, these dual loyalties are conceived of in a separate, non-overlapping
fashion. Despite virtually no anti-Semitic motivating factors, 61 there is a puzzling lack of
public self-identification among the Athenian Jewish community. 62 There is a fantastic new
Jewish museum in the center of Athens, but it is almost entirely supported by American
Jews, while Athenian Jews have virtually nothing to do with the museum, and seem to be
almost unilaterally embarrassed by its existence. Jacob Arar, the Chief Rabbi of Greece,
always wears a hat over his kippah when walking down the street not out of fear (as in other
European countries), but rather according to his belief that being a Jew is not something that
one should share with others, and that he should not push his luck. 63 To publicly identify as
Jewish would make him less Greek, he says, and so he chooses not to marginalize one aspect
of his identity in order to embrace the other. For Chanukkah in 2004, the Chabad rabbi
stationed in Athens, 64 working with a non-Jewish public official, organized a public menorah
lighting. At first, the community was predictably opposed to the event, but when the
Chabad rabbi insisted and the Athenian city government approved it, they went along with it
without a major fuss. 65
61 According to all of my interviews, anti-Semitism in Athens is entirely verbal, and fairly tame at that.
62 Puzzling for an American Jew, that is.
63 When discussing this phenomenon, a member of the congregation noted that the irony that Rabbi Arar has
no problem (and in fact does a great job in his opinion) representing the Jewish community in government
issues, but refuses to so much as acknowledge being Jewish when walking down the street.
64 Chabad is an ultra-Orthodox Jewish missionary-type organization based in Crown Heights, Brooklyn which
sends emissaries to Jewish communities in all corners of the earth. Although proselytizing the faith to non-
Jews is explicitly prohibited by Jewish law, encouraging Jews to be more observantly religious is considered a
mitzvah, or good deed, by Jewish law.
65 Rabbi Mendel Hendel. Personal interview. March 19, 2005 (in-person)
Coming from New York City, where minorities wield power as a majority, I had
some difficulty relating to the Athenian Jewish community’s condemnation of the museum
along with other forms of Jewish public self-identification. Rachel Raphael-Sasson,
President of the Jewish Community Center of Athens, encapsulated this feeling by reflecting,
“I am equal to my Greek identity and my Jewish identity. I am 50% Greek and 50% Jewish.
I have two identities that I am equally proud of.” 66 According to Raphael-Sasson, Athenian
Jews are proud to be Jewish in private circles, but they see any public embrace of their
membership in the Jewish minority as implicitly marginalizing their Greek half, which
reflects the country’s 97% Greek Orthodox population. By publicly identifying as Jewish,
they also see themselves as reinforcing the negative stereotype that Jews are really different
from everyone else. 67 Contrary to this, one might presume that most American Jews identify
themselves as 100% American and 100% Jewish, with the two halves not at all mutually
exclusive. Surprisingly, I found that this conception of the Jew as an individual who can
never completely reconcile his Jewishness with the rest of his nation and society is held by
Jews and non-Jews alike. 68 One non-Jewish novelist I spoke to listed matter-of-factly
“Albanians, Turks, Jews, and Croatians” as minority living in populations in Greece today. 69
Handicapped by their intertwined conceptions of Jewishness and American national
loyalty, which eliminates the use of Israel as a stand-alone purveyor of Jewish identity, the
66 Rachel Raphael-Sasson. Personal interview. March 16, 2005 (in-person). Ms. Raphael-Sasson also added
with a smirk, “Being Greek and Jewish is the worst combination: every time you build something, it gets
destroyed.”
67 Rabbi Jacob Arar. Personal interview. March 15, 2005 (in-person)
68 Perhaps this is part of what contributed to the willingness of so many Greeks (and so many Europeans, for
that matter) to turn in their neighbors during the Holocaust.

69 Menis Koumantareas. Personal interview. March 17, 2005. Although anti-Semitism certainly still exists in
American society, I firmly believe that there could never be a Holocaust in America because the non-Jewish
population (both the anti-Semites and tolerant citizens included) do not implicitly believe that Jews are
inherently non-American, as I feel is the case in all parts of Europe that I have visited, including, to date,
England, France, Spain, Sweden, Poland, and Germany. Yes, some question American Jews’ loyalty to Israel
over America, but very few will list Jews along with other national minorities in this fashion
American Jewish community has indeed found itself highly susceptible to the powers of
assimilation, a realization which has defined the Jewish communal agenda of the past 20
years. 70 As Israel revised its footing in the Middle East from a precarious tip-toe to a wider,
more secure stance, climaxing in 1967, American Jewry realized that its help was rapidly
becoming less crucial, and by the mid-1980s, the American Jewish communal focus had
shifted from universal, external matters (anti-Vietnam, pro-Israel) to particular, internal
matters (anti-assimilation, pro-affiliation). 71 In the following prophetic paragraph from his
1978 masterpiece World of Our Fathers, Irving Howe predicted with astonishing accuracy the
so-called “continuity crisis” which originated with the earth-shattering statistic of a 52% rate
of intermarriage as reported in the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey, and continues
to the present day. According to Howe, Israel’s pleading peril might have postponed the
crisis, but the debt owed Jewish assimilation was rendered inevitable by the accepting nature
of American society:
For the majority of American Jews who regarded themselves as either secular or indifferent,
the question of what it meant to remain a Jew grew increasingly difficult [with the emergence
of the State of Israel]. Less and less could ‘Jewishness’ be described as a common culture,
the substance of shared immigrant life. With a fair display of logic, some Jews concluded
that, since they were not religious and had passed beyond the boundaries of Yiddishkeit, their
‘Jewishness’ was not central to their lives, it was a mere accident of birth, and while they did
not propose to cringe in shame, neither did they have much taste for parochial assertions.
They preferred to see themselves as good Americans, or good liberals, or good human
beings. . . Almost all Jews agreed that Israel had to be helped, nurtured, and kept alive.
Some felt this with a kindled passion, others with uncertainty, still others with
embarrassment; but except for tiny sects of ideologues fringing the far right and far left, all
believed that the survival of Israel was a necessity. Helping Israel thereby became a major
communal activity among American Jews, undertaken with the usual range of styles from
reflectiveness to busyness. But if one could establish oneself as a Jew by ‘working for Israel’,
70 Although, once could argue, it would have been much more surprising if, after more than 300 years in
America, the Jewish community did not assimilate to some extent. As I have shown concerning the Greek
Jewish community, circumstances are such that it is difficult to establish a default level of assimilation in the
US. I am arguing that American Jewry has been “highly susceptible to the powers of assimilation,” but I
concede that there is no “default level” of assimilation as there are no natural comparisons.
71 In a tragic twist of irony, as I will show, this reprioritization has compounded the problem and driven even
more Jews away from Judaism. See Sarna American Judaism p. 307 and Jack Wertheimer, A People
Divided: Judaism in Contemporary America. (New York, N.Y.: BasicBooks, 1993), p. 29
then one might put aside all these irksome spiritual and metaphysical problems life was now
imposing on all nonreligious Jews. This was neither an unworthy not a dishonorable evasion
– first comes survival and then definition. But it left a growing mound of intellectual debts
which sooner or later would have to be paid. 72
Despite Howe’s Cassandran warning, when “these irksome spiritual and metaphysical
problems” resurfaced in 1990, the American Jewish establishment was shocked to find that
assimilation finally demanded its pound of flesh.
***
A CRISIS OF CONTINUITY: PHILANTHROPY AS A SOURCE FOR CHANGE
Ever since the formation of Jewish advocacy organizations and the Jewish federation system
in the early part of the 20th century, Jewish groups have published periodic estimates of the
Jewish population, some with surveys of Jewish attitudes as well. Before the 1990 Survey,
the Council of Jewish Federations previously commissioned a National Jewish Population
Survey in 1970; it revealed that among Jews who married prior to 1965, 9% chose non-
Jewish partners. 73 Looking only at this survey, the shock over the 1990 statistic is
understandable, but one must realize that clues – from anecdotal evidence to essays
bemoaning synagogue attendance – were commonplace in the late 1980s, so news of the
52% rate of intermarriage should not have come as a surprise.
Maybe those voices were not loud enough, or maybe Jewish leaders were not
listening, but when the National Jewish Population Survey was published in June 1991, the
institutionalized American Jewish community flew into a panic, and Jewish journals and
72 Howe p. 629-630
73 Mark I. Rosen, The Remaking of Hillel: A Case Study on Leadership and Organizational Transformation.
Report by The Fisher-Bernstein Institute for Jewish Philanthropy and Leadership, Brandeis University.
(Waltham, Massachusetts: Brandeis University, January 2006).
<http://www.cmjs.org/index.cfm?page=216&IDNews=41>, p. 39
newspapers focused on this issue almost to the exclusion of all others. 74 In the words of
Mark Rosen, Senior Research Associate at the Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for
Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University, “Almost instantly, a community that had been
preoccupied with international causes like the security of Israel, the resettlement of
Ethiopian Jews, and the oppression of Soviet Jewry, began to worry that Jewish life in
America had an uncertain future. Previous data had shown that intermarried couples were
less likely to raise their children as Jews than in-married couples. Jewish organizations
quickly began to focus on ways to influence the Jewish identities of adolescents so that they
would grow up to make Jewish choices and raise Jewish children.” 75
As Irving Howe demonstrated, this was a long time coming – in fact, considering the
nature of American democratic acceptance, some would say it was inevitable – but Israel’s
peril in its infancy postponed the “continuity crisis” for several decades. 76 When the “crisis”
did arrive, and was aggravated by the subsequent announcement that only 8% of children
from inter-married homes identified as Jewish 77 , the American Jewish community responded
by heralding the demographic deterioration and destruction of American Jewry and even
comparing the end results to a second Holocaust. 78 However, there arose heated debates
74 In a significant divergence, whereas the establishment of the American Jewish community – the advocacy
organizations, the religious leadership, etc. – obsessed over this one statistic, many American Jews (in fact,
those who the establishment were most concerned about) did not care about this report at all. This evident
disconnect is, as many have observed, the nature of the problem itself: the relevance of the institutionalized
Jewish community to the marginal Jew.
75 Rosen p. 39. Rosen notes additionally that several years later, the validity of the 52% intermarriage rate
finding and its implications for Jewish continuity were questioned. However, in 1990, the figure was
assumed to be accurate and the institutionalized Jewish community responded to the problem accordingly.
76 Indeed, American Jews have been forecasting their own demise for almost as long as they have lived there: in
1818, Attorney General William Wirt predicted that in a hundred years, American Jews would have entirely
lost their identity, and in 1872, W.M. Rosenblatt wrote that “within 50 years” Jews would abandon
circumcision and commence intermarrying. “The grandchildren, at the latest,” Rosenblatt prophesized, “will
be undistinguishable from the mass of humanity which surrounds them” (Qtd. in Jonathan Sarna, “The
Secret of Jewish Continuity.” Commentary Magazine, Vol. 98, Issue 4 (October 1994), p. 55).
77 Ismar Schorsch, “An American Jewish Communal Necessity.” The Jerusalem Post. (December 19, 2005).
78 Egon Mayer, Love and Tradition: Marriage between Jews and Christians. (New York, N.Y.: Plenum Press,
1985).
and a host of diverse opinions concerning the validity of the 52% intermarriage statistic.
The journalist J.J. Goldberg, for one, wrote an article in The New York Times which posited
that Jewish communal leaders sought to exaggerate the number and overstate the problem in
the interest of fundraising. 79 Elliott Abrams, in his book Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in
a Christian America, countered Goldberg by arguing that the numbers would only get worse in
the future, and that only traditional religious observance was an effective way to slow, but
not cure the disease of assimilation. 80
Scholars such as Chaim Waxman have pointed to a correlation between this overall
“weakening communal connection” in American Jewry and their disintegrating connection
to Israel 81 , and so one might approach this rhetoric of impending doom by examining the
growing divide between American Jewry and Israel. In this vein, Steven Bayme proposed a
pyramid model as a means through which to approach the issue of continuity, using this
model to support his optimistic contention that although fewer Jews are connected to Israel
than in the past, levels of assimilation are so high in the American Jewish community that
those who remain possess a stronger connection. In this model, the slender peak of the
pyramid represents the few American Jews who are very close to Israel (highly affiliated
Jewish professionals and educators as well as Orthodox Jews), while the fat bottom
represents the grassroots of American Jewish society, those who still have a little bit of a
connection, but for whom it is much weaker.
Given that the American Jewish community is contracting at an alarming rate
(projections are that the self-identified population will shrink from 6 million to 3.8 million in
79 Diner p. 308
80 Ibid.
81 Waxman interview, April 21, 2005
the next 50 years) 82 , Bayme argues that the bottom of the pyramid will disappear, and those
who are left will have a stronger connection. 83 Bayme offers as an example the staff and lay
leaders of the American Jewish Committee, moderately affiliated Jews who, in the past 15
years, have increasingly placed Israel at the center of their operations, thus concluding that
the connection has become stronger. 84 Considering this supposed strengthening of the
connection, it is evident that the way in which Israel excites them – the nature of the
connection – remains uncertain as to its substance. In other words, Israel is increasingly at
the center of AJC policy, but the way in which its role is enhanced still encourages a political,
situational, and possibly superficial connection as I observed through the five dichotomies
mentioned above. 85 Even if, in this pyramid model, those who remain will be connected in a
more substantive fashion, this does not alleviate the problem of a reduced American Jewish
population. In any case, not surprisingly, there was hardly a consensus in the American
Jewish community regarding the best strategy to promote Jewish continuity.
As I have noted, in the wake of the 1990 survey, Jewish organizations sponsored
programs and commissioned additional research on the subject of intermarriage and
assimilation, but the major development was the emergence of private philanthropy as a
source for change in the existing situation. 86 In this way, the “continuity crisis” replaced
Israel as the focus of many American Jewish philanthropists, just as the organizational world
82 It would be interesting to analyze how this trend compares with other small white ethnic groups in the US.
84 Ibid. As a once and future staff member for the American Jewish Committee, I must admit that much of my
work does center around Israel, although my Jewish affiliation is unrelated. One must remember that the
world of the Jewish professional is a highly self-selecting population with respect to Jewish identity.
85 Along these lines, Chaim Waxman has proposed making a distinction between Zionist and pro-Israel
American Jews, defining the latter as “those who live in the United States and support Israel economically,
politically, and emotionally, but whose primary source of Jewish identification is derived from, and oriented
to, the American Jewish community (Waxman interview, April 21, 2005).”
86 It is interesting to note that Jewish organizational responses to the issue of intermarriage in an open society
can be divided into three approaches: first, the “it’s too late” approach, which promoted outreach to the
children of intermarried couples; second, the preventative approach, which contended that the first
approach foolishly validated the “destructive” practice of intermarriage; and third, the conversionary
approach, which the Reform movement endorsed in November 2005 at their Biannual convention.
refocused its efforts on internal, rather than external affairs, and the percentage of money
earmarked for Israel by the Federation system (now under one roof and renamed, United
Jewish Communities) declined precipitously in the past 20 years, from 55% in 1990 to 38%
in 2000. 87 In an article on the Jewish summer camp movement in Moment Magazine, Larry
Moses, President of the Wexner Foundation, one of the wealthiest of these philanthropies,
noted: “The whole Jewish philanthropic agenda is in an early stage of a very significant
transition to North American-based, identity building arenas. The community has been
Israel-focused, rescue-and-relief focused, for decades. Now North American identity is
emerging as a philanthropic focus.” 88
Leslie Wexner, founder of the Wexner Foundation, represents a growing tendency in
the past 10 years among major American Jewish philanthropists to move beyond the
federation system (including UJA, and now UJC) and either establish their own foundations
or design particular programs themselves. 89 Other examples of this newfound sense of
entitlement regarding the specific use of their donations include Charles and Edgar
Bronfman; Michael Steinhardt; and Charles and Lynn Schusterman. These “mega-
philanthropists” either brainstorm specific programs themselves (such as Steinhardt and
Charles Bronfman from the pre-existing idea of Birthright), or contribute through their
foundations, whose objectives are in line with their personal priorities.
87 Solomon p. 8. Some would argue that this statistic is misleading: Operation Promise and other emergency
projects from the UJC have supported Israel even though annual campaign percentages have dropped.
88 Helen Zelon, “Camp Comeback.” Moment Magazine, Vol. 25, No. 1 (February 2000), p. 64-72
89 The federations tried to respond with The Trust for Jewish Philanthropy, but the effort failed. One of the
few exceptions to this trend is Mark Wilf, current National Campaign chair of the UJC, who has given
substantial amounts to causes that lie within the institutional framework that other philanthropists reject.
These causes include: the Jewish Educational Center in Elizabeth, N.J.; The Anti-Defamation League;
Yeshiva University; Solomon Shechter Schools; the Jewish Community Center in Scotch Plains, N.J.; The
Center for Jewish Life at Princeton University; The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and various Israel-related
causes such as Israel bonds, Yad Vashem, and The Jewish Agency.
Expressing his dismay at this recent trend, John Ruskay, President of the United
Jewish Appeal Federation (UJA), noted, “we are swimming upstream against a kind of
philanthropic individualism.” 90 Jeffrey Solomon, formerly Senior Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer at the UJA and currently the President of Andrea and Charles Bronfman
Philanthropies, observed in 2000 that over the previous decade, Federation campaigns had
lost more than one third of their “buying power”, 91 while “donor-participatory campaigns,
those in which donors retain the ability to advise on the use of their gift, have increased in
the Federation system alone by some 186% in the same ten years.” 92 Even among
philanthropists without the resources to establish their own foundation or embark on a new
initiative alone, this eagerness to exert a certain amount of control over their contributions
had led to the creation of The Jewish Funders’ Network, a non-profit organization now
chaired by Ricky Shechtel which pools mostly five-figure donations from mid-level
philanthropists to effect large-scale change according to the donors’ recommendations. 93
In their efforts to encourage Jewish affiliation, especially among American Jewish
youth, these philanthropists have frequently focused on Israel as a means by which to
strengthen Jewish identity, and occasionally as an end in and of itself. Ironically, just as
American Jews use Arab hostility as their primary means through which to connect with
Israel, these philanthropists encourage American Jewish youth to use Israel as a means by
which to connect to being Jewish. As I will demonstrate, it is possible that the consequences
of each could be equally superficial in the end.
90 Stephanie Strom, “Big But Not Easy.” The New York Times, November 15, 2004, p. F1
91 Although some of this may have been replaced by direct contributions to local Jewish organizations and
institutions which are supported by the UJA anyway.
92 Solomon p. 7
93 “Jewish Funders Network: About Us,” Jewish Funders Network website.
<http://www.jfunders.org/about>
30
CHAPTER II:
AN OVERVIEW OF BIRTHRIGHT ISRAEL
AND THE WEXNER FELLOWSHIPS
Taglit-Birthright Israel (henceforth “Birthright”) emerged directly from the over-
intellectualization of the issue of Jewish continuity as represented by J.J. Goldberg, Elliott
Abrams, and others. In the words of journalist Gil Troy, “On a certain level, North
American Judaism is failing. Thousands of young Jews are voting with their feet, and
rejecting Judaism. Birthright Israel is a white flag, an admission of community failure. But it is
also a battle standard, a call to arms. By offering alternatives, by exposing participants to a
different style of Judaism, I believe Birthright Israel can trigger a much-needed critique and a
burst of creative Jewish energy.” 1
Not to be confused with Birthright, a Canadian pro-life organization, Birthright (lower-
case “b”) set as its central premise a concept which the Israel politician Yossi Beilin first
articulated in 1992: all Jews should have an opportunity to visit Israel as their “birthright”. 2
From this strongly Zionist premise that visiting Israel is a crucial part of being Jewish, a
group of North American Jewish philanthropists, most notably Charles Bronfman, Michael
Steinhardt, and Charles Schusterman, envisioned a program which would provide every Jew
1 Helen Zelon, “Camp Comeback.” Moment Magazine, Vol. 25, No. 1 (February 2000), p. 64-72
2 Although Birthright Israel uses a lower-case “b” in all official documents to avoid confusion with the Canadian
pro-life organization of the same name, I will capitalize the “b” to make it easier to recognize a proper,
institutional name.
Overview of Birthright Israel and the Wexner Fellowships 31
between the ages of 18 and 26 with a free 10-day trip to Israel. 3 In the words of Charles
Bronfman,
[Young adults] are free to make a choice of where they want to go and what they want to be.
But a lot of people at that age don’t know what they want to do, and they also don’t quite
know who they are, what they are and why they are. . . So, we are saying to young adults –
particularly those for whom the idea of being Jewish is at least ambivalent, if not downright
negative – that it’s decision time in your life. You have to make some fundamental decisions
and one of them is who you are. So, why don’t you come here, meet some other people and
meet your peers in Israel and find out something about how all this happened and what the
roots are. Then, you have some information. If you want to go further, you go further, and
if you don’t want to go further, you don’t go further. But, armed with some knowledge,
some sort of beginning, you’ll make a better decision. 4
Put less tactfully, Birthright’s objective was precisely that of the institutionalized American
Jewish community in the wake of the “continuity crisis”: to stem the tide of intermarriage by
stimulating Jewish identity among the unaffiliated through a connection to Israel. 5
In December of 1999, the first Birthright group traveled to Israel; since then, over
100,000 young Jews worldwide, the vast majority from America, have spent 10 days in Israel
under the auspices of Birthright (also known as Taglit, or “discovery”, in Hebrew). As the
program mandates, none have previously been to Israel on an organized trip, a requirement
which yields a largely, though not exclusively unaffiliated clientele. 6
However, this massive participation was not always assured: for some time in 2002,
many doubted that the program would survive its third year. Originally, there were three
3 As Jeffrey Solomon has noted, the two primary philanthropists involved in the creation of the Birthright
program, Michael Steinhardt and Charles Bronfman, approach the issue of Jewish continuity from slightly
different angles: whereas Steinhardt is more concerned with saving American Jewry from extinction,
Bronfman does not see American Jewry as dying, but rather changing, and thus sees himself as attempting to
guide this inevitable change in a certain direction (Personal interview. March 23, 2006 (in-person)).
Tragically, Charles Schusterman passed away in 2000, just as Birthright was sending its first groups to Israel.
4 Jenny Hazan, “Charles Bronfman – Man On A Mission.” Lifestyles Magazine, December 2003
5 Strictly speaking, as Leonard Saxe has pointed out, the goal was not to discourage intermarriage but rather to
foster Jewish identity, but for some, the two were one and the same.
6 The demographic breakdown of Birthright trips has shown that the majority of participants have some sort of
Jewish background, and identify as Reform or Conservative. However, this demographic profile closely
parallels that of members of the previous generation who were raised in similar environments but were most
likely to intermarry and fail to transmit a sense of Jewish identity to their children.
sources of funding for the program – the government of Israel, the North American Jewish
Federations, and a consortium of 11 philanthropists including the three mentioned above –
each of the three agreeing in 1999 to commit $70 million to the initiative over the course of
five years. In the end, the federations contributed less that $47 million of their promised $70
million, and the Israeli government only $35.5 million. 7 The philanthropists had no choice
but to make up the difference, and did, giving more than the required $70 million all
together. The philanthropists were understandably upset and blamed the federations for
bailing out on their pledge, but Howard Rieger, President and CEO of the UJC (United
Jewish Communities, the umbrella organization of the federation system) insists that since
the UJC was never “at the table as a full partner”, they were not expected to give as much as
they had initially promised. 8 In January 2004, Birthright’s future was most at risk when the
Israeli government, citing budget constraints, reduced its funding for that year from 10
million to a token amount. 9 The program responded by reducing its available spots for the
summer of 2004 to just 3,500, but the Avi Chai Foundation stepped in with a challenge grant
of $7 million, which was immediately matched by several of the founding philanthropists,
providing the program with $14 million in additional funds. 10
In March of 2005, at the conclusion of its 5-year trial run, the Birthright program
entered a new phase. Largely because of several positive evaluations from a research team at
Brandeis University, Birthright’s founders deemed the program a success and reorganized it
into an independent foundation to ensure its long-term stability and encourage broader
7 Rachel Pomerance, “Birthright Israel’s Summer Program Reduced due to Funding Problems.” Jewish
Telegraphic Agency, January 26, 2004
8 Howard Rieger. Personal interview. December 19, 2005 (in-person)
9 Some might contend that the violence of the Intifada, which deterred many would-be participants from going
on a Birthright trip, presented a greater problem, but the solutions to that problem are much more difficult to
remedy, so I will overlook it as a hindrance.
10 Dina Kraft, “Avi Chai Foundation to the rescue: $7 million grant could save Birthright.” Jewish Telegraphic
Agency, February 17, 2004

financial support. 11 In response, the Israeli government promised more than $10 million of
support for 2005; the federation system promised $5 million; and the Jewish Agency for
Israel promised $5 million to add to $13 million from the philanthropists. 12 Despite this
increased support, Birthright was still not able to accommodate more than half of those who
applied for the Spring/Summer 2005 trip: whereas 15,000 participants from North America
registered, there was only enough space for 6,500. 13
In addition to its sources of funding, the trip itself has evolved as well: on the first
trip in December 1999, there were just three organizations facilitating the trip; now there are
22 in North America alone. Although Birthright has established broad requirements for all
providers, a participant’s experience can vary tremendously depending on the “trip
provider”, from the primarily secular pluralism of Hillel trips to the religious Zionism of
Oranim. No matter the provider, the founders of Birthright Israel have created a program
which seeks to serve as a transformative experience, one which reaches into one’s most private
allegiances and awakens a renewed sense of Jewish peoplehood. In contrast, the Wexner
Foundation’s fellowships seek to serve as a formative experience, preparing the next
generation of Jewish leaders to publicly direct their respective Jewish communities.
Leslie Wexner founded the Wexner Foundation in 1984 to address what he saw as an
increasing fragmentation within the American Jewish community between Jewish
professionals and Jewish educators: 14 secular Jewish professionals could not effectively relate
11 Chanan Tigay, “Birthright seeks to expand funding as the demand for trips multiplies.” Jewish Telegraphic
Agency, March 31, 2005
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid. Birthright was only able to accommodate one third of those who applied for the Summer 2006 trip.
14 Although the three fellowships are technically split between the Wexner Foundation (Graduate and Israel
Fellowships) and the Wexner Heritage Foundation (Heritage Fellowship), they can be seen as one
foundation, as the administrative duties overlap and Larry Moses is the President of both.
to rabbis, cantors, and scholars without possessing a strong Jewish literacy, and visa versa. 15
To this effect, Wexner created three programs: first, the Heritage Fellowship in 1985, to
educate Jewish communal leaders in the history, thought, traditions and contemporary
challenges of the Jewish people; 16 second, the Graduate Fellowship in 1988, to “encourage
promising candidates to successfully meet the challenges of professional Jewish leadership in
the North American Jewish community” by providing a scholarship for full tuition to
graduate school in either academic studies, the rabbinate, or the cantorate; 17 and third, the
Israel Fellowship in 1989, to send ten Israeli civil servants every year to the John F. Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard University to “pursue a Masters Degree in Public
Administration and to participate in a set of leadership institutes sponsored by the
Foundation itself” so as to help improve the quality of Israel’s public sector. 18 These three
fellowships target the most highly affiliated and self-identified members of Jewish
communities, whether they be lay leaders (Heritage), future professionals (Graduate), or civil
servants (Israel). In terms of intellectual merit, leadership capabilities, and dedication to
Jewish causes, Wexner Fellows constitute the elite of the Jewish people.
Whereas the Birthright program uses Israel as a “hook” to draw in the most
unaffiliated of American Jewish youth and expose them to new Jew experiences, the Wexner
Fellowships depict Israel in conjunction with other singular elements of Jewish identity to
15 Today, as I have shown, one might say that the issues of fragmentation and crisis that inspired Leslie Wexner
to create this foundation in 1984 have been transformed: the fragmentation which used to lie within the
American Jewish community (both between Jewish communal servants and Jewish educators, and
denominationally) is now in a large sense between the American Jewish community and the Israeli Jewish
community. In 1984, the crisis was that the potential American Jewish community leadership didn’t have a
Jewish education. These days, it is that American Jewry doesn’t feel connected to Israel in a meaningful
fashion, and that because of this and other assimilationist factors, “American Jewish continuity” is in peril.
16 “Wexner Heritage Program History,” Wexner Heritage Foundation website.
<http://www.wexnerheritage.org/area/history.html>
17 “General Information and Awards: Wexner Graduate Fellows,” Wexner Foundation website.
<http://www.wexnerfoundation.org/GFA>
18 “The Wexner Israel Fellowship Program,” Wexner Foundation website.
<http://www.wexnerfoundation.org/IFA>
enhance the Jewish education and Jewish experience of the future leaders of the American
Jewish community. For both, Israel plays a crucial role, and indeed, both programs cite as a
secondary aspiration a stronger connection between American Jewry and Israel. 19 Given my
opening meditation on Israel’s role in the American Jewish consciousness, one might find
these philanthropists’ emphasis on Israel rather surprising. What, in the eyes of the
philanthropists who founded these programs, could Israel possibly contribute to the Jewish
awareness of an individual who lives in a voluntary Diaspora? Is Israel not necessarily
irrelevant to American Jews? Even the most anti-Zionist among us might dispute this final
rhetorical question, but its implications will continue to haunt this argument: how do the
creation of the state of Israel and its ensuing prosperity complicate American Jewish
identity?
In the following pages, I will examine the Wexner Fellowships and the Birthright Israel
program to determine what the strategies employed by and the results achieved by these
initiatives tell us about the future of Zionism in America and the role that Israel plays in
American Jewish identity. In essence, I will evaluate the extent to which a connection with
Israel should define American Jewish identity, given that the common goal of these initiatives
is the continued and sustained survival of the Jewish people.
I will show that this examination seems to point to several conclusions of varying
contentiousness. Inasmuch as Birthright uses Israel itself to construct a sense of Jewish
peoplehood in those participants for whom this does not already exist, the endeavor might
not entirely achieve its objectives. 20 However, upon further investigation, I will show that in
19 Elli Wohlgelernter, “Specializing in Jewish Philanthropy.” The Jerusalem Post, June 11, 1999, reproduced on
Wexner Foundation website. <http://www.wexnerheritage.org/asp/articles.asp?x=m&op1=10>
20 One might argue that Birthright may also benefit the Israeli tourism industry, and posses other intrinsic value,
but for the purposes of this paper, I will look only at its primary objectives, those of strengthening Jewish
peoplehood in its participants and their connection to Israel.
most cases Israel itself has little to do with the increased affiliation that does indeed result
from Birthright. As Leonard Saxe and his collaborators at Brandeis University have shown,
the Birthright experience does create the substantive results that its founders seek. 21
However, when Israel is viewed in conjunction with more easily replicable aspects of Jewish
identity, more substantive results tend to emerge. As I will show, whether or not this is the
case is very much a function of the trip provider.
The Wexner Fellows, who already possess a strong sense of Jewish peoplehood, are
presented a nuanced conception of Israel. That is, rather than stressing Israel itself as a
gateway to identity, Israel is depicted exclusively with respect of other aspects of Jewish
identity, from social justice to spirituality, thus enabling something geographically far
removed from one’s life to be readily accessable. Even though their target audience is
radically different, Birthright might be best served by adopting the Wexner Fellowship
program’s contextual representation of Israel. This would solve the biggest problem which
has emerged thus far with the Birthright program: that of followup.
An inherently difficult and even paradoxical task, Birthright has struggled from the
beginning with the problem of how to replicate back home that which is specific to Israel,
while rationalizing the necessity of sending the participants there in the first place. If, taking
a page from the Wexner Fellowships’ book, the Israel that Birthright participants are shown
contains aspects of Jewish peoplehood that can also be found back in America, then the
problem of followup is somewhat ameliorated. These aspects may range from the
21 Incidentally, these studies represent the only scholarly work that has been conducted on Birthright since its
inception. As an undergraduate, I am not in a position to conduct a statistically significant number of
interviews or purport to make sense of the raw data myself. Additionally, much information regarding the
Wexner Fellowships is understandably confidential in nature. Consequently, in many places, this paper will
subtly gloss over the “hard evidence” needed to prove a point in favor “softer”, or more philosophical
evidence. I am confident that the “hard evidence” would substantiate my claims, but, alas, that falls beyond
the scope of this paper. Despite, or perhaps because of the notable absence of primary and secondary
sources, the aforementioned claims are not uncontroversial.
transcendence of Shabbat services to the comradery of friends with a shared experience, but
all of them represent gateways to Jewish identity that are readily transferable from Israel to
the college campus. If participants return home with something from Israel that they can
continue to grasp on to, it is comparatively easy to design followup programming which,
unlike the current stress on Israel advocacy, reaffirms the tangible changes that the trip
precipitated. Birthright alumni might still wrestle with their Jewish identity, and many will
reject it in the end, but at least, when viewed contextually, Israel will represent a corporeal
adversary that does not vanish mid-match.
In their seminars and institutes, the Wexner Foundation generally does present Israel
to its fellows in a similarly tasteful and nuanced fashion, but, overall, Israel is underutilized
by the Wexner Fellowship as a tool to reflect other aspects of the Jewish experience.
Ironically, the Wexner Fellowships de-emphasize establishing a connection to Israel despite
the fact that it might enhance the fellows’ commitment, whereas Birthright followup
emphasizes it extraordinarily, sometimes at the expense of other elements of Jewish identity
which might also have been kindled on the trip. Each program might be better served by
refining its portrayal of Israel to better emulate the other: the Birthright program should
present Israel in an exclusively contextual light, emphasizing its indistinguishable place in the
spectrum of Jewish peoplehood, while the Wexner Fellowships should better highlight
Israel’s cruciality as a singular, interdependent aspect of Jewish leadership.
In essence, these recommendations blur the line between what has until now been
considered two completely unrelated pursuits: reaching out to the unaffiliated and cultivating
the highly affiliated. Thus, one is forced to call into question and seriously rethink the very
nature of Jewish engagement and empowerment: in light of my implied conclusion that these
two endeavors would be most effective if more indistinguishable; we must ask if the
overlapping complexity of Jewish identity means that identical strategies might be used to
achieve drastically different objectives along the entire spectrum of affiliation.
These findings point to a new approach to the problem of Jewish continuity in
America: an approach which moves beyond the singular “hook” of Israel as a means of
attracting the disinterested. By virtue of American Jewry’s historically significant place in a
voluntary Diaspora and the nature of Jewish identity in contomporary American society, a
connection to one’s Jewish peoplehood that revolves around Israel will be inherently
superficial and temporary, while a connection which draws from a diverse set of inspirations,
interconnecting them in a web of affiliation, will better ensure the Jewish prosperity that
these philanthropists crave. Efforts to enhance Jewish peoplehood that do not recognize the
nuanced and complex nature of Jewish identity and Jewish community are doomed to fail;
only those efforts which simultaneously embrace many, if not all aspects of Jewish
peoplehood at once will achieve the substantive results that they seek. 22
22 Although this paper will concentrate on the younger generation, those who have been the primary focus of
the pro-continuity efforts, it could also be extended to include engagement efforts in any age group.
39
CHAPTER III:
AN ANALYSIS OF HOW THE WEXNER FELLOWSHIPS
USE ISRAEL TO FURTHER THEIR OBJECTIVES
By examining the curricula, itineraries, and facilitators selected for use in the Wexner
Fellowships’ conferences and seminars, I will examine precisely how Israel as a land, a
people, and an aspiration is presented in each program. Unlike in the Birthright program, the
goal of the Wexner Fellowships is not to establish a Jewish identity from scratch, but rather
to attain a more nuanced conception of Jewish peoplehood, a more elaborate Jewish
education, and “a highly integrated sense of Jewish identity is not that compartmentalized.” 1
In addition to the related secondary goal of bridging the gap between Israel and American
Jewry, Israel’s primary function in these programs is to enhance the Jewish experience of the
fellow as presented in conjunction with other elements of his Jewish identity.
***
THE GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP
At the heart of the Wexner Fellowships lie the seminars and conferences that bring all the
fellows together. Although the large checks which support the graduate fellows ($20,000 per
year) and the prestige of the Heritage Fellowship might be more important to some
participants, the fellowships’ real mission – to bring together Jews from diverse backgrounds
1 Larry Moses. Personal interview. December 23, 2005 (in-person)

How the Wexner Fellowships use Israel to Further their Objectives 40
so that they may learn together and attain “a collaborative view of Jewish organizational
life” 2 – is accomplished through these programs. Graduate Fellows must attend two annual
“institutes”, one in late summer and one in January, each with a selected theme. At these
institutes, fellows have the opportunity to interact with noted scholars of Judaic Studies,
Jewish communal leaders, and, most importantly, each other. At the 2003 Summer Institute,
the theme was Israel, which was chosen, says Wexner Foundation President Larry Moses,
who oversees all three programs, not to bolster the Jewish identity of the fellows, but rather
“to start debates and highlight differences that participants can overcome.” 3
As expected, the theme of Israel played a crucial role in many of the group sessions
at the 2003 Summer Institute, including “Decision-Making in the IDF” with Michael
Bergman; “Contemporary Israeli Literature” with Andrea Siegal; “Understanding Israel’s
Paradoxes” with Yossi Klein Halevi; “Israeli Fiction and the Holocaust” with Professor
Deborah Lipstadt; “Israeli Society through Film” with Amy Kornish; and a session on
comparative historical narratives with Professor Benny Morris and Dr. Khaleel Mohammed.
In addition to these mandatory special events led by visiting experts, Wexner “faculty
members”, the aforementioned academics and communal leaders who regularly staff the
fellowships’ institutes and seminars, led electives on the following subjects: “Beyond Checks:
How Can American Jews Build a Meaningful Relationship with Israel?” with Rabbi David
Gordis; “Israel and the US: Imagining a New Relationship” with Professor Arnold Eisen;
and “Pre-Zionist and Zionist Imageries of the Jewish Past” with Professor Robert Chazan.
As one can see, Israel is presented in many lights but never alone. Whether coupled
with literature, political activism, or history, Israel is never depicted as something that should
be loved simply because of its place in Judaism, or because of what it represents by itself.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
Rather, it is only in conjunction with many of the varied elements of Jewish identity – a love
for film or literature, for example – that the fellows may grasp on to Israel as a means of
expressing their Jewishness and furthering their Jewish education.
In relation to this theme, the Wexner Foundation surveyed the Graduate Fellows
before the Summer 2003 institute to determine their feelings toward Israel. The results, the
only quantitative evaluation of Israel as a component of the Jewish identity of Wexner
Fellows, are much as one would expect: the Graduate Fellows are quite young (83% are 30
or younger, with a mean age of 28), and, as compared to the rest of the American Jewish
community, are atypically familiar with Israel (98% have visited at least once, and 50% have
spent at least 18 months there). 4 A high percentage indicated a deep investment in Israel
either by locating Israel as central to their identities (85%) or by defining duty to Israel as
central component of their professional concerns (69%). 5 68% responded in the affirmative
when asked if there is a tension in being a Jew and living the Diaspora, but, strangely, when
asked if all Jews should live in Israel, 58% said “definitely no”. 83% identified themselves as
a Zionist. With a response rate of 76% (54 out of 71 Graduate Fellows in the class of 2004),
one may assume that these results are reasonably representative. 6
Graduate Fellows seem to care deeply about Israel, yet also feel strongly about the
importance of the Diaspora. Their connection to Israel, while present, appears rather
paradoxical due to its complexity. As Larry Moses commented with regard to this survey of
Graduate Fellows: “the Israel aspect is critical and integrated into the Graduate Fellows’
4 Allen Selis, Wexner Graduate Fellowship Program Summer Institute 2003: Pre-Institute Materials: Part II:
Pre-Institute Survey Results. Report for the Wexner Foundation. (Columbus, Ohio: The Wexner
Foundation, August 1, 2003), p. 2
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid. p. 4
identity.” 7 One might find it odd that a majority recognize the tension inherent in living in a
voluntary Diaspora, yet a necessarily overlapping majority also think that Jews should remain
in the Diaspora. From this, I will conclude that by virtue of their projected life-long
commitment to working as Jewish professionals, the place of Israel in their individual
conceptions of Jewish peoplehood is so intertwined with other aspects of their Jewish
identity that it cannot be separated in any way.
Therefore, in this admittedly small sample of committed Jews, Israel is so wrapped
up with other aspects of their identity that the results appear contradictory, a conclusion
which will be very significant in my analysis of the Birthright program. This does not
necessarily mean that this sort of identity holds true for all highly affiliated Jews, but one can
witness a three-way correlation among committed Jews, a nuanced connection to Israel, and
programming that reflects the complex nature of this connection. Given the results of the
Wexner survey, one can see that the Israel-related programming at the summer institute is
indeed appropriate in its nuanced, externally associated depiction of Israel. Unfortunately,
no similar surveys have been released regarding the Heritage Fellowship, so one can only
speculate that the responses of Heritage Fellows would be similar.
Adhering to both the Wexner Foundation’s primary objective of providing an
interdenominational education representing the range of Jewish beliefs and practices, and its
secondary objective of strengthening the bond between American Jewry and Israel, Larry
Moses has recently made it a priority to link the three programs. 8 For example, in
November 2003, the Wexner Foundation hosted a gathering for alumni from all three
7 Moses interview, December 23, 2005

8 Larry Moses. Personal interview. April 22, 2005 (phone)
programs in Jerusalem. 9 Although Leslie Wexner obviously cares quite deeply about the
future of both the American Jewish community and of the Israeli Jewish community, he acts
upon this feelings separately. Given the retreating affection exhibited by American Jewry
towards Israel as detailed in Chapter 1, there could be room for Wexner to connect these
two loves through his philanthropic endeavors, and, considering the critical disparity
between American and Israeli Jewry, initiatives to this end might provide a helpful priority
for the Wexner Foundation. Moreover, if these three programs are better linked, thus
exposing the fellows to a wider range of views concerning Israel, then the fellows might hold
a more nuanced conception of Israel. In the end, this approach would give fellows from all
three programs a better Jewish education.
Several arguments against the wisdom of linking Graduate Fellowship recipients with
those from the other two fellowship programs can be made. First, one must realize that this
fellowship is exceptionally selective, so that its recipients are not only outstanding
academically, but also unusual in regard to their dedication to Jewish causes. Given the
mandatory stipulation that the recipient must work in the broadly defined Jewish world
(including Jewish communal service, Jewish academia, the rabbinate, and the cantorate) upon
graduation, one would correctly presume that Graduate Fellows constitute the best and the
brightest of the future leaders of the American Jewish community. Framing this in the
context of Steven Bayme’s pyramid model, Graduate Fellows would sit at the apex of the
pyramid, and so theoretically would already be strongly connected to Israel. The second
argument against bringing the graduate program together with the other two is the
proposition that due to the age difference between Graduate Fellows on the one hand and
Heritage and Israel Fellows, relations might not be collegial. While the Graduate Fellowship
9 “The Leader, The Newsletter of the Wexner Heritage Foundation, Winter 2004, Vol. 5, No. 1,” Wexner
Heritage Foundation website. <http://www.wexnerheritage.org/pdf/Winter2004.pdf>
is aimed at (and received by) predominantly recent college graduates (see statistics above),
the Heritage and Israel Fellowships are intended as mid-career programs.
These points, while valid, can be dismissed when one considers the vast benefits of
further interaction between these two groups. In addition, one might consider the inherent
value of face-to-face conversation between peers who hold identical passions no matter the
age difference. Regarding the pyramid counter-argument, Larry Moses has admitted that
“some of the most committed, involved leaders of the North American Jewish community
are completely uninvolved with Israel.” 10 One important step in this direction would be to
actively promote post-fellowship aliyah for Graduate Fellows rather than discouraging it for
fear that North American Jewry will “lose” their talents to Israel. Although this concern is
genuine and admirable, in this context, it drastically limits the potential for Graduate Fellow
interaction with Israelis, a face-to-face scenario which would almost certainly strengthen
their connection to Israel.
***
THE HERITAGE FELLOWSHIP
The Heritage Fellowship is similarly centered around seminars and institutes; in fact, unlike
the Graduate Fellows and the Israel Fellows, who are full-time students, Heritage Fellows
have no other component to their fellowship as they are lay leaders with other obligations.
The two-year Heritage program consists of 18 seminars per year held in the local
community, and three out-of-town Summer Institutes held in resort conference centers and
hotels in venues such as Aspen, Lake Tahoe, and Jerusalem. According to the Heritage
Program’s website, the curriculum is divided into four subject areas:
10 Moses interview, April 22, 2005

1) Yesodot (Jewish Fundamentals): Encountering the basic philosophies and

traditions underlying an active and committed Jewish life.
2) The History of the Jewish People: Exploring the story of our people
from Creation to the present.
3) The Thought of the Jewish People: Studying the major texts and ideas
that have shaped our people from our inception as a nation.
4) Contemporary Issues: Confronting the difficult and complex challenges

facing Judaism, the Jewish people and Israel.
Put more succinctly by Richard Joel, former President and International Director of Hillel:
The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life and current President of Yeshiva University (as
well as a member of the Wexner Heritage faculty), the Wexner Heritage Fellowship is “an
all-expenses paid magical mystery tour of Jewish knowledge.” 11 As opposed to the Graduate
Fellows, with their passionate “calling” to pursue a life as a Jewish professional, the Heritage
Fellows are active in the Jewish community as lay leaders and so they must “shift gears”
constantly from i-banking to advocacy, which, according to Joel, yields a Jewish identity
which can be described as “neat and compartmentalized.” 12
In addition to instruction in Jewish history, theology, and culture, all Heritage
Fellows take part in an eight-day trip to Israel. Because of this trip, as well as the similar
average age of the participants, Heritage Fellows and Israel Fellows appear to be obvious
candidates for inter-fellowship and inter-continental connections. In contrast, Graduate
Fellows tend to be recent college graduates for whom involvement in the Jewish community
11 Richard Joel, “Revitalizing Hillel,” in American Jewry’s Challenge: Conversations Confronting the Twenty-
first Century, Manfred Gerstenfeld, editor. (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Press, 2005), p. 259
is less of a career path and more of a spiritual, visceral “calling,” in the words of Larry
Moses. 13
Despite this potential, aside from the November 2003 Jerusalem meeting of fellows
from all three programs, to my knowledge, no efforts have been made by the Wexner
Foundation to connect Heritage and Israel Fellows. Of course, the potential integration of
the Heritage and Israel Fellowship programs is contingent upon the presence of both groups
(at different times with respect to their fellowships) in both Israel and the United States. If,
following the recommendations of Julian Wolpert, a consultant to the Wexner Foundation
as well as a member of its board, Israel Fellows were to remain in Israel, then although more
could participate and interact with Heritage Fellows during their trip to Israel, any interaction
in America – with either Heritage Fellows or any other members of the American Jewish
community – would be eliminated.
***
THE ISRAEL FELLOWSHIP
Given that the Israel Fellowship program has a very different agenda – namely,
strengthening individuals to better lead the Israeli government rather than strengthening the
community as a whole – it places more emphasis on personal growth than on communal
interaction. Also, it places understandably little emphasis upon enhancing the fellows’
connection to Israel as they are all Israeli. During the course of their academic year spent at
Harvard, Israel Fellows are required to attend several supplementary leadership institutes and
seminars designed to provide them with “in-depth training on the cultural, political,

organizational, and religious realities of North American Jewish community life.” 14
According to the Wexner Foundation website, “this training provides a platform for creating
more significant and productive relationships between Israeli leaders and their North
American Jewish community counterparts. The spring institutes revolve around the
dynamics of American democracy and culminate with a week of on-site meetings in
Washington, D.C., giving Israel Fellows an insider’s view of the American political
system.” 15
Like the Graduate Fellows, Israel Fellows theoretically constitute the best and the
brightest, the only difference being that they are plucked from the ranks of Israeli civil
service, and chosen in part according to their potential to rise to prominent positions in the
Israeli government. Julian Wolpert argues in favor of keeping the program in Israel and
training the fellows on site rather than sending them to Harvard. 16 The fiscal logic is sound:
spending $1 million every year for only 10 fellows is not an effective use of resources – many
more fellows could benefit from the program if it were shifted to Israel.
In addition, Wolpert identifies three other problems with the current location of the
program: 1) bad applicants (the fellowship is not attracting the very best because the most
ambitious Israeli civil servants won’t leave their post for a year for fear that it may not still be
there when they return); 2) lack of respect for the Kennedy school by Israelis (they think that
it is a nice vacation to learn theoretical principles, but that these principles don’t really apply
to Israel); and 3) the fact that the some applicants don’t speak English well enough to
warrant sending them to America and succeeding at a high level at Harvard. 17 Despite these
14 “The Wexner Israel Fellowship Program,” Wexner Foundation website.

15 Ibid.
16 Julian Wolpert. Personal interview. April 15, 2005 (in-person)
17 Ibid.
sound observations, Leslie Wexner’s strong ties to Harvard – he is a member of the
Kennedy School visiting committee, a formal oversight body, and also provided the seed
funds for the Center for Public Leadership there – along with the strong support of program
alumni, who lobby to keep the program going so that it will make them look better, make
such a large scale change unlikely. In response to this reality, Wolpert has proposed a slight
concession: in order to make the experience more practically applicable, the foundation
might also arrange for some fellows to complete an internship at a U.S. government
organization – preferably the counterpart of their organization in Israel – so that they can 1)
network and make connections; 2) apply what they have learned in a more appropriate
context; and 3) convince fellow Israelis of the usefulness of the program. 18
From a perspective of strengthening American-Israeli relations, the Israel Fellowship
is an untapped resource. Given that face-to-face interaction is an excellent method of
facilitating dialogue between two groups, why not take advantage of (or salvage, for Wolpert)
the presence of ten additional Israelis in America by integrating them into the Boston Jewish
community? In 1991, the first year of the Wexner Israel Fellowship and also the height of
the Gulf War, the American Jewish Committee’s Boston office was asked to help do
precisely this, and although it achieved “positive results” at the time, the project has
continued only intermittently since then. 19 Although I support Wexner’s decision to keep
the Israel Fellowship at Harvard, Wolpert’s proposed internship initiative appears promising
as well. It would provide the Wexner Foundation with additional opportunities to connect
the Israel Fellows to the American Jewish community, both in Boston and elsewhere. By
18 Ibid.
19 Steven Bayme. Personal interview. May 7, 2005 (in-person). A noteworthy model might be the Spirit of Israel
Campaign, an initiative of the UJA Federation which began in 1997. This campaign hires Israelis living in
New York City to host fundraising events on the behalf of the UJA to benefit “distressed populations in
Israel” such as victims of abuse and the elderly. Although its objectives are not quite as noble, the Spirit of
Israel Campaign has the indirect effect of strengthening the bond between Israel and the US through
personal interaction.
maximizing the personal interaction between the Israel Fellows and the American Jewish
community, the bond between the two will necessarily become more substantive, and each
side’s view of each other will become more realistic.
***
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE WEXNER FOUNDATION
When asked how he might measure the success of the three fellowship programs, Larry
Moses points to three primary indicators: first, the “extent to which alumni are consistently
interactive in their work,” nourishing each other through the connections that they have
established at the institutes and seminars; second, the “extent to which alumni view Jewish
learning as a life-long proposition”; and third, “their impact on their communities to rebuild
the fabric of Jewish peoplehood.” 20
In order to fully understand these indicators, one must also acknowledge Moses’
perspective on Israel/Diaspora relations as a whole: in the context of his affinity for
strengthening the bond between Israel and American Jewry, Moses is a firm supporter of the
Diasporic doctrine of bi-centralism, the belief that the United States and Israel today
constitute the two equal centers of world Jewry. Although Moses believes that there is a
“fundamental dichotomy” between the two, he continues: “I think about this as a different
paradigm: there are two centers of Jewish life in the world today, Israel and North America.
Two viable, strong, critical centers for Jewish life.” 21 This stance, which runs contrary to the
classical Zionist view of Israel as the lone center of world Jewry, does, however, leave room
in some manifestations for a substantial partnership between the two. Moses recently

affirmed: “this partnership is critical. Neither [center] can exist without the other, and each
must help the other to thrive.” 22
Some have described bi-centralism as narcissistic – Steven Bayme for one wrote that
it “meets the aspirations of American Jews who crave credibility” 23 – but this perspective
does not preclude its potential role helping strengthen the connection between these two
centers. In fact, given Larry Moses’ articulated goals for the future, bi-centralism could
conceivably fit in quite nicely with the Wexner Foundation’s future efforts to bridge the gap
between these two centers. These efforts might include such diverse elements as increased
flexibility for Graduate Fellow travel to Israel; better integration of Israel Fellows into
Boston Jewish life; and additional “summit meetings” between current fellows and alumni of
all three programs, such as the November 2003 meeting in Jerusalem. 24 These changes, in
addition to strengthening the bond between American Jewry and Israel, would add an extra
dimension to the fellows’ Jewish education by presenting Israel in yet another contextual
framework, thereby enhancing their ability to interact with each other and view Jewish
learning as a relevant, persistent enterprise, two of Moses’s three indicators.
22 Ibid.
51
CHAPTER IV:
AN ANALYSIS OF HOW BIRTHRIGHT ISRAEL
USES ISRAEL TO FURTHER ITS OBJECTIVES
Just as the curricula of the institutes and seminars of the Wexner Fellowships shed
new light upon their depiction of Israel as an element of American Jewish identity, so do the
itineraries and provider profiles of the Birthright Israel program. Although Birthright’s primary
objective – to use Israel as a “hook” to “reel in” the unaffiliated masses of American Jewish
youth 1 – differs dramatically from that of the Wexner Fellowships, their secondary objective
– to strengthen the connection between American Jewry and Israel – is identical. According
to their website, “Taglit-Birthright Israel’s founders created this program to send thousands of
young Jewish adults from all over the world to Israel as a gift in order to diminish the
growing division between Israel and Jewish communities around the world; to strengthen the
sense of solidarity among world Jewry; and to strengthen participants’ personal Jewish
identity and connection to the Jewish people.” 2
In this chapter, I will examine to what extent Birthright achieves these objectives, and,
more importantly, what this examination tells us about the nature of Israel in American
Jewish identity. In addition to observing the variation in provider philosophies and
1 In fact, according to the Brandeis reports, 32% were raised in what they described as a Conservative
household, 23%, were raised in a Reform household, 10% Orthodox, and 23% Just Jewish. These ratios are
consistent with the overall trend towards unaffiliation which was first identified in the 1990 NJPS.
2 “Taglit-birthright Israel: About Us Main Page,” Taglit-birthright Israel website.
<http://www.birthrightisrael.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=Zone&
enZone=AboutUs>
How Birthright Israel uses Israel to Further its Objectives 52
itineraries, I will grapple with the difficulties of Birthright follow-up, and engage in dialogue
both with defenders of the program – namely a team of researchers from Brandeis
University who have compiled several reports on the program – as well as with opponents of
the program, who claim that only Jewish education, primarily through synagogues and day
schools, can reverse American Jewry’s “dangerous” trend towards assimilation.
When Birthright was first announced in 1999, much of the institutionalized Jewish
community was highly skeptical that a 10-day trip could serve as a “galvanizing, life-changing
experience.” 3 In the words of Isi Leibler, then Chairman of the Board of the World Jewish
Congress, “Providing vast sums of money to youngsters, including many from affluent
homes, for 10-day junkets without requiring any form of commitment is demeaning to
Israel. . . It is inconceivable that a 10-day trip can be the jump-off point for creating newly
committed Jews.” 4 Bruce Ramer, then President of the American Jewish Committee, recalls
how at first he considered Birthright “a waste of time, money and effort”, but gradually began
to realize that as long as Birthright “shows Israel’s warts as well as its smooth skin. . . there is
an impact.” 5 Another converted skeptic, Professor Jonathan Sarna, has posited many
explanations for Birthright’s surprising success, from the short attention span of the younger
generation to a kind of “great awakening” or revival of Zionism in America. 6
Of course, not all skeptics have been converted: some still contend that it is too early
to tell whether or not Birthright in fact encourages substantive, long-lasting Jewish
connections among its participants as its founders claim. Even Birthright’s most enthusiastic
advocates admit that given the absence of a truly longitudinal perspective on Birthright, no
3 Howard Rieger. Personal interview. December 19, 2005 (in-person). In fact, until the Brandeis reports’
positive findings were authenticated with several years’ longitudinal perspective, many remained skeptical of
Birthright’s merits.
4 Allan C. Brownfeld, “Birthright Program to Tie Young American Jews To Israel Is a Dead End in the Quest
for Continuity.” The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Vol. 19, No. 5 (June 2000), p. 67-69
5 Bruce Ramer. Personal interview. August 23, 2005 (in-person)
6 Jonathan Sarna. Personal interview. December 26, 2005 (in-person)
one can definitively say what the long-term results will be, especially when alumni encounter
the joyous obstacles of marriage and children, Judaism’s ultimate determinants of
assimilation. Thus, I will examine the demonstrable success of Birthright within the
constraints of the present day, remaining cognizant of the fact that at this point, no
evaluation of Birthright can be truly conclusive. 7
***
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LOCATION: WHAT IS ISRAEL’S ROLE IN BIRTHRIGHT?
Assuming for the moment that the Brandeis reports are correct and Birthright does in fact
encourage substantive, long-lasting Jewish connections among its participants, one might still
question how much these increased affiliations have to do with Israel. John Ruskay,
President of the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), conceives of Birthright as one giant Jewish
educational program which offers Jewish experiences, such as a traditional Shabbat or
extended interactions with Jews from different backgrounds, which might not be otherwise
available for its participants, many of whom do not attend schools with any Jewish
community to speak of. For Ruskay, these experiences constitute the galvanizing factor in
and of themselves, meaning that Birthright’s setting in Israel is a mere coincidence. 8
7 In his most recent report on the Birthright program, Leonard Saxe disputes this claim, arguing that three years
provides sufficient historical perspective to determine conclusively the ultimate effect that Birthright will have
on participants’ identity: “The present analyses strongly support the idea that the program is changing
attitudes and influencing behavior. The true impact of the program may not be evident until participants are
older and have made decisions about marriage and having children. Nonetheless, the results of the
evaluation make a strong case that large numbers of young adults who may otherwise have been indifferent
toward their Jewish heritage have instead taken a new direction. For many, participation on a Birthright Israel
trip appears to have been a catalyst for shaping and strengthening Jewish identity (Leonard Saxe, et. al.,
Evaluating Birthright Israel: Long-Term Impact and Recent Findings. Report by the Maurice and Marilyn
Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University. (Waltham, Massachusetts: Brandeis
University, November 2004). <http://www.cmjs.org/files/evaluatingbri.04.pdf>, p. 10).”
8 John Ruskay. Personal interview. October 14, 2005 (in-person)
In this way, one might look at Jewish summer camps as an imperfect control group:
they constitute a similar experience which allows us to separate the variable role of Israel
from the common role of other participants and activities. This parallel becomes more
appropriate when one considers the recent work done by the very same researchers at
Brandeis which documents the enormously powerful effect that attending a Jewish summer
camp can have on a child’s Jewish identity. 9 Like the Birthright program, the summer camp
experience combines the exotic and altogether sexual nature of a foreign experience 10 with a
wide range of Jewish-oriented programs that define the content of the experience. Aside
from their common appropriation of many elements of Jewish identity, including spirituality
and comradery, the Birthright program and Jewish summer camps share one other important
aspect: isolation. Both transport their participants to a different place, and, in the process,
create a “cultural island”, or “a bubble” in which participants can immerse themselves in
Jewishness. 11
Despite the programmatic similarities, this analogy can only be taken so far: children
in summer camps oftentimes do not actively choose to attend them, whereas Birthright
participants, who range from 18 to 26 years old, presumably attend willingly. Additionally,
one must also consider the inherently formative nature of childhood experiences which
necessarily diminishes by the age of 18, as well as the fact that summer camps range from
one to three months, while Birthright encapsulates the experience in ten days. Finally, as
9 Amy L. Sales & Leonard Saxe, How Goodly Are Thy Tents. Report by the Maurice and Marilyn Cohen
Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University. (Waltham, Massachusetts: Brandeis University,
December 2003). <http://www.cmjs.org/index.cfm?page=229&IDResearch=97>
10 With a series of night-club parties in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem included in the standard itinerary for most non-
Orthodox providers (including all Hillel trips), it is obvious that an inebriated, sexually-charged atmosphere
is seen by the majority of providers as a positive addition to the Birthright experience. In fact, Michael
Steinhardt has pledged that any couple who met on Birthright has permission to use his personal residence in
the Caribbean for their honeymoon should they get married. The aspect of sexual exploration inherent in
the summer camp experience is taken for granted.
11 Leonard Saxe. Personal interview. December 26, 2005 (in-person)
Richard Joel has pointed out, it is impossible recapture the magic of one’s childhood
summer camp as one ages, whereas returning to Israel is one of the main aims of Birthright,
and one of the main sources for solidifying the identity potentially unveiled during the trip. 12
Let us take as an example a “non-affiliated” Birthright participant who has his first
spiritual Shabbat experience on Birthright, which subsequently spurs him to become more
involved in Jewish life on his campus. This experience achieves the results that Birthright’s
founders anticipate and treasure – increasing the participant’s Jewish awareness and
identification – yet this experience could have happened anywhere. The same sort of
trajectory could occur for a participant who hails from a town or a college without a
significant Jewish community. Just being on the same bus as forty other Jews his age, let
alone attending the “Mega-event”, the big final concert/party at the end of the Birthright trip
which combines 10-20 groups of 40 participants each, could be enough to enhance this
participant’s Jewish affiliation. The realization that being Jewish is something that he shares
with so many of his peers, and the tribal comradery that results, could stimulate his Jewish
identity by itself regardless of Israel. In this sense, being in Israel reaffirms aspects of this
participant’s identity that might not otherwise come to light, but Israel itself may not be the
direct cause. Of course, even considering my “control group” it is impossible to separate
exactly how much is the setting (Israel itself), how much are the new opportunities, and how
much is due to being away from home, but John Ruskay’s point regarding the marginal role
of Israel in the Birthright experience is certainly well-founded.
The question thus arises: if these excellent results have little to do with Israel, then
why not replicate them, for instance, in rural Idaho at a much lower cost? Idaho might not
have the allure of Israel, but it could provide similar experiences of spirituality and

comradery, and at considerably less expense to the funders. In the words of Richard Joel,
“Birthright is successful because it is a profound Jewish journey. . . Birthright was not about
Israel. If there was a Jewish Disneyland in Idaho, they’d go there instead.” 13 How much of
this stimulation of identity is due to the new experience, how much is the exotic foreign
setting, and how much is specifically Israel? If it is a combination of all three, the most
logical conclusion, then how much of the experience and subsequent increased affiliation
would be sacrificed if Birthright were moved elsewhere? Would it be worth the drastically
reduced cost? This prospect is complicated when one considers what precisely Joel means
by a “Jewish Disneyland”. Even if Israel itself is not necessarily the vehicle through which
some participants connect to their Jewish heritage, might it play a contextual role instead in
establishing the framework for a spiritual awakening, as in my first example, and be just as
relevant to the participant’s experience?
Avraham Infeld, Richard Joel’s successor as President and International Director of
Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, also downplays the role that Israel might
play in achieving Birthright’s objectives, declaring: “Birthright doesn’t want to make Israel
central to Jewish identity; Israel is a tool for renewing that journey. . . if we could do it
anywhere else, we would.” 14 Infeld sees Birthright instead as an alternative to the focus that
the American Jewish educational system places on Judaism as a religion, and as a program
which “widens [participants’] understanding of what it means to be Jewish” by making
Jewish peoplehood its central component instead of religion or Israel. 15
***
13 Ibid.
14 Avraham Infeld. Personal interview. February 2, 2006 (in-person)
15 Ibid.
A CRITICAL EXPLORATION OF THE BRANDEIS REPORTS
Were it not for the extensive series of reports on the Birthright program written by Professor
Leonard Saxe and his team of researchers from the Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for
Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University, Avraham Infeld would have no grounds for
declaring that Birthright has any effect whatsoever. Ever since Birthright’s inception in 1999,
Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies and the Steinhardt Foundation/Jewish Life
Network, among other contributors, have commissioned these systematic evaluations of the
program on a roughly annual basis in order to assess its impact on the “engagement and
identity” of participants, and, more broadly, to determine if their money is well-spent. 16
Without a doubt, the reports have told Bronfman, Steinhardt, and friends exactly
what they hope to hear: that the enhanced identity resulting from the trip is indeed
sustainable, and, most importantly to them, that the trip has “positive” effects on the
continuity of the Jewish people. Saxe writes in the most recent report released in November
2004: “Results of the present long-term follow-up study indicate that, in fact, the program’s
effects persist over time. Consistently, the most significant changes observed shortly after
the trip are still found several years later. . . Perhaps the most pronounced effect of the trip is
that it evokes greater feelings of connection to Israel and the Jewish people. . . From the
perspective of Jewish continuity, the trip increases participants’ interest in dating only Jews
and raising Jewish children.” 17
16 Leonard Saxe, et. al., Evaluating Birthright Israel: Long-Term Impact and Recent Findings. Report by the
Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University. (Waltham,
Massachusetts: Brandeis University, November 2004). <http://www.cmjs.org/files/evaluatingbri.04.pdf>,
p. 5; p. 9
17 Ibid. p. 5
Before Birthright, 35% of participants and 39% of non-participating applicants said
they felt very connected to Israel. Several months after the trip, 60% of participants said
they felt very connected to Israel. Two to four years after their trip, more than half of the
participants said they still felt very connected to the Jewish state, and almost all participants
evaluated the trip positively. Additionally, 85% of Birthright alumni said that being Jewish
was very important to them, the same percentage reported by alumni of other Israel
programs, who are typically Jewishly-identified to begin with. 18
To begin, the reports identify applicants who were interested in the trip but were
unable to attend as a pseudo-control group (my terminology). Of course, no perfect control
group for Birthright participants exists, a fact which casts a minor shadow over all of the
report’s findings, but this group of “non-participating applicants” serves as an acceptable
substitute if one considers the other factors which might have convinced members of this
group not to go on the trip. These factors may be insignificant in some cases – a family
emergency, for instance – but could also hint at a predisposition not to go on the trip
(maybe backing out due to an emergency was an excuse), and perhaps a lower initial level of
dedication to this Jewish activity. In other words, even if surveys show similar initial levels
of affiliation and Jewish identity among those participated in the trip and those who applied
but either were rejected for lack of space or declined the invitation, one might also consider
other factors which distinguish these two groups and complicate Saxe’s findings. 19
18 Pomerance, Rachel. “After five years, Birthright shows success in building Jewish identity.” Jewish Telegraphic
Agency, December 21, 2004
19 On page 9 of the November 2004 report, Saxe identifies two other problems inherent with conducting long-
term research with this “control group”: first, that response rates for those who did not participate are quite
low since they have no connection to the program and thus don’t care; and second, that many of those who
were initially categorized as non-participants later took part in a Birthright trip. “Although this is good news
for the program,” Saxe writes, “it complicated the evaluation because this group could no longer be used for
comparison purposes (Saxe et. al).”
With respect to the overall American Jewish population, one might also consider the
possibility that those who attended the Birthright trip might be predisposed to strengthen
their connection to their Jewish roots. Although they were as unaffiliated as any of their
peers according to initial surveys, 20 if one considers their participation in the Birthright trip as
a sign that they “are looking for something,” Birthright participants represent an inherently
self-selected population with respect to their peers. That said, the report’s findings are
significant, and, without a doubt, demonstrate convincingly that the Birthright program is
successful in its efforts to provide “meaningful experiences in Israel for young Jews assumed
to be disconnected and even cynical.” 21
If I define the term “meaningful experiences” as something which has “a lasting
effect on the Jewish identity and engagement” of a participant, 22 then, as was discussed in
the previous section, one might consider an enhanced sense of Jewish community or
comradery as a meaningful experience. 23 In this way, if participants make connections with
each other, this newfound sense of community and awareness of one’s place in the greater
Jewish family could facilitate further interest in Jewish life and stimulate Jewish identity. If
one accepts the rate at which Birthright alumni have kept in touch with their peers as an
accurate indication of the sense of community achieved on the trip, then efforts to this end
have been a success: close to two-thirds of alumni have kept in touch, and in the case of the
inaugural 2000 group, the population which allows for the best long-term analysis, the
contacts have continued even after four years. Saxe notes on this subject, “Interestingly,
20 Although, as Saxe notes, not as high a percentage hail from entirely unaffiliated families as Birthright’s
appearance and objective may indicate.
21 Ibid. p. 55
22 Ibid. p. 6
23 Some would even go so far as to say that a connection to Israel would count as a meaningful experience that
strengthens one’s connection to Jewish peoplehood, but I will save the philosophy for the conclusion.
there was no increase over time in the proportion that have Jewish friends. Rather, the
community formed is a direct result of having been on a trip.” 24
The most obvious conclusion, although the most controversial from a ideological
perspective, is the possibility that an increased affinity for Israel may similarly result in a
“meaningful experience”. The Brandeis reports have demonstrated that over time,
participants’ self-reported “connection to Israel” is over 20% higher than the control
group. 25 To establish a more direct link between their affinity for Israel and their increased
affiliation, Saxe and his team looked at the role Israel plays in participants’ Jewish identity.
Specifically, Birthright alumni were asked whether being Jewish means caring about Israel.
The answer: “Adjusted for observance level, 56% of those who went feel that being Jewish
involves caring about Israel compared with 24% of those who did not go.” 26 However, as
Saxe later concedes, “One complicating factor in this analysis is that the act of applying to
the program potentially makes individuals more sensitive to events in Israel, even among
those who did not go on the trip. Research on decision-making suggests that the very act of
making a decision (here, applying to the program) changes individuals so that they are not
the same as they were before the decision. This works against the ability to detect change in
participants since non-participants also change.” 27
Follow-up surveys have similarly shown an increase in Jewish identity and affiliation
for the inaugural group from the year 2000: “there are no statistically significant differences
between participants and non-participants on responses to a question about feelings of
connection to the Jewish people. Nevertheless, differences are in the direction desired by
the program. Other indicators of identification with the Jewish people such as the
24 Saxe et. al. p. 15-16

25 Ibid. p. 18
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
importance of dating Jews, the importance of marrying a Jewish person, and the importance
of raising children as Jews show no statistically significant differences in this cohort. Again,
however, most of the trends are in the desired direction; that is, those who went are more
likely than those who did not to hold a more ‘Jewish’ point of view. What appears to have
happened is that non-participants, in particular, have become more positive.” 28 However,
when one looks at the years 2000, 2001, and 2002 together, the results are compelling: after
the longest period of time for each (4, 3, and 2 years respectively), “69% of participants felt
‘very much’ connected to the Jewish people, compared to 59% of non-participants.” 29
These results have led Saxe and his team to conclude that for the 2000 and 2001
groups, “the effects of the trip were not statistically significant for three measures of Jewish
continuity (dating Jews, marrying a Jewish person and raising children Jewishly). . . On the
question asking about the importance of raising children as Jews, the differences between
participants and non-participants increase over time, but this fact is due to the fact that non-
participants decrease over time while participants remain relatively consistent.” 30 Getting
back to the ultimate agenda of Birthright’s founders – the issue of Jewish continuity – one can
see that although thus far there are no demonstrable changes in the feelings of alumni
regarding intermarriage, their connection to Jewish peoplehood is significantly higher as a
result of their participation on the Birthright trip, a fact which could conceivably lead to
strengthened Jewish continuity in the long run. For this reason, Bronfman, Steinhardt, and
their cohorts have deemed Birthright a success and have committed themselves to funding it
for many years to come.
***
28 Ibid. p. 19
29 Ibid. p. 23
30 Ibid. p. 24
COMPARATIVE CONCEPTIONS OF ISRAEL AMONG BIRTHRIGHT PROVIDERS
Returning once again to my concept of the Jewish summer camp as a “control group” for
the Birthright program – one which is similar in many ways except, most notably, its location
in America instead of Israel – one might also extend this analogy to examine the crucial
factor of staffing. Just as the camp counselors and the mission of the camp itself can greatly
influence the camper’s experience, the trip facilitators, or “providers” for a particular
Birthright trip may shape the participant’s experience more than any other factor. In the
world of Jewish summer camps, Masad represents a formative, Zionist experience: it is 10
weeks long, entirely Hebrew-speaking, and seeks to instill in campers a life-long loyalty to
the state of Israel. In comparison, Brandeis-Bardin is an intense, 1-2 week camp which
embraces a more pluralist and less Zionist sense of Jewish identity. 31 Similarly, Birthright
mandates so few common elements of the trip that providers have very little accountability,
and so Birthright trips vary tremendusly both in their content and their effect.
According to the Birthright Israel website, all providers must adhere to the following
seven guidelines or “educational standards”; beyond these, they are on their own.
1) Employ Israeli tour guides
2) Spend at least two days with Israeli peers (mostly soldiers and students)
3) Tour the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall
4) Tour Massada and the Dead Sea
5) Travel to other cities and/or towns such as Tel Aviv and Haifa
6) Provide accomodation in three and four-star hotels
31 Sarna interview, December 26, 2005

7) Obey safety and security precautions 32
Within these guidelines, the 22 providers for North American groups present Israel in
drastically different ways, from a holy land that must be worshipped to a democracy just like
the United States. Much to the chagrin of Avraham Infeld, several Israeli-based providers
attempt to create an Israel-centered identity for the participants, either because they believe
that this sort of identity will be the most substantive, or because they have ulterior
objectives, such as persuading participants to make aliyah. 33 Methodologically, it is difficult
to ascertain how exactly each trip differs because itineraries and guide lists are not publicly
available, but, by examining the rhetoric of providers’ website advertisements which are used
to attract potential participants, I will determine their ideological stance, and oftentimes even
deduce elements of their itineraries.
One provider, Shorashim, makes Birthright’s secondary objective paramount,
declaring in their trip description that they are “devoted to building bridges between Israeli
and American Jews.” 34 Although this objective is not identical to that of Birthright’s primary
concern with Jewish identity, it is not overtly objectionable from the standpoint of
promoting Jewish continuity. The practices of other providers, however, may be considered
actively detrimental to Birthright’s mission of encouraging long-term affiliation.
Oranim, for instance, uses as its motto, “let Israelis show you Israel”, and tells
potential applicants, “it’s our privilege to bring you home.” Unlike Hillel: The Foundation
for Jewish Campus Life, which uses a mixture of Israeli tour guides and American “bus
32 “How to choose a Trip Organizer?” Taglit-birthright Israel website.

<http://www.birthrightisrael.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&
enDispWho=WinnerPhoto%5El14&enZone=WinnerPhoto&enVersion=0&&channel=TheTrip>
33 Infeld interview, February 2, 2006
34 “Shorashim Trip Organizer Description,” Taglit-birthright Israel website.
<http://register.birthrightisrael.com/DescriptionsByTO.cfm?id=29&ShowMe=1&Round=14>
leaders”, Oranim is staffed exclusively by Israelis. 35 The University Student Division (USD)
of the World Zionist Organization sends a similar message to its potential participants,
telling them on their website: “The goal of USD is to ensure that young Jews between the
ages of 18-30 fulfill their Zionist potential by helping them to create meaningful personal
connections to Israel and deepen their understanding of Israeli society.” 36 One can only
speculate as to what is meant by “Zionist potential”.
This rhetoric of Israel as the Jewish peoples’ only true home – the “place where you
belong” – is even more explicitly echoed by March of the Living, which depicts Israel as the
savior with respect to the Holocaust, while the destruction of European Jewry indicates the
ultimate fate of all Diaspora populations. March of the Living trips begin their journey in
Poland, where they tour concentration camps along with the Warsaw ghetto in order to
convey the horrors of the Holocaust. Implicitly, modern Poles, with whom March of the
Living organizers refuse to have any interaction, are shown as complicit at best, and Nazi
murderers at worst. Despite repeated invitations from several Polish non-governmental
organizations, including the Forum for Dialogue Among Nations, to organize dialogue
groups between March of the Living participants and non-Jewish Poles as well as to
coordinate visits to sites commemorating the achievements of Jewish culture in Poland past
and present, 37 March of the Living leaders insist on presenting Poland as nothing more than
the home to Jewish ghettoes and concentrations camps. 38 After Poland, March of the Living
35 “Oranim Experience Trip Organizer Description,” Taglit-birthright Israel website.

36 “USD of WZO Trip Organizer Description,” Taglit-birthright Israel website.
37 “Fundacja Forum Dialogu Między Narodami,” Forum for Dialogue Among Nations website.
<http://www.dialog.org.pl>
38 To the surprise of many in the institutional Jewish community, a recent study conducted by Reboot, a New
York-based network of Jewish creative initiatives sponsored by Andrea and Charles Bronfman
Philanthropies, found that the number one thing that young Jews say “matters a lot” to being Jewish is
“remembering the Holocaust” (Sue Fishkoff, “Say it loud, I’m Jewish and proud: Study finds identity, but
participants travel to Israel, where, according to their website, they are told that making aliyah
is “the ultimate expression of Jewish unity.” 39
More subtly, Canada Israel Experience (CIE), another provider, similarly presents
Jewish identity in an Israel-hued monochromatic light, a practice which results in a
superficial connection to Jewish peoplehood at best. According to their website, CIE “is
committed to the development of Jewish identity based on the centrality of Israel through
the building of relationships between and among the Jewish people of Israel and Canada.” 40
Whereas Hillel, Birthright’s most popular provider, intentionally provides participants with
experiences which can easily be replicated after they return home, CIE engages in activities
that are specific to Israel, thereby encouraging a Jewish identity built exclusively around
Israel, and thus unsustainable. As I demonstrated above, the Brandeis studies have shown
that one way in which Birthright participants might connect to being Jewish is through a
spiritual Shabbat experience. All Birthright groups must visit the Western Wall, but Hillel
mandates that the visit not be on Shabbat, and instead holds Shabbat services in regular
synagogues. In contrast, CIE takes all of their participants to the Western Wall on Shabbat,
thereby making any connection achieved in the process almost impossible to replicate after
the trip due to the unique nature of the Western Wall and therefore useless visa vis
Birthright’s primary objective of encouraging Jewish identity. 41
less affiliation.” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 26, 2006). I doubt these findings, however: following Jean-
Paul Sartre in his work, Anti-Semite and Jew, I am inclined to believe that any Jewish affiliation that is
primarily motivated by fear, and only views Jewishness visa vis “the other” is necessarily superficial and
unsustainable. However, my views on this subject are rather controversial: I think that what Sartre referred
to as “devious forms of Jewish identity” not only pervade Holocaust-centered identity, but also, to some
extent, Israel-centered identity.
39 “March of the Living Trip Organizer Description,” Taglit-birthright Israel website.
40 “Canada Israel Experience Trip Organizer Description,” Taglit-birthright Israel website.
41 Keith Krivitzky. Personal interview. February 2, 2005 (in-person)
As I have shown, Birthright participants may connect to their Jewish identity through
a variety of means. Cognizant of this fact, many providers offer specialized trips which
attempt to embrace one particular aspect of the Israel experience that may engage
participants. For example, Livnot U’Lehibanot offers an outdoors hiking program 42 , and the
Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel provides trips which highlight
environmentalism in Israel. 43 T’lalim, another provider which offers outdoors trips,
articulates its angle as follows:
Our staff believes strongly in building a connection to Israel through the beauty and history
of the land itself: the mountains of the Golan, the beaches of the Mediterranean, the forests
of Jerusalem, the canyons of the Negev desert, and the coral reefs of Eilat’s Red Sea. Each
region of Israel is full of rich opportunities for meaningful encounters with the history of the
Jewish people – both ancient and modern. We believe that intimate encounters with the
land of Israel through activities such as hiking, biking, rappelling, jeep riding, etc. present
unique opportunities for enhancing the overall educational aspects of the program – long
after the ten day trip is complete. Through these active learning experiences, our
participants are able to appreciate the complexities of Israel while forming lasting bonds of
friendship as a group. 44
Other specialized trips include Ezra World Youth Movement, designed especially for
Russian speakers 45 ; the Sephardic Educational Center, which emphasizes the Sephardic side
of Israel and takes only Sephardic participants to better foster a sense of comradery 46 ; and
Diesenhaus Unitours, whose “Faces of Israel” program highlights the diversity of Israel and
the Jewish people through meetings with Yemenite, Russian, and even Indian Jews. 47
42 “Livnot U’Lehibanot Trip Organizer Description,” Taglit-birthright Israel website.

43 “The Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel Trip Organizer Description,” Taglit-birthright Israel website.
44 “T’lalim Experience Trip Organizer Description,” Taglit-birthright Israel website.
45 “Ezra World Youth Movement Trip Organizer Description,” Taglit-birthright Israel website.
46 “The Sephardic Educational Center Trip Organizer Description,” Taglit-birthright Israel website.
47 “Diesenhaus Unitours Trip Organizer Description,” Taglit-birthright Israel website.
The National Jewish Council for the Disabled also provides a program in which
participants do not consult written texts, but rather are “able to experience Israel in a way
where they learn from what they touch, feel, hear, and eat. This is the most effective
approach for our participants who tend to be concrete thinkers, and we believe it is these
types of experiences which will have the deepest impact on the participant.” 48 In addition,
providers affiliated with denominational movements, such as Kesher (the Reform
movement), Koach (the Conservative movement), and Aish Ha’torah (the Orthodox
movement) promote ideologies in line with their respective rabbinic authorities. 49
These specialized trips, which emphasize the aspects of the Israel experience that
relate to participants’ interests back home, and thus can be more readily integrated into their
everyday lives, stand to be the most effective in terms of encouraging a substantive Jewish
identity among participants. 50 In addition, if participants can better grasp Israel as
something which is relevant to other aspects of their lives, they will be less likely to view
Israel in a superficial, disconnected fashion, thus contributing to Birthright’s secondary
objective of bridging the gap between American Jewry and Israel. The key to attaining these
dual objectives is the inclusion of transferable experiences on the Birthright trip, whether this
is reflected in something as minute as the decision of where to pray on Shabbat, or as
overarching as the specialized theme of the trip itself. No matter how compelling at the
time, if Birthright participants are not actively engaged in a comprehensive campaign of
follow-up efforts, these positive results are liable to dissolve entirely when they return home.
***
48 “The National Jewish Council for the Disabled Trip Organizer Description,” Taglit-birthright Israel website.
49 “Aish Ha’torah Trip Organizer Description,” Taglit-birthright Israel website.
50 Unfortunately, as of April 2006, the Brandeis reports have not yet considered variation between providers in
their analyses.
THE PARADOXICAL PROBLEM OF BIRTHRIGHT FOLLOW-UP
For Michael Steinhardt and Charles Bronfman, the ideal Birthright scenario is as follows: an
unaffiliated college student goes to Israel on a Birthright trip and becomes more active in his
campus Hillel after returning home, affiliating with the Jewish community through a variety
of activities representing a strong, multi-faceted Jewish identity. From this point forward,
the picture becomes progressively less ideal: while on campus, Hillel staff sends the student
weekly events emails, and coaxes him to attend with free food and other attractions.
However, upon graduation, without a Hillel constantly reaching out to him, the student
drifts away, neglecting to seek out alternative Jewish environments such as synagogues when
they are no longer reaching out to him. 51 The question for Birthright thus arises: is this
prototypical problem of the post-college drop-off exacerbated if the individual’s connection
to Judaism is predominantly through Israel? Is it at all attenuated if the individual’s
connection is, for instance, spiritual instead, and can therefore easily be filled by joining a
synagogue as a young adult?
Unfortunately, oftentimes this problem of post-college follow-up never even comes
into play because campus Hillels fail to engage Birthright alumni in the Jewish community
upon their return. This is through no fault of the Hillel staff, but rather because of the
paradoxical nature of Birthright follow-up: that which is specific to Israel cannot be replicated
back home and that which is not can be produced elsewhere. By choosing to send Birthright
participants to Israel instead of Idaho, their experiences on the trip, and the positive
associations that result, are necessarily difficult if not impossible to retain once they return
51 I use a campus Hillel for my paradigm because most Birthright participants are enrolled in college when they
embark on the trip. For the minority of Birthright participants who have already graduated college, this
problem is even more immediate.
home. For this reason, it is essential that Birthright providers promote elements of Jewish
identity which are easily transferable or even replicable in other environments in order to
assure a sustainable, substantive identity among the participants which will not dissolve upon
their return home. 52
Of course, it is much simpler to transfer an experience than to replicate it, and,
accordingly, the benefit is proportional. Therefore, one might say that there are gradients of
Birthright experiences, from unique at one end of the spectrum, to transferable in the middle, to
replicable at the other end. No Birthright follow-up program can perfectly recapture the magic
of an experience from the trip – that much is lost in the moment – but, as I have shown, it is
much easier to tap into some aspect of the experience if its magic does not depend entirely
upon its setting in Israel. For instance, celebrating Shabbat at the Western Wall (a mostly
unique experience) represents a much less transferable experience than celebrating Shabbat in
a synagogue (a mostly transferable experience). If a participant’s Jewish identity suddenly
comes alive at the Western Wall, then this newfound affiliation will revolve around a place
which cannot be recaptured back home, thus making follow-up much more difficult. Even
if the experience had nothing to do with the wall – maybe the melodies of the prayers were
the spark – the experience as a whole is inherently intertwined with the unique setting.
Similarly, a Birthright event that highlights elements of Jewish identity which can easily be
transposed to a follow-up program – such as services in a synagogue – will be more
replicable than one which is unique to the time and place, even if the identity is sparked by
something that is unique to that synagogue.
Even if Birthright providers do succeed in shaping the trip along these lines, making
sure that their participants’ Jewish identity is not limited to untransferable elements such as
52 Despite Leonard Saxe’s correlative evidence to the contrary, I do not count a connection to Israel among
these elements.
Israel, follow-up remains a daunting task. Outside of the bubble-like environment of
Birthright, where Judaism is intense and there are few distractions, making Judaism appear
attractive in the real world is a challenge indeed. In addition, Hillel leadership faces another
problem: how to balance the specific needs and culture of each particular college campus
with the necessity of an overall plan for Birthright follow-up legislated by national
headquarters. According to Yigal Schleifer, at first “there was no unified follow-up plan in
place once the students returned from Israel, and few programming initiatives were offered
by Hillel’s headquarters. Although Hillel’s central office made grants available for follow-up
programming, campus Hillels were left to their own devices.” 53 Since then, Hillel
International has implemented several initiatives aimed at “reattach[ing] Birthright alumni to
normative Jewish living,” 54 and has published memos of guidelines, but these efforts have
been constrained by the particularity of individual college campuses. 55
One such initiative involved collaborating with the Avi Chai Foundation to enhance
Birthright by presenting all alumni with any three Jewish books from a long list. 56 Reading
about Jewish issues, they posited, would sustain the spark of Jewish identity hopefully
kindled on Birthright. In addition, the Birthright Alumni Association sponsors a plethora of
activities in various venues – everything from happy hours to rock concerts to movie
screenings to panel discussions to bus reunions – but the scope of these efforts is limited by
the association’s resources. 57
53 Yigal Schleifer, “Birthrights and Wrongs.” The Jerusalem Report. July 3, 2000, p. 32
55 For a detailed analysis of this phenomenon, see the appropriately-titled, Particularism in the University:
Realities And Opportunities For Jewish Life On Campus, by Amy L. Sales and Leonard Saxe. (Report by
the Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University and the Avi Chai
Foundation. Waltham, Massachusetts: Brandeis University, January 2006.
<http://cmjs.org/files/JewishLifeonCampusB%20(4).pdf>)
56 Ruth Wisse. Personal interview. December 25, 2005 (in-person)
57 “Taglit-birthright Israel Alumni Association (BRIAA).” Taglit-birthright Israel website.
According the Jeffrey Solomon, President of Andrea and Charles Bronfman
Philanthropies, the most effective means of follow-up has nothing to do with the
institutionalized Birthright program itself, but rather consists of student-initiated online buddy
groups and other informal ad-hoc associations which Birthright or Hillel could never dream
of infiltrating in their outreach. Ultimately, says Richard Joel, the best follow-up method
from Hillel’s perspective would be to hire full-time caseworkers to remain engaged with
Birthright alumni, but Hillel does not posses the personnel or the resources for such an
initiative. 58 Partnerships with other institutions such as the Avi Chai Foundation do help to
alleviate the cost, but in the end, following up with more than 100,000 Birthright alumni once
they have left the nest of their campus Hillel is simply not feasible. Thinking of this
impossible challenge in a more optimistic light, John Ruskay postulates that if Birthright
alumni encounter an “inspiring Jewish community” when they return, then follow-up will
take care of itself. Instead of worrying about attracting Birthright alumni in particular, Ruskay
argues, American Jewry must address the larger question of how to make Jewish life
attractive to the younger generation. If Jewish leadership can do this, then following up with
Birthright alumni becomes irrelevant. 59
***
ISRAEL ADVOCACY AS TOOL FOR BIRTHRIGHT FOLLOW-UP
Birthright follow-up has also been complicated by the Jewish establishment’s concern
regarding the portrayal of Israel on college campuses. Viewing Birthright alumni as ideal
spokespeople to “counteract” the spread of what they see as anti-Israel rhetoric, Hillel staff
<http://www.birthrightisrael.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&
enDispWho=WinnerPhoto%5El24&enZone=WinnerPhoto&enVersion=0&&channel=TheTrip>
58 Joel interview, January 30, 2006
59 Ruskay interview, October 14, 2005
have increasingly used Israel advocacy as a primary method of Birthright follow-up. As
Leonard Saxe writes, “Rising anti-Semitism and the volatile political situation in Israel have
led some stakeholders to identify an additional goal for Birthright Israel – to enable young
Diaspora Jews to speak intelligently about the situation in the Middle East from a
perspective sympathetic to Israel. The trip appears to be meeting this goal, insofar as the
data indicate that it preserves existing positive feelings about Israel and increases
participants’ confidence in explaining the situation there.” 60
Although one cannot entirely ignore Israel in Birthright follow-up, this practice of
using Israel advocacy as Birthright follow-up is problematic for two reasons. First, Birthright
alumni do not necessarily make good spokespeople for Israel; and second, emphasizing a
connection to Israel as a means of Jewish affiliation might result in an inherently superficial
Jewish identity. According to the most recent Brandeis report, 38% of 2002 Birthright alumni
reported after the trip that they were “very confident” in explaining the current situation in
Israel, as opposed to 27% of non-participants. In 2001, the difference was almost double –
25% as opposed to 13% for non-participants – and in 2000, 20% of alumni indicated that
they were “very confident” as compared to 22% of non-participants. 61
Not only do Birthright alumni not necessarily make ideal advocates for Israel, there is
reason to believe that their efforts may actually be counter-productive. After 10 days in
Israel, many Birthright alumni feel as though they are experts on the region. Their friends
60 Saxe et. al. p. 7

61 Saxe cites the political situation at the time as one possible explanation for the discrepancy between the
significant changes in 2002 and 2001 and the lack of a change in 2000. The second Palestinian Intifada
began in September 2000, and American Jewish perceptions of Israel as a dangerous place to travel became
commonplace in mid-2001 (especially after the threat of terrorism hit home on September 11, 2001). As a
result, enrollment in Birthright Israel dropped dramatically in 2001 and 2002, and average pre-trip levels of
religious observance and affiliation among Birthright participants skyrocketed, resulting in a higher percentage
of participants who were already positively inclined to support Israel (otherwise they wouldn’t be going
under such circumstances). In addition to their higher levels of affiliation, the increase in media coverage of
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may have contributed to participants’ overall knowledge of the issues (Saxe et.
al. p. 16).
may follow the Israeli-Arab conflict more astutely, but their trip gives them a certain
unsupported authority that someone who has not been to Israel – no matter his familiarity
with the issues – cannot claim. In addition, statistics show that prior to the trip, many
Birthright alumni were completely unaffiliated and knew virtually nothing about Israel, so they
are even less likely than their affiliated peers to be strong advocates for Israel on their
respective campuses.
This problem of Birthright alumni making poor advocates for Israel boils down to
what Avraham Infeld refers to as the distinction between “like” and “love”: when one loves
something, one is sometimes blinded and may not be able to articulate its attractive features,
whereas when one likes something, it is easier to make a persuasive argument for why others
should feel the same way. Put simply, Birthright alumni love Israel, but “don’t have a clue how
to answer the questions”, and to make matters worse, they think they know it all. 62 The best
advocates for Israel, according to Infeld, are those who like Israel, but can objectify it
enough to make a rational, compelling argument in its defense. Lisa Eisen, National
Program Director of the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, one of
Birthright’s most generous supporters having given $5 million over the first 5 years, claims
that “unless you have a visceral connection, you can’t be a good advocate [for Israel]”, but,
as one can see, this visceral connection can easily border on a loss of rationality, especially in
the mind of an individual who might not know the facts to begin with. 63 As the cliché goes,
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
The second problematic aspect of Israel advocacy as a tool for Birthright follow-up is
the nature of the Jewish identity that it espouses. As I have demonstrated, a Jewish identity
that has a connection to Israel at its core cannot be supported over a long period of time

63 Lisa Eisen. Personal interview. February 2, 2006 (in-person)
because of the nature of American Jewry’s place in a voluntary Diaspora. The seed for
establishing such an ill-conceived identity lies in the participant’s selection of their trip
provider: whereas some providers, such as Hillel, view Israel as a means to a complex Jewish
end, others, such as Oranim, treat Israel as an end in and of itself. If, however, Israel is seen
merely as a vehicle through which Birthright alumni can connect to other, more substantive
aspects of Jewish identity, then it can be an effective tool for Birthright follow-up.
Accomplishing this entails relating to Israel not through a political lens – as in Israel
advocacy – but rather in a variety of other fashions, from cultural to spiritual to even
conservationist passions, as with T’lalim participants.
In conjunction with Birthright, several other campus initiatives with various objectives
have sought to establish such a connection with Israel among college students. For example,
Israel 21c, whose scope extends beyond the college campus, seeks to “inform Americans
about 21st century Israel, its people, its institutions and its contributions to global society”,
glorifying Israel’s scientific and cultural accomplishments so as to look beyond the Israeli-
Arab conflict. 64 Other existing campus organizations, such as the ostensibly Jewish
fraternity AEPi, sponsor Israel-themed activities that similarly look beyond Israel as a
superficial, political force, thereby enhancing its ability to stimulate Jewish identity. 65
The Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC), a joint project of the Schusterman
Foundation and Hillel International, adds an additional dimension to Israel’s portrayal on
college campus and further complicates the place of Israel advocacy in Birthright follow-up.
Like Israel 21c, the ICC sponsors pro-Israel programming which highlights Israel’s
contributions to science, culture, and the arts, but unlike Israel 21c, its core mission is overtly
64 “Israel21c: A Focus Beyond the Conflict: About Israel 21c,” Israel 21c website.
<http://www.israel21c.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=Zone&enZon
e=OurMission&>
65 Krivitzky interview, February 2, 2005
political. Founded at the height of the Intifada in 2002 to “cultivate an Israel-friendly
university environment, and reduce anti-Israel intimidation and harassment on campus”, the
ICC seeks to “address campus issues and intelligently impact a pro-active pro-Israel agenda
on campus.” 66
According to Wayne Firestone, founding director of the ICC and named Avraham
Infeld’s successor in September 2006 as President and International Director of Hillel, the
ICC’s “three pillars” of advocacy, education, and travel may indirectly strengthen Jewish
identity among college students, but that is not its purpose. Firestone concedes that “Israel
advocacy is the most difficult [means of affiliation] to capture”, but, recalling Leonard Saxe,
Firestone cites the parallel necessity of promoting pro-Israel rhetoric on college campuses,
considering an increase in Jewish identity as a welcome side effect. 67 In fact, far from
viewing the Israel advocacy that the ICC promotes and the substantive follow-up that
Birthright seeks as mutually exclusive pursuits, Firestone has gone as far as to declare,
“Birthright is currently under-utilized in terms of its ability to support Israel advocacy on
campus.” 68 Approaching this statement from the opposite angle in the context of my
evaluation of Israel advocacy’s possible benefit to Birthright, one can see that as Birthright
follow-up, Israel advocacy represents an attempt to engage with an aspect of Israel that is
necessarily superficial and elusive, and which will ultimately not result in a strengthened
Jewish affiliation among participants.
The problematic nature of Israel advocacy as Birthright follow-up is exacerbated when
Birthright alumni graduate college. Of all the possible ways of connecting to one’s Jewish
heritage, Israel advocacy appears most likely to disappear when young adults move beyond
66 “Israel on Campus Coalition: About Us: Mission,” Israel on Campus Coalition website.
<http://israeloncampuscoalition.org/aboutus/mission>
67 Wayne Firestone. Personal interview. February 2, 2006 (in-person)
68 Ibid.
the Jewishly nurturing framework of their campus Hillel. If a Birthright alumnus’ affiliation is
based in spirituality, for instance, then he can easily join a synagogue and continue to indulge
his Jewish identity post-graduation, but if his affiliation is based in Israel advocacy and a
political connection to Israel, there is little that he can do to sustain this connection. 69
Admittedly, he could participate in the occasional pro-Israel march or public demonstration,
or become involved with an organization like Dor Chadash which seeks to build bridges
between Israelis and American Jews. However, to quote Richard Joel, “Israel is a necessary
but not a sufficient condition for Jewish peoplehood,” and so these infrequent activities will
not be enough to sustain a substantive Jewish identity. 70 One might contend that the only
way to truly embrace one’s Jewish identity through Israel advocacy would be to work full-
time for AIPAC or make aliyah, and not even Wayne Firestone would suggest these extreme
reactions as realistic expectations for Birthright alumni.
As I have shown, although some reference to Israel is an integral part of any
Birthright follow-up program, Israel advocacy is far from an effective means of Birthright
follow-up. Using Israel advocacy to reaffirm the connection made on the Birthright trip will
inevitably promote an unsustainable Jewish identity, and besides, Birthright alumni tend not to
make very good advocates for Israel anyway. That said, given that Israel was undoubtedly
the context which framed many of the substantive Jewish connections that Birthright
participants experienced on the trip (although not the subject itself), all parties agree that
Israel must play some role in follow-up. Determining the precise part that Israel should play
in Birthright follow-up is a delicate balancing act indeed: in designing follow-up programming,
69 Another project of The Schusterman Foundation – the Synaplex initiative – seeks to do precisely this:
promote Jewish identity through the revitalization of synagogues. Other initiatives which similarly promote
Jewish identity regardless of Israel include the UJC’s Blue Knot Program and Bikkurim initiatives, the Jewish
Agency’s MASAH project, and the Bronfman Summer Fellowships.
70 Joel interview, January 30, 2006
one must be careful to present Israel prominently enough so that the participants’ attraction
which defined their affiliation remains, but inconspicuously enough that it does not
constitute the centrality of the affiliation.
One model which might serve well in this endeavor is that of the Wexner
Fellowships’ seminars and institutes. Although they are aimed at a very different audience –
the strongly affiliated – and thus pursue a very different objective, these programs do
represent the ideal in terms of a depiction of Israel. Birthright follow-up efforts would be
well-served to use these seminars and institutes as an exemplar, emulating their portrayal of
Israel as a complex, nuanced element of Jewish identity inseparably intertwined with every
other means of affiliation. 71
***
THE SYNAGOGUE’S ROLE IN BIRTHRIGHT FOLLOW-UP:

A COUNTER-ARGUMENT FOR JEWISH EDUCATION
Not everyone would so easily concede Israel’s place as merely one of the many
complementary components constituting Jewish identity. Michael Steinhardt, for one,
remarked recently that Israel “is the cement that can bind the Jewish community together. It
is my hope that over time, 10 or 15 years perhaps, a Birthright trip can develop into a tradition
analogous to that of the Bar or Bat Mitzvah. Our hope is that a trip to Israel will be another
rite of passage of Jewish life.” Mr. Steinhardt, an atheist, continued, “Israel has frankly –
through my life and for much of my life – been a substitute for theology. I have lived an
important part of my Jewishness through association with Israel rather than through
71 Of course, Birthright would have to make due with a much smaller budget than that of the Wexner
Fellowships’ seminars and institutes.
adherence to a religious law or substantial observance.” 72 Examining (though not
conceding) Steinhardt’s binary conception of Jewish identity for a moment, how can one say
that Judaism as a religion relates to the Birthright experience? 73 As I have demonstrated, most
critics of Birthright have been silenced by the Brandeis reports’ conclusive illustration of its
power to significantly alter the affiliation level of participants; however, those who remain
usually articulate their disagreement through an argument which presumes the supremacy of
the synagogue and Jewish education in Jewish identity.
One such skeptic, Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, spiritual leader of the Stephen Wise Free
Synagogue in New York City, feels that Birthright will only achieve its primary objective of
long-term strengthened affiliation if alumni make aliyah or if it stimulates a “more intense
Jewish identity with synagogue affiliation at the core.” 74 In the Diaspora, Hirsch continues,
“synagogue life is a prerequisite to Jewish identity”, and “synagogues create long-lasting ties
with Israel, not the opposite.” Hirsch concedes that Israel is an important aspect of Jewish
identity, but singles out the synagogue as the only place where such identity can be truly
embraced. 75 Even with affiliation at a synagogue as the ultimate goal of Birthright – an
objective hardly shared by Michael Steinhardt – Hirsch doubts that a stronger connection to
Israel will have much effect, judging that “Israel itself will have only a marginal impact on
affiliation with a synagogue.” In the end, Hirsch predicts, the percentage of Birthright alumni
who elect to marry fellow Jews and raise a Jewish family will fall in line with their respective
demographic and denominational profiles. 76
72 Qtd. in Brownfeld p. 67
73 The word “binary” is used here to denote Steinhardt’s omission of forms of Jewish identity other than those
based upon religion or Israel. I will return to this issue in Chapter 5.
74 Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch. Personal interview. December 21, 2005 (in-person)
75 One might debate the significance of the fact that according to Jewish tradition, the Torah was given not in
Israel, but rather in exile, on Mount Sinai.

76 Ibid.
As an alternative to the pomp and circumstance of Birthright, Rabbi Hirsch suggests
enrollment in a Jewish day school, where the percentage of graduates who elect to intermarry
is considerably lower than the overall Jewish population. Hirsch concedes that changing the
composition of this self-selecting population will lower the overall percentage (that is, if
secular Jews with little Jewish background attend schools currently populated by students
from highly affiliated families they will not affiliate as strongly, thus lowering the mean), but
he still holds that the net effect will be positive, and that secular Jews will be more likely than
otherwise to marry fellow Jews. 77
Another advocate of Jewish education as a solution to the “continuity crisis” is Eric
Yoffie, President of the Union for Reform Judaism and a fellow Reform Rabbi. In a public
correspondence on the pages of The New York Jewish Week in 2004, Yoffie confronted
Michael Steinhardt directly on this issue of the centrality of the synagogue to American
Jewish identity. 78 In the end, the debate devolved into a “chicken and egg” stalemate
regarding the correlation between synagogue membership and Jewish religious and
communal involvement demonstrated in the 2000 National Jewish Population Survey.
As expected, Steinhardt viewed the correlation as evidence that those who care about
being Jewish join synagogues, while Yoffie argued that it is because they are members of
synagogues that these individuals care so deeply. 79 Yoffie began by stating that synagogue
affiliation is the best predictor of Jewish commitment and involvement, to which Steinhardt
responded, “Jews with loyalty and existing commitments feel a duty to join synagogues (as
my wife, Judy, and I did when we were a newly married couple). But too often the vacuous
77 Ibid.
78 Interestingly, both Yoffie and Hirsch are former Executive Directors of the American Reform Zionist
Association (ARZA).
79 Eric Yoffie, “Remarks for URJ Executive Committee Meeting, NYC, March 8, 2004,” Union for Reform
Judaism website. <http://urj.org/yoffie/remarks040308>

social scene, or empty preaching, or lack of intellectually demanding and emotionally
compelling programs, turn the synagogue experience into a squandering of loyalty.” At his
rhetorical best, Yoffie countered, “the synagogue is the dynamic heart of Jewish existence. . .
the living embodiment of the Jewish concept of community.” 80 This debate may have
solved nothing, but raises an interesting question when applied to Birthright follow-up: are
Hirsch and Yoffie right? Must Birthright follow-up center around a synagogue to be effective
in the long term? Broadening the question, if substantive Jewish identity must center around
membership in a synagogue, is Birthright misguided or can future synagogue membership be a
reasonable expectation for Birthright alumni? 81
Some of the more vehement critics of Birthright would argue along similar lines that
young adults aged 18 to 26 – the eligible group for Birthright – are already a lost cause, and
that efforts to strengthen their Jewish identity must be made earlier in life. Surprisingly, this
argument in favor of Jewish day school education and synagogue affiliation as alternatives to
Birthright is not limited to Reform Rabbis: Howard Farber, a philanthropist, Wexner Heritage
Fellowship alumnus, and founder of the New Community Jewish High School of the West
Valley (California), agrees that sustained Jewish education is the one and only remedy to the
“continuity crisis”. Farber advocates a “circle the wagons” approach to Jewish affiliation,
contending that things are so bad nowadays with the intermarriage rate above 50% that the
Jewish community must consolidate its resources and focus on retaining its central core
through emersion in a full-time Jewish environment for elementary through high school
instead of seeking to engage the periphery. “We’re going to lose the least affiliated anyway,”
Farber posits, “so why not zero in on the ones where we’ve got a chance?” 82
80 Eric Yoffie, “Steinhardt’s Folly.” The New York Jewish Week. December 26, 2003
81 One could conceivably ask the same question about the devotional content of Hillel activity.
82 Howard Farber. Personal interview. August 22, 2005 (in-person)
Likening the experience to his time as a Wexner Heritage Fellow, Farber argues that
only this day-in and day-out reinforcement will communicate the complexity of Jewish
peoplehood and avoid presenting one aspect of Judaism above all others as a “hook” to
facilitate a connection to Jewish identity. Birthright, in his view, will fail in the end because it
does not present Judaism as the multi-faceted wonder that it is. Although everyone loves
particular aspects of being Jewish the best, in order to establish a substantive Jewish identity,
the Jewish community must familiarize students with the entire spectrum of Jewish
experience without worrying about overwhelming them with too many stimuli. Only then,
after they have experienced all Judaism has to offer, can individuals make an educated
decision to accept or reject their heritage. This decision, says Farber, is already made by age
18, so the information needed to make this educated decision must be conveyed before
then. 83
Although the results of the Brandeis reports would appear to refute Farber’s claim
that Birthright takes place too late in life, one cannot deny that his argument for the necessity
of communicating a complex conception of Jewish identity is well-founded. As I have
shown, when one’s Jewish identity centers exclusively around Israel, it tends to be motivated
by political, circumstantial, and fear-driven factors, and might be described as superficial in
the end. Therefore, inasmuch as Birthright uses Israel itself to construct a sense of Jewish
peoplehood in those participants for whom this does not already exist, the endeavor might
not entirely achieve its objectives. However, when Israel is viewed in conjunction with more
readily replicable aspects of Jewish identity, more substantive results tend to emerge, as
demonstrated by the Brandeis reports. Of course, whether or not this is the case is very
83 Ibid.
much a function of the trip provider as well as the appeal of various other exciting, identity-
affirming aspects of the trip, but certain steps might be taken to encourage these results.
These steps might include encouraging providers to emphasize more transferable
experiences, and orienting follow-up activities that embrace these experiences not entirely
toward Israel. Determining the precise part that Israel should play in Birthright follow-up is a
delicate balancing act indeed: in designing follow-up programming, one must be careful to
present Israel prominently enough so that the participants’ attraction which defined their
affiliation remains, but inconspicuously enough that it does not constitute the centrality of
the affiliation. Even though the current system is far from perfect, Birthright’s founders and
practitioners should be proud that the program has significantly addressed its two primary
concerns: the growing divide between American Jewry and Israel, and the waning Jewish
identity of the younger generation.

83
CHAPTER V:
CONCLUSION: REFLECTIONS ON THE PLACE OF
ISRAEL IN AMERICAN JEWISH IDENTITY
Over the past 2600 years, Jewish identity has been profoundly shaped by the fact that
more Jews have lived in the Diaspora than in the broadly-conceived land of Israel.
Reactions have been diverse – from Jehuda Halevy’s poetic yearning for Zion to Heinrich
Heine’s idealization of Halevy’s 12th century Spain in an expression of layered Diasporas 1 –
but the tension of a people residing in an exile of varying comforts has prevailed. For some,
the Diaspora itself has become “a term encompassing the moral and cultural substance of
two thousand years of Jewish life” 2 , but for others, it has remained an unsettling existence
marred by the assimilationist hybridity of the subversive force that Stuart Hall has dubbed
the “Diaspora aesthetic”. 3
Within the next 20-25 years, demographers project that for the first time since King
Nebuchadnezzar marched into Jerusalem and destroyed King Solomon’s glorious temple in
586 BCE, more Jews will reside in Israel than in the Diaspora. 4 Aside from the messianic
1 Heinrich Heine, “Hebrew Melodies,” from The Complete Poems of Heinrich Heine: Volume III:
Romanzero. Translated by Hal Draper. (New York and Frankfurt: Suhrkamp and Insel Publishers, 1982)
2 Irving Howe, World of Our Fathers. (New York, N.Y.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Press, 1976), p. 629
3 Stuart Hall, “Cultural Identity and Diaspora,” article in Jonathan Rutherford, editor. Identity: Community,
Culture, Difference. (London: Lawrence & Wishart Press, 1998), p. 31

4 Steven Bayme, editor, Israel On My Mind: Israel’s Role in World Jewish Identity. Report by The Dorothy
and Julius Koppelman Institute on American Jewish-Israeli Relations, The American Jewish Committee.
(New York, N.Y.: The American Jewish Committee, 2006).
<http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-
D25925B85EAF%7D/IsraelOnMyMind_2005.pdf>, p. 7
Reflections on the Place of Israel in American Jewish Identity 84
implications of this shift, it is apparent that American Jewry’s conception of Israel will be
necessarily altered as the rhetoric of shlilat hagolah becomes increasingly compelling. Ever
since the emergence of the modern State of Israel in 1948 (when less than 10% of world
Jewry resided there), a certain ideological opposition to this Zionist “negation of the
Diaspora” has characterized American Jewry’s conflicted support for Israel, 5 and so we can
only expect this new demographical revelation to exacerbate the divide.
Even during Israel’s tumultuous and vulnerable first two decades, when differences
were minimized in the interest of a common goal – securing Israel so as to prevent a
genocidal massacre at the hands of its neighbors – an underlying split simmered between the
Zionist mandate of aliyah, as exemplified by the patriotism of David Ben Gurion, and the
equally fierce faith in America exhibited by Jacob Blaustein. 6 However, as the relevance of
this goal deteriorated with Israel’s increasing military prowess, the underlying ideological
conflict resurfaced, and American Jewry drifted further away. Israel’s objectives moved
beyond sheer survival and entered the inherently controversial realm of diplomacy and peace
negotiations, in which any decision was likely to meet the harsh criticism of some segment of
American Jewry.
Armed with a new sense of entitlement following their crucial role in support of
Israel during the 1967 War, many American Jews found their American values, and, indeed,
their Jewish values, coming into conflict with the policies of the previously heroic Israeli
government. 7 For some, the absence of a perilous situation in the Middle East engendered a
5 See, for example, Rose Halprin of Hadassah, Qtd. in Gideon Shimoni, introduction to Carol Diament, editor,
Zionism: The Sequel. (New York, N.Y.: Hadassah, The Women’s Zionist Organization of America Press,
1998), p. 9
6 Jonathan Sarna, American Judaism: A History. (New Haven, Connecticut; London: Yale University Press,
2004), p. 334-335
7 From the election of Menachem Begin to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the collection of historical
events that I detailed in Chapter 1 transformed Israel in the eyes of American Jewry and played a crucial role
in providing the political sparks which forced the deep-rooted ideological divide to take practical form.
sense of confidence and complacency, which, in turn, evolved into apathy. In this way, the
relationship between American Jewry and Israel has progressed from a discourse between
those guarding the Jewish state and those sitting on the rivers of Babylon, crying as they
remember Zion, to a fraternal feud between two parties with problems of their own.
With this retreating affection accorded Israel, American Jewry simultaneously grew
apart from Jewish affiliation as a whole, a correlative fact which became apparent with the
publication of the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey and its now-infamous statistic of
a 52% intermarriage rate. Handicapped by their intertwined conceptions of Jewishness and
American national loyalty 8 , which, as I have argued, eliminate the use of Israel as a stand-
alone purveyor of Jewish identity, the institutionalized Jewish community struggled to ensure
its perpetuity. 9 From this struggle, a new breed of individualized philanthropy characterized
by big ideas and even bigger wallets emerged to tackle the issue head-on.
In December 1999, Taglit-Birthright Israel sent its first group of American Jewish
youth on an all-expenses-paid 10-day trip to Israel, hoping to use the exotic and inspirational
locale to incubate a rich and vibrant Jewish identity among the participants, and strengthen
the connection between American Jewry and Israel in the process. 10 After six years of
Birthright adventures and more than 100,000 participants, the program has been declared a
success by its founders, its facilitators, and even some of those who criticized it initially. 11
8 Interestingly, as Deborah Dash Moore has contended, the comparatively hostile view of Israel prevalent in
many European countries has fostered a closer connection to Israel among members of the Jewish
community (Article in Bayme, editor, Israel On My Mind: Israel’s Role in World Jewish Identity, p. 34).
9 As I have noted with respect to my research on the Greek Jewish community, the uniquely American
replacement of civic morality with ethnic specificity in the public sector has rendered any allegiance to a
homeland un-American.
10 “Taglit-birthright Israel: About Us Main Page,” Taglit-birthright Israel website.
<http://www.birthrightisrael.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=Zone&
enZone=AboutUs>
11 See, for example, Isi Leibler (Qtd. in Allan C. Brownfeld, “Birthright Program to Tie Young American Jews
to Israel Is a Dead End in the Quest for Continuity.” The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Vol. 19,
No. 5 (June 2000), p. 67-69); Bruce Ramer (Personal interview. August 23, 2005); and Jonathan Sarna
(Personal interview. December 26, 2005).
Birthright has been reorganized into a separate foundation apart from the auspices of the
various sources that fund it, and more than 30,000 young American Jews are expected to
participate in 2006 alone. 12 Its cultural impact has been significant as well: in the words of
Jeffrey Solomon, President of Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies, “we are
reaching the tipping point where Birthright will be like the Bar Mitzvah: a rite of passage.” 13
Whereas the Birthright program uses Israel as a “hook” to draw in the most
unaffiliated of American Jewish youth and expose them to new Jew experiences, the Wexner
Fellowships depict Israel in conjunction with other singular elements of Jewish identity to
enhance the Jewish education and Jewish experience of the future leaders of the American
Jewish community. 14 For both, Israel plays a crucial role, and indeed, both programs cite as
a secondary aspiration a stronger connection between American Jewry and Israel. 15
Admittedly, all three Wexner Fellowships – the Graduate Fellowship, the Heritage
Fellowship, and the Israel Fellowship – possess objectives which are far removed from the
issue of Jewish continuity that sparked Birthright: while the founders of Birthright created a
program that seeks to serve as a transformative experience, one which reaches into one’s most
private allegiances and awakens a renewed sense of Jewish peoplehood, the Wexner
Foundation’s Fellowships seek to serve as a formative experience, preparing the next
generation of Jewish leaders to publicly direct their respective Jewish communities.
As I have shown, comparing the strategies employed by and the results achieved by
each initiative, and, indeed, analyzing their differences sheds new light on the future of
12 Leonard Saxe. Personal interview. December 26, 2005 (in-person). In comparison, only 4,000 Jewish youth
visited Israel in 1992, and those who did tended to have “higher rates of synagogue affiliation [than typical
American Jewish youth]” (Sylvia Barack Fishman, Jewish Life and American Culture. (Albany, N.Y.: State
University of New York, 2000), p. 84-85).
13 Jeffrey Solomon. Personal interview. March 23, 2006 (in-person)
14 “Wexner Heritage Program History,” Wexner Heritage Foundation website.
15 Elli Wohlgelernter, “Specializing in Jewish Philanthropy.” The Jerusalem Post, June 11, 1999, reproduced on
Wexner Foundation website. <http://www.wexnerheritage.org/asp/articles.asp?x=m&op1=10>

Zionism in America and the role that Israel plays in American Jewish identity. In essence, I
have evaluated the extent to which a connection with Israel should define American Jewish
identity, given that the common goal of these initiatives is the continued and sustained
survival of the Jewish people. Although I do not dispute the substantive results that
Birthright has achieved, I hope that this paper will prompt further reflection upon the use and
presentation of Israel in both the Wexner Fellowships and Birthright. In this way, my
research has pointed to several conclusions of varying contentiousness.
Inasmuch as Birthright uses Israel to construct a sense of Jewish peoplehood in those
participants for whom this does not already exist, the endeavor might not entirely achieve its
objectives. Indeed, I have demonstrated that in some cases Israel itself might have little to
do with the increased affiliation that does indeed result from Birthright. As the series of
reports conducted by Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at
Brandeis University have demonstrated, the Birthright experience does create the substantive
results that its founders seek. 16 However, when Israel is viewed in conjunction with more
easily replicable aspects of Jewish identity, even more substantive results tend to emerge. As
I have shown, whether or not this is the case is sometimes a function of the trip provider,
from the secular pluralism of Hillel trips to the religious Zionism of Oranim trips.
The Wexner Fellows, who already possess a strong sense of Jewish peoplehood, are
presented a more nuanced conception of Israel. That is, rather than stressing Israel itself as
a gateway to identity, Israel is depicted exclusively with respect of other aspects of Jewish
identity, from social justice to spirituality, thus enabling something necessarily far removed
from one’s life to be readily accessable. Not surprisingly, surveys show that Wexner Fellows’
16 Even Birthright’s most enthusiastic advocates admit that given the absence of a truly longitudinal perspective
on Birthright, no one can definitively say what the long-term results might be, especially when alumni
encounter the joyous obstacles of marriage and children, Judaism’s ultimate determinants of assimilation.
conceptions of Israel are so intertwined with other aspects of their Jewish identity that the
two are inseparable. 17 Even though its target audience is radically different, Birthright might
be best served by adopting the Wexner Fellowship program’s contextual representation of
Israel. This would help address the biggest challenge that has emerged thus far with the
Birthright program: the inherently difficult and even paradoxical task of follow-up.
Birthright has struggled from the beginning with the problem of how to replicate back
home that which is specific to Israel, while rationalizing the necessity of sending the
participants there in the first place. If, taking a page from the Wexner Fellowships’ book,
the Israel that Birthright participants are shown contains aspects of Jewish peoplehood that
can also be found back in America, then the problem of follow-up is somewhat ameliorated.
These aspects may range from the transcendence of Shabbat services to the comradery of
friends with a shared experience, but all of them represent gateways to Jewish identity that
are readily transferable from Israel to the college campus. As long as participants return
home with something from Israel that they can still grasp on to, it is comparatively easy to
design follow-up programming which, unlike the current stress on Israel advocacy, reaffirms
the tangible changes that the trip precipitated. Birthright alumni might still wrestle with their
Jewish identity, and many will reject it in the end, but at least, when viewed contextually,
Israel will represent a corporeal adversary that does not vanish mid-match. 18
In their seminars and institutes, the Wexner Foundation generally presents Israel to
its fellows in this nuanced fashion, but, overall, Israel is underutilized by the Wexner
17 Allen Selis, Wexner Graduate Fellowship Program Summer Institute 2003: Pre-Institute Materials: Part II:
Pre-Institute Survey Results. Report for the Wexner Foundation. (Columbus, Ohio: The Wexner
Foundation, August 1, 2003)
18 According to January 2006 study authored by the Cohen Center at Brandeis University entitled,
“Particularism in the University: Realities and Opportunities for Jewish Life on Campus,” polarizing,
political representations of Israel oftentimes serve to divide rather than unify Jewish campus communities,
essentially “scaring away” the 43% of Jewish college students who don’t know or care much about Israel and
are just looking for a safe place to be Jewish (Sue Fishkoff, “Study note to Jewish campus groups: Embrace
universalism to be effective.” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 8, 2006).
Fellowships as a tool to reflect other aspects of the Jewish experience. Ironically, the
Wexner Fellowships de-emphasize establishing a connection to Israel despite the fact that it
would enhance the fellows’ commitment, whereas Birthright follow-up emphasizes it
extraordinarily, sometimes at the expense of other elements of Jewish identity which might
also have been kindled on the trip. Each program might be better served by refining its
portrayal of Israel to better emulate the other: the Birthright program could present Israel in
an exclusively contextual light, emphasizing its indistinguishable place in the spectrum of
Jewish peoplehood, while the Wexner Fellowships could better highlight Israel’s crucial place
as a singular, interdependent aspect of Jewish leadership.
In essence, these recommendations blur the line between what has until now been
considered two completely unrelated pursuits in the Jewish community: reaching out to the
unaffiliated and cultivating the highly affiliated. Thus, one is forced to call into question and
seriously rethink the very nature of Jewish engagement and empowerment: in light of my
conclusion that the Birthright program and the Wexner Fellowships would be most effective
if more indistinguishable, one might wonder if the overlapping complexity of Jewish identity
means that identical strategies could be used to achieve drastically different objectives along
the entire spectrum of affiliation.
These findings point to a new approach to the problem of Jewish continuity in
America, an approach which moves beyond the singular “hook” of Israel as a means of
attracting the disinterested. By virtue of American Jewry’s historically significant place in a
voluntary Diaspora and the compartmentalized nature of Jewish identity in contemporary
American society, a connection to one’s Jewish peoplehood that revolves around Israel will
be inherently superficial and temporary, while a connection that draws from a diverse set of
inspirations, interconnecting them in a web of affiliation, will better ensure the Jewish
prosperity that these philanthropists crave. Efforts to enhance Jewish peoplehood that do
not recognize the nuanced and complex nature of Jewish identity and Jewish community are
doomed to fail; only those efforts that simultaneously embrace many, if not all aspects of
Jewish peoplehood at once will achieve the substantive results they seek. Some critics of
Birthright, such as Howard Farber, have promoted a more insular response to the challenge
of American Jewish continuity, an approach which Jeffrey Solomon has referred to
disparagingly as “reshtetlization”. 19 I would not go so far as to say that full-time day schools
are the only way to “rescue” American Jewry, but I do agree that a significantly less
patronizing approach to outreach, one which is more confident that young American Jews
can handle multiple aspects of Jewish identity concurrently, is in order.
As many scholars, most notably Kenneth Prewitt, the Director of the 2000 US
Census (the first to allow for multiracial self-identification), have demonstrated in recent
years, the affiliations of many Americans can be increasingly referred to as a “multi-cultural
identity”. A model which provides a pragmatic “salad bowl” alternative to the “melting pot”
approach to immigration, multiculturalism aims to preserve distinctiveness of each ethnic
group’s culture within the context of a coherent society. In the past decade, Jewish groups
have come to terms with the multi-cultural reality that membership in other affiliative groups
does not inherently marginalize an individual’s Jewish identity. Just as young adults can
“multi-task” and juggle a dozen windows on a computer screen, ever since the “ethnic
revolution” of the 1960s, American Jews have become increasingly able to simultaneously
embrace their Jewish identity along with several others. 20 Therefore, if one’s objective is to
19 Jeffrey Solomon, Reinventing North American Jewish Communal Structures: The Crisis of Normality.
(Arnulf M. Pins Memorial Lecture, Paul Baerwald School of Social Work, The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, March 5, 2000), p. 27
20 See, for example, Arthur M. Schlesinger, The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society.
(New York, N.Y.: W.W. Norton Press, 1998)
enhance Jewish identity, then, ignoring Ayn Rand’s compelling counter-argument, it might
be most effective not to promote this identity to the exclusion of other diverse elements of
identity, but rather by building upon them. If identity is indeed best internalized in this
integrated fashion, then programs like Birthright might consider presenting Israel in this way
as well. Because of the necessarily tenuous connection of American Jewry to Israel that I
have established, Israel will contribute to a substantive Jewish affiliation only when depicted
in relation to other aspects of Jewish identity, and even non-Jewish identity in this multi-
cultural framework.
In a nationalistic sense, American Jewish identity remains similarly conflicted. Jacob
Blaustein’s concern that the establishment of the State of Israel would fuel external
accusations of dual loyalty on the part of American Jews has luckily remained mostly
unfounded, but many American Jews still struggle with this division internally, as shown by
American Jewry’s reaction to Jonathan Pollard 1985 arrest on charges of spying for Israel. 21
Remaining cognizant of Birthright’s secondary objective – to bridge the growing divide
between American Jewry and Israel – Deborah Dash Moore, Professor of History at the
University of Michigan, has contended that a helpful model toward such a reconciliation
might be one of transnationalism. 22 By allowing American Jews to embrace a variety of
affiliative roles, from participation in Israeli society to rooting for the Boston Red Sox,
transnationalism enables an immigrant population successfully to express the multiple social
relationships (familial, economic, social, organizational, religious, and political) that link
21 As I argued in Chapter 1, with Pollard’s arrest, American Jews suddenly became defensive and insecure in
their Diasporic home, and many sought to distance themselves from Israel and reaffirm their primary loyalty
to the United States. Indeed, many American Jews took the lead in demanding that those Israelis
responsible for the incident be brought to justice, further antagonizing Israelis.
22 Defined in terms of international relations, see Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Transnational
Relations and World Politics. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1972)
together societies of origin and settlement. 23 In this way, writes Moore, American Jews
could “fulfill their responsibilities to Israel, not only to the state and its policies, but also to
the people and their concerns. Cultural exchange, mutual support, political engagement,
religious dialogue, social interchange, economic cooperation, educational fellowship – all
these make up elements of transnational Jewish citizenship. The transnational model
possesses the potential to transcend the accepted binary poles of Jewish thinking, Israel vs.
Diaspora, with multiple relationships. It lets us move beyond the tensions and traumas of
the present moment toward a new, invigorated future.” 24
This sort of policy would be especially helpful for those American Jews who find it
difficult to make up their minds, a growing trend in their consumer-driven society. One of
the more imaginative titles in recent sociological research – “Grande Soy Vanilla Latte with
Cinnamon, No Foam: Jewish Identity and Community in a Time of Unlimited Choices” –
astutely demonstrates both the complexity of modern Jewish identity and the institutional
Jewish community’s conception of identity as a commodity that can be bought and sold in
the marketplace. 25 This March 2006 study, commissioned by Reboot, a New York-based
network of Jewish creative initiatives sponsored by Andrea and Charles Bronfman
Philanthropies, found that young American Jews have “multiple, overlapping identities, of
which ‘being Jewish’ is just one, and not always the primary one.” 26
23 Deborah Dash Moore, article in Bayme, editor, Israel On My Mind: Israel’s Role in World Jewish Identity, p.
37-38. As compelling as this argument might be, I still find it inconceivable that anyone in his right mind
would root for the Red Sox.
24 Ibid. p. 38
25 Sue Fishkoff, “Say it loud, I’m Jewish and proud: Study finds identity, but less affiliation.” Jewish Telegraphic
Agency, March 26, 2006. Ironically, the fewer Jews there are in America, the more sects and subcategories
they appear to establish. Indeed, not since Hellenistic times, when the rabbinic authorities struggled to unify
and control a wild array of Jewish gnostics, Jewish Christians, and Jewish pagans, has there existed such a
diverse plethora of only slightly overlapping Jewish identities.
26 Ibid.
Decades before the terminology of “multiculturalism” and “transnationalism” came
into use, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan realized that the uniqueness of American society –
particularly the notable absence of the exclusionary nationalism present in Europe –
encouraged Jewish religious expression. In a 1939 article criticizing the legendary Zionist
Ahad Ha’Am for not comprehending the special conditions of democracy, Kaplan wrote,
“Secular culture in itself is not capable of sustaining our people in a democratic
environment, much as abstract religion could not do so. Only religious culture, which unites
the positive qualities of both, can do so.” 27 Kaplan then illustrated how American society,
from its social practices to its very constitution, perfectly accommodates just such a religious
culture. American Jews, wrote Kaplan, should strive to emulate American Catholics, as a
religious denomination that is also internationally-linked, especially in the then-hypothetical
scenario of the establishment of a Jewish State. 28
After the State of Israel was indeed established in 1948, Benjamin Halpern, then a
Professor of Judaica at Brandeis University, responded to Kaplan by advancing the argument
one step further to view not the rejection of galut (exile), but rather the consciousness of it as
American Jewry’s most distinctive attribute:
In the system of Jewish ideas “exile” is the inalienably Jewish idea, the most intimate creation
of the Jewish people, the symbol in which our whole historic experience is sublimated and
summed up. No other people had the Jewish experience of millennial exile. All the meaning
“exile” has flows straight from Jewish history, and it gives our history, our being, and our
identity as a people its meaning. Live under the sign of the exile – your life as a Jew is an
ever-present tension. Cut the idea out – and you cut out memory, identification, and drive,
substituting a dull adjustment. 29
27 Qtd. in Shimoni p. 14
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid. p. 23-24
Echoing Irving Howe in his embrace of the Diaspora’s cultural significance, Halpern
concluded that an American Jewish identity that refuses to recognize itself as being in galut
cannot be authentic, and thus, the consciousness of galut is what enables Jews to maintain
their Jewishness in America.
But to what extent must the Diaspora exist as a permanent phenomenon? Just as the
magnificent world of the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 67 CE, Jehuda
Halevy’s world was destroyed by the Spanish Inquisition, scattering its Jewish residents to all
corners of Europe and North Africa (and even to Catholicism within Spain). For Heinrich
Heine, this repetition articulated a cynical, sarcastic comment on the cyclical nature of Jewish
history: just when members of a Jewish community think that they are doing well,
successfully leading “double lives” as Jews in a non-Jewish society, they get kicked out and
have to start over. 30 For Heine, this tragically ironic cycle of Jewish history is sadly without
end or hope for a resolution. He implies that even when things are looking up, such as
when most of Germany’s Jews were emancipated in 1806, things will always come crashing
down again into a perpetual and miserable Diaspora.
Unlike Heine, for whom memory through poetry reminded him sufficiently of the
homeland, Halevy sought to reclaim the pre-exilic life by making aliyah. Heine tells the
reader that actual, physical return is neither possible nor desirable when he responds to the
voice of Psalm 137, at the same time reiterating his pessimistic view of the cycle of Jewish
history:
“By the Babylonian waters

There we sat and wept – our harps were
Hung upon the weeping willow. . .”
That old tune – do you still know it?
30 Heine, “Hebrew Melodies,” ii: 24, p. 111; ii: 38-39, p. 113

That old tune – do you still know it? –

How it starts with elegiac
Whining, humming like a kettle
That is seething on the hearth?
Long has it been seething in me –

For a thousand years. Black sorrow!
And my wounds are licked by time
Just as Job’s dog licked his boils.
Dog, I thank you for your spittle,

But its coolness merely soothes me –
Only death can really heal me,
But, alas, I am immortal! 31
In the stanzas preceding this excerpt, Heine significantly shifts to the third person from a
first person narrative, implying that although things can feel better – the dog’s spittle helps
soothe the wounds – all Jews (including Heine himself in the first person) must face the
reality that they are not going back, and are permanently stuck in exile. Instead, Jews must
creatively rekindle the homeland in the form of poetic memories which link them to the past
and can treat the symptoms, but never the roots of this painful disease, just as Job’s dog
soothes his wound of exile but offers no cure.
In this way, unlike the poet of Psalm 137, Heine does not see a return from Diaspora
as a possibility, for himself or anyone else. If we do try to do so, he sarcastically implies with
his evocation of Jehuda Halevy, we will probably die as soon as we arrive. In other
conceptions of the Diaspora, one looks both to the past as an ideal and to the future as a
goal – reciting “next year in Jerusalem” at the Passover Seder is one example – seeking in the
future a reunification of the Jewish people and perhaps even messianic implications. Heine,
however, looks only to the past and not the future, pessimistically accepting that he can
never return to 12th century Spain, his Jerusalem, but feeling satisfied nonetheless by eliciting
the memory of Halevy’s world in his poetry. If Benjamin Halpern is correct in defining
31 Ibid. ii: 1-4, p. 108

American Jewish identity as necessarily dependent upon its place in exile, then Israel, or at
least the memory of Israel, must constitute an essential element of American Jewish identity.
Despite these compelling assertions, some critics have contended that American
Jewry’s unprecedented emergence from exile to become full-fledged members of American
society is somehow undermined by the existence of Israel. In her short story “The Used-
Boy Raisers,” from the collection The Little Disturbances of Man, the American Jewish author
Grace Paley extrapolates on the demise of the Diaspora as exile. Through the voice of her
semi-autobiographical character Faith Darwin, who appears in twelve of her short stories,
Paley contends that Jews are better off in the Diaspora than they would be in Israel. 32
I believe in the Diaspora, not only as a fact but a tenet. I’m against Israel on technical
grounds. I’m very disappointed that they decided to become a state in my lifetime. I believe
in the Diaspora. After all, they are the chosen people. Don’t laugh. They really are. But
once they’ve huddled in one little corner of the desert, they’re like anyone else: Frenchies,
Italians, temporal nationalities. Jews have one hope only – to remain a remnant in the
basement of world affairs – no, I mean something else – a splinter in the toe of civilizations,
a victim to aggravate the conscience. . . I am only trying to say that they aren’t meant for
geographies but for history. They are not supposed to take up space but to continue in
time. 33
In this pluralistic argument in favor of the secular, humanistic value in being Jewish, Faith
identifies herself as an American Jew and disavows any allegiance to a Jewish homeland. 34
Faith, like Heine, finds new ways to extract meaning from old traditions, thus
reinventing Judaism and giving herself a new identity with respect to other Jews and other
Americans. Having won an integral place in American culture, a major accomplishment
considering its failure in other places around the world, this Jewish protagonist has become
32 Judith Arcana, Grace Paley’s Life Stories: A Literary Biography. (Urbana and Chicago, Illinois: University of
Illinois Press, 1993), p. 85
33 Grace Paley, “The Used-Boy Raisers,” from the collection The Little Disturbances of Man: Short Stories of
Women and Men at Love. (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1959), p. 131-132
34 In this vein, some scholars, like Steven Bayme, have commented that American Jewry’s “voluntary diaspora”
is more economically motivated than ideological (Steven Bayme. Personal interview. May 7, 2005 (in-
person)).
confident enough in this acceptance to reclaim Jewish culture, moving towards an identity
which, while encompassing two divergent identities in the spirit of modern multiculturalism,
still leaves room for some degree of individuality. 35 This life of Jewish freedom, security,
and normality is exactly what Zionists like Theodor Herzl and Ahad Ha’Am had in mind for
the state of Israel, but, Paley argues, it is actually a better description of an accepting
Diaspora, since Israel ironically turns out to be more of a marginalizing, threatening
society. 36
In her article “Imagining Judaism in America”, Susannah Heschel, Professor of
Jewish Studies at Dartmouth College, posits that Jews around the world saw America as “a
country that rolled off the shame and the taunt of the centuries from the shoulders of the
wandering Jew, to place him, the former Pariah of the nations, alongside of the highest and
the best, according to his worth and merit as a man.” 37 This post-Holocaust affirmation of a
stronger Jewish identity which will not allow itself to be bullied around recalls Moses
Mendelssohn’s aggressive criticism of Christianity. Mendelssohn, rather than complying
with Christian demands for changes in Judaism, advocated a change in Christianity’s claims
to exclusive truth and an admission of its philosophical and historical debts to Judaism. 38
Attacking Christian criticism of Judaism in his seminal work Jerusalem (1783), he writes,
It does not rest with us to yield on this matter; but it does rest with us, if we are honest, to
love you, nevertheless, as brothers, and to beseech you as brothers to make our burdens as
bearable as you can. Regard us, if not as brothers and fellow citizens, at least as fellow men
35 Derek Parker-Royal, “Unfinalized Moments in Jewish American Narrative.” Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal
of Jewish Studies, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Spring 2004), p. 3
36 Derek Rubin, “Postethnic Experience in Contemporary Jewish American Fiction.” Social Identities Journal:
Vol. 8, No. 4 (2002), p. 510, in his discussion of David Biale and Susanna Heschel’s book Insider/Outsider:
American Jews and Multiculturalism.
37 Susannah Heschel, “Imagining Judaism in America,” article in Hana Wirth-Nesher & Michael P. Kramer,
editors. The Cambridge Companion to Jewish American Literature. (Cambridge, United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 32
38 Moses Mendelssohn, Jerusalem or On Religious Power and Judaism. Translated by Allan Arkush. (Hanover,
New Hampshire: Brandeis University Press, 1983), p. 134

and fellow inhabitants of the land. Show us ways and provide us with the means of
becoming better men and better fellow inhabitants, and permit us to be partners in enjoying
the rights of humanity as far as time and circumstances permit. We cannot, in good
conscience, depart from the law, and what good will it do to have fellow citizens without
conscience? But, if so, how will the prophesy come true that some day there will be only one
shepherd and one flock?. . . In order to be under the care of this omnipresent shepherd the
entire flock need neither graze in one pasture nor enter and leave the master’s house through
a single door. This is neither what the shepherd wants nor advantageous to the prosperity of
the flock. 39
Mendelssohn’s contention that diversity and Diaspora are mutually beneficial for Jews and
Christians alike recalls his paradigm of a flexible dual identity, this time framing it in the
context of his demand to the Christians that they not only accept their Jewish brothers in
their society, but that they accept them as Jews.
In his book Diaspora and Zionism in Jewish American Literature, Ranen Omer-Sherman,
Professor of English at the University of Miami, demonstrates that in both its European
roots and its American renaissance, Zionism is no more static than one’s identity in a
Diaspora. Omer-Sherman treats “otherness” as a liberated state, quoting Daniel Boyarin in
his defense: “Diaspora is not a condition foisted upon the Jews but a cultural practice,
because the myth of the forced Diaspora requires that it begin after the destruction of the
Temple, while in fact at the time of the destruction of the Temple, more Jews already lived
abroad that ‘at home’.” 40 Omer-Sherman then speaks of two forms of universalism and
their threat toward minority populations, concluding, “In Pauline universalism, a ‘love’ for all
humanity exacts a sacrifice of total assimilation/conversion – or sometimes death. On the
other hand, in autochthonous nationalism, the collective all too frequently defends its place
of origin by excluding those with newer claims of belonging. I claim kin with writer Grace
Paley in that my exploration of literary Diasporism is inspired by the renunciation of both
39 Ibid. 135
40 Ranen Omer-Sherman, Diaspora and Zionism in Jewish American Literature: Lazarus, Syrkin, Reznikoff,
and Roth. (Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England, 2002), p. 7-8
these violent forms of universalism and calls for an embrace of the arts of exile, adaptation,
and coexistence, – a mode of exchange as well as a way of remaining apart – with Others.” 41
In his article “The Dialectics of Assimilation”, Amos Funkenstein quotes the 17th
century Venetian Rabbi Simone (Simcha) Luzzato in a similar response to Christian critics in
which he compares the Jews to a river: “its waters may change their colors according to the
various soils through which the river runs, but they always remain in the same water.” 42 This
analogy, though it does place more emphasis on the Jewish side of this dual identity, agrees
with Mendelssohn and Paley’s concept of a fluid identity which has the ability to assimilate
(in a positive sense of the word) into the present non-Jewish culture, but still retains its
Jewish essence. Although accommodating, this identity stops short of completely giving in
to the universalist pleas for homogeneity, thereby ensuring a persistent Jewish community
through its balance of allegiances.
In two societies as divergent as late 18th century Germany and mid-20th century
America, this river certainly did take very different colors, but by simultaneously resisting
and accepting surrounding cultures, it continued to flow, perpetuating the existence of the
Jewish community. Just as this multifaceted method of existing in non-Jewish society
enabled the survival of Diasporic Judaism, a nuanced connection to Israel may prove
constructive in accentuating the Jewish aspect of the cosmopolitan Diasporic experience. If
American Jewry can embrace and remember Israel as one contributing color in the
variegated palette of their Judaism, they might finally be able to resolve their seemingly
contradictory quiddity as citizens of a voluntary Diaspora.
41 Ibid. p. 8
42 Amos Funkenstein, “The Dialectics of Assimilation.” Jewish Social Studies 1995, p. 7
100
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aarons, Victoria. A Measure of Memory: Storytelling and Identity in American Jewish

Fiction. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1996.
Appleby, Carol. German Romantic Poetry: Goethe, Novalis, Heine, Hölderlin, Shlegel,
Schiller. London, UK: Joe’s Press, 1994.
Arar, Jacob. Personal interview. March 15, 2005 (in-person).
Arcana, Judith. Grace Paley’s Life Stories: A Literary Biography. Urbana and Chicago,
Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1993.
Arendt, Hannah. Edited by Liliana Weissberg. Rahel Varnhagen: The Life of a Jewess.
Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
Auerbach, Jerold S. Are We One?: Jewish Identity in the United States and Israel. New
Brunswick, N.J.; London, UK: Rutgers University Press, 2001.
――――. Jacob’s Voices: Reflections of a Wandering American Jew. Carbondale, Illinois:

Southern Illinois University Press, 1996.
Aviv, Caryn and David Shneer. New Jews: The End of the Jewish Diaspora. New York,
N.Y.: New York University Press, 2005.
Baron, Salo Wittmayer. The Jewish Community: Its History and Structure to the American
Revolution. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Jewish Publication Society of America,
1942.
――――. Modern Nationalism and Religion. New York, Harper Press, 1947.
Bayme, Steven, A. James Rudin, and David A. Harris. American Jewry Today. Trier,
Germany: Paulinus Press, 1999.
――――. Jewish Arguments and Counterarguments: Essays and Addresses. Hoboken, N.J.:
Ktav Publishing House, in association with the American Jewish Committee, 2002.
――――, editor. Facing The Future: Essays on Contemporary Jewish Life in Memory of
Yehuda Rosenman. Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav Publishing House; New York, N.Y.:
American Jewish Committee, 1989.
101
――――, editor. Israel On My Mind: Israel’s Role in World Jewish Identity. Report by The
Dorothy and Julius Koppelman Institute on American Jewish-Israeli Relations, The
American Jewish Committee. New York, N.Y.: The American Jewish Committee,
2006. <http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-
D25925B85EAF%7D/IsraelOnMyMind_2005.pdf>.
――――. Personal interview. May 7, 2005 (in-person).
――――. Understanding Jewish History: Texts and Commentaries. Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav
Publishing House, in association with the American Jewish Committee, 1997.
Beilin, Yossi. His Brother’s Keeper: Israel and Diaspora Jewry in the Twenty-first Century.
New York, N.Y.: Schocken Books, 2000.
――――. The Path to Geneva: The Quest for a Permanent Agreement, 1996-2004. New
York, N.Y.: RDV Books, 2004.
Bellah, Robert N. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life.
Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1996.
Bellow, Saul. The Adventures of Augie March: A Novel. New York, N.Y.: Viking Press,
1953.
――――. Mr. Sammler’s Planet. New York, N.Y.: Viking Press, 1970.
――――. To Jerusalem and Back: A Personal Account. New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books,
1985.
Ben-Zvi, Abraham. Partnership under stress: the American Jewish community and Israel.
Tel-Aviv, Israel: Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University, 1998.
Bershtel, Sara & Graubard, Allen. Saving Remnants: Feeling Jewish in America. New York,
N. Y.: Free-Macmillan Press, 1992.
Betz, Albrecht; Daniel, Jamie Owen; Huyssen, Andreas. “Commodity and Modernity in
Heine and Benjamin.” New German Critique, No. 33: Modernity and Postmodernity
(Autumn 1984), p. 179-188.
Bick, Etta. Reasoning Together: Three Decades of Discussions between American and
Israeli Jews. New York, N.Y.: Institute on American Jewish-Israeli Relations,
American Jewish Committee, 1985.
Birmingham, Stephen. “Our crowd”; The Great Jewish Families of New York. New York,
N.Y., Harper & Row, 1967.
Bogen, Boris D. Jewish Philanthropy: An Exposition of Principles and Methods of Jewish

Social Service in the United States. New York, N.Y.: Macmillan Press, 1917.
102
――――. Born a Jew. New York, N.Y., The Macmillan Company, 1930.
Brodkin, Karen. How Jews Became White Folks and What that Says about Race in America.
New Brunswick, N.J. : Rutgers University Press, 1998.
Brownfeld, Allan C. “Birthright Program to Tie Young American Jews To Israel Is a Dead
End in the Quest for Continuity.” The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Vol.
19, No. 5 (June 2000), p. 67-69.
Budick, Emily Miller, editor. Ideology and Jewish Identity in Israeli and American
Literature. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 2001.
Cahan, Abraham. Yekl, The Imported Bridegroom, and other stories of the New York
Ghetto, with a new introduction by Bernard G. Richards. New York, N.Y.: Dover
Publications, 1970.
Cardin, Sandy. Personal interview. December 9, 2005 (phone).
Chanes, Jerome A., editor. Anti-Semitism in America Today: Outspoken Experts Explode
the Myths. Secaucus, N.J.: Carol Publishing Group, 1995.
Chiat, Marilyn Joyce Segal and Chester Proshan. We Rolled Up Our Sleeves: A History of
the United Jewish Fund and Council and its Beneficiary Agencies. Saint Paul,
Minnesota: United Jewish Fund and Council of Saint Paul, 1985.
Clotfelter, Charles T. and Thomas Ehrlich, editors. Philanthropy and the Nonprofit Sector
in a Changing America. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1999.
Cohen, Gershon D. “The Blessing of Assimilation in Jewish History (1966).” Jewish History
and Jewish Destiny. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1997, p.
145–156.
Cohen, Naomi Wiener. American Jews and the Zionist Idea. New York, N.Y.: Ktav
Publishing House, 1975.
――――. Not Free to Desist; the American Jewish Committee, 1906-1966. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1972.
Cohen, Robin. “Diasporas and the Nation-State: From Victims to Challengers.” International
Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 72, No. 3, Ethnicity and
International Relations (July 1996), p. 507-520.
Cohen, Steven M., Jonathan S. Woocher, and Bruce A. Phillips, editors. Perspectives in
Jewish population research. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1984.
――――. American Assimilation or Jewish Revival? Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana

University Press, 1988.
103
――――. Personal interview. May 16, 2005 (phone).
―――― & Arnold M. Eisen. The Jew Within: Self, Family, and Community in America.
Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2000.
Davis, Moshe. America and the Holy Land. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Press, 1995.
Diament, Carol, editor. Zionism: The Sequel. New York, N.Y.: Hadassah, The Women’s
Zionist Organization of America Press, 1998.
Diamond, James. Personal interview. February 6, 2006 (in-person).
Diner, Hasia R. Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000. Berkeley, California; London:
University of California Press, 2004.
――――. Personal interview. June 2, 2005 (in-person).
Dinnerstein, Leonard. Antisemitism in America. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press,
1994.
Dubler, Joshua. Personal interview. October 19, 2005 (in-person).
Eisen, Arnold M. Galut: Modern Jewish Reflection on Homelessness and Homecoming.

Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1986.
――――. Personal interview. December 15, 2005 (phone).
Eisen, Lisa. Personal interview. December 9, 2005 (phone).
――――. Personal interview. February 2, 2006 (in-person).
Elcott, David. Personal interview. May 6, 2005 (in-person).
Erspamer, Peter R. The Elusiveness of Tolerance: The ‘Jewish Question’ from Lessing to
the Napoleonic Wars. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North
Carolina Press, 1997.
Ezrahi, Sidra DeKoven. “Canon Fodder: A Review of ‘The Cambridge Companion to

Jewish American Literature.’ Hana Wirth-Nesher and Michael P. Kramer, editors.”
Tikkun Magazine: January/February 2004, Vol. 19, Issue 1, p. 67-73.
Farber, Howard. Personal interview. August 22, 2005 (in-person).
Firestone, Wayne. Personal interview. February 2, 2006 (in-person).

104
Fishkoff, Sue. “Say It Loud, I’m Jewish and Proud: Study Finds Identity, but Less
Affiliation.” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 26, 2006.
――――. “Study Note to Jewish Campus Groups: Embrace Universalism to be Effective.”

Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 8, 2006.
Fishman, Sylvia Barack. Jewish Life and American Culture. Albany, N.Y.: State University of
New York, 2000.
Freedman, Samuel G. Jew vs. Jew: The Struggle for the Soul of American Jewry. New
York, N.Y.; London, UK: Simon & Schuster, 2000.
Friedman, Murray. Utopian Dilemma: American Judaism and Public Policy. Washington,
D.C.: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1985.
Funkenstein, Amos. “The Dialectics of Assimilation.” Jewish Social Studies 1995, p. 1–14.
Gal, Allon & Alfred Gottschalk, editors. Beyond Survival and Philanthropy: American Jewry
and Israel. Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 2000.
――――, editor. Envisioning Israel: The Changing Ideals and Images of North American
Jews. Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes Press, Hebrew University; Detroit, Michigan: Wayne
State University Press, 1996.
――――. Socialist-Zionism: Theory and Issues in Contemporary Jewish Nationalism.

Cambridge, Massachusetts, Schenkman Publishing Co., 1973.
Gerstenfeld, Manfred, editor. American Jewry’s Challenge: Conversations Confronting the

Twenty-first Century. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Press, 2005.
Gilboa, Eytan. American Public Opinion Toward Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict.
Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1987.
Gilman, Sander L. Jewish Self-hatred: Anti-Semitism and the Hidden Language of the Jews.
Baltimore, Maryland and London, UK: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986.
Glazer, Nathan. Personal interview. May 12, 2005 (phone).
Goetschel, Willi. “Lessing’s ‘Jewish’ Questions.” The Germanic Review 2003, p. 62-74.
――――. “Rhyming History: A Note on the ‘Hebrew Melodies’.” The Germanic Review, Fall
1999; 74, 4; Research Library Core p. 271-282.
Golan, Matti. With Friends Like You: What Israelis Really Think about American Jews,
translated from the Hebrew by Hillel Halkin. New York, N.Y.: Free Press, 1992.
Goldberg, J. J. (Jonathan Jeremy). Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment.
Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Press, 1996.
105
Goldin, Milton. Why They Give: American Jews and their Philanthropies. New York, N.Y.:
Macmillan Press, 1976.
Goldstein, Bluma. “Heine’s ‘Hebrew Melodies’: A Politics and Poetics of Diaspora.”

Heinrich Heine’s contested identities: politics, religion, and nationalism in nineteenth-century
Germany, edited by Jost Hermand & Robert Holub. 1999, p. 49-68.
Goodkind, E. Robert. Personal interview. December 21, 2005 (in-person).
Goodman, Allegra. The Family Markowitz. New York, N.Y.: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux
Press, 1996.
Goodman, Dana. Personal interview. May 17, 2005 (phone).
Gordis, David M. & Ben-Horin, Yoav, editors. Jewish Identity in America. Los Angeles,
California: University of Judaism Press, 1991.
Gorni, Yosef. State of Israel in Jewish Public Thought: The Quest for Collective Identity.
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan, 1994.
Graubard, Allen. “From Commentary to Tikkun: The Past and Future of ‘Progressive
Jewish Intellectuals’.” Middle East Report: May-June, 1989: No. 158, p. 17-23.
Greenberg, Douglas. Email correspondence of May 2, 2005.
――――. Personal interview. August 22, 2005 (in-person).
Haberman, Clyde. “Yad Vashem No Long on Israeli Official Itinerary for Visiting
Dignitaries.” The New York Times, January 14, 1996.
Habib, Jasmin. Israel, Diaspora, and The Routes of National Belonging. Toronto, Canada;
Buffalo, N.Y.: University of Toronto Press, 2004.
Halkin, Hillel. Letters to an American Jewish Friend: A Zionist’s Polemic. Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1977.
Hamilton, Charles H. and Warren F. Ilchman, editors. Cultures of Giving: How Region and
Religion Influence Philanthropy. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass, 1995.
Handlin, Oscar. Adventure in Freedom: Three Hundred Years of Jewish Life in America.
New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Press 1954.
――――. The Uprooted: The Epic Story of the Great Migrations that Made the American
People. Boston, Massachusetts: Little & Brown Press, 1951.
Harris, David A. Personal interview. May 6, 2005 (in-person).

106
Hazan, Jenny. “Charles Bronfman - Man On A Mission.” Lifestyles Magazine, December

2003.
Heine, Heinrich. The Complete Poems of Heinrich Heine: Volume III: Romanzero.
Translated by Hal Draper. New York and Frankfurt: Suhrkamp and Insel
Publishers, 1982.
Heinze, Andrew R. Adapting to Abundance: Jewish Immigrants, Mass Consumption, and

the Search for American Identity. New York, N.Y.: Columbia University Press,
1990.
Hendel, Mendel. Personal interview. March 19, 2005 (in-person).
Herberg, Will. Judaism and Modern Man: An Interpretation of Jewish Religion. New York,
N.Y.: Farrar, Straus and Young Press 1951.
――――. Protestant, Catholic, Jew: An Essay in American Religious Sociology. Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday Press, 1955.
Hertzberg, Arthur. A Jew in America: My Life and a People’s Struggle for Identity. San
Francisco, California: Harper San Francisco Press, 2002.
――――, editor. The Zionist Idea; A Historical Analysis and Reader. Westport, Connecticut,
Greenwood Press 1970, 1959.
――――. Being Jewish in America: The Modern Experience. New York: Schocken Press,
1979.
Heschel, Abraham Joshua. God In Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism. New York,
N.Y.: Farrar, Straus & Cudahy Press, 1955.
――――. Israel: An Echo of Eternity. New York, N.Y.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux Press,
1969.
Heschel, Susannah. Personal interview. January 22, 2006 (in-person).
Himmelfarb, Milton. The Jews of Modernity. New York, N.Y.: Basic Books 1973.
Hirsch, Ammiel, and Yosef Reinman. One People, Two Worlds: A Reform Rabbi and an
Orthodox Rabbi Explore the Issues That Divide Them. New York, N.Y.: Schocken
Books, 2002.
――――. Personal interview. December 21, 2005 (in-person).
Hoenlein, Malcolm. Personal interview. November 28, 2005 (phone).
Howe, Irving. World of Our Fathers. New York, N.Y.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Press,
1976.
107
Ilchman, Warren F., Stanley N. Katz, and Edward L. Queen II, editors. Philanthropy in the
World’s Traditions. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1998.
Infeld, Avraham. Personal interview. February 2, 2006 (in-person).
Isaacs, Stephen D. Jews and American Politics. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday Press, 1974.
Israel, Steve and Seth Forman, editors. Great Jewish Speeches Throughout History.
Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson, 1994.
Issacs, Neil D. Grace Paley: A Study of the Short Fiction. Boston, Massachusetts: Twayne
Publishers, 1990.
Joel, Richard. Personal interview. January 30, 2006 (in-person).
Joselit, Jenna Weissman. The Wonders of America: Reinventing Jewish Culture, 1880-1950.
New York, N.Y.: Hill and Wang Press, 1994.
Kadushin. Charles. Personal interview. May 10, 2005 (phone).
Kaplan, Mordecai Menahem. A New Zionism. New York, N.Y.: Herzl Press, 1959.
――――. Judaism As A Civilization: Toward a Reconstruction of American-Jewish life

(1934), with a new introductory essay by Arnold Eisen. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
Jewish Publication Society, 1994.
Karp, Abraham J. Jewish Continuity in America: Creative Survival in a Free Society.

Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1998.
Karpeles, Gustav. Jewish Literature and Other Essays. Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries
Press, 1895.
Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Transnational Relations and World Politics.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1972.
Kessner, Carole S. “Review of ‘Diaspora and Zionism in Jewish American Literature:

Lazarus, Syrkin, Reznikoff, and Roth,’ by Ranen Omer-Sherman.” American Jewish
History: September 2002, p. 345-348.
Kleeblatt, Norman L., editor. Too Jewish?: Challenging Traditional Identities. New York,
N.Y.: Jewish Museum; New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1996.
Konner, Melvin. Unsettled: An Anthropology of the Jews. New York, N.Y.; London, UK:
Viking Compass Press, 2003.
Kosmin, Barry A. & Paul Ritterband, editors. Contemporary Jewish Philanthropy in

America. Savage, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Press, 1991.
108
Koumantareas, Menis. Personal interview. March 17, 2005.
Kraft, Dina. “Avi Chai Foundation to the rescue: $7 million grant could save birthright.”
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, February 17, 2004.
Krivitky, Keith. Personal interview. February 2, 2005 (in-person).
Krupnick, Mark. “Assimilation in Recent American Jewish Autobiographies.” Contemporary

Literature: Autumn, 1993: Vol. 34, No. 3, p. 451-474.
Kushner, Tony and Alisa Solomon, editors. Wrestling with Zion: Progressive Jewish-
American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. New York, N.Y.: Grove
Press, 2003.
Lassner, Phyllis. “Review of ‘Diaspora and Zionism in Jewish American Literature: Lazarus,
Syrkin, Reznikoff, and Roth,’ by Ranen Omer-Sherman.” Modernism/Modernity: April
2003, p. 408-410.
Lederhendler, Eli and Jonathan D. Sarna, editors. America and Zion: essays and papers in
memory of Moshe Davis. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press, 2002.
Lee, Jo-Anne and John Lutz, editors. Situating “Race” and Racisms in Time, Space, and
Theory: Critical Essays for Activists and Scholars. Montreal; Ithaca: McGill-Queen’s
Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim, edited and translated by Peter Demetz. “Nathan der Weise” in
Nathan the Wise, Minna von Barnhelm, and Other Plays and Writings. New York,
N. Y.: Continuum Publishing Company, 1991.
Levine, Etan. “Mi Yehuda Ha-Levi ad Yonatan Ha-Qatan.” World Literature Today, Spring
1997; 71, 2; Research Library Core, p. 450.
Lewisohn, Ludwig. American Jew, Character and Destiny. New York, N.Y., Farrar and
Straus Press, 1950.
――――. The Island Within. New York, N.Y., London, UK, Harper & Brothers Press, 1928.
Linzer, Norman. Ethical Dilemmas in Jewish Communal Service. Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav
Publishing House; Kendall Park, N.J.: Association of Jewish Family & Children’s
Agencies: Jewish Communal Service Association, 1996.
Lipstadt, Deborah. Personal interview. May 18, 2005 (phone).
Littell, Franklin Hamlin. American Protestantism and anti-Semitism. Jerusalem, Israel:

Shazar Library, Institute of Contemporary Jewry, Vidal Sassoon International Center
for the Study of Anti-Semitism, Hebrew University, 1985.
Litvak, Olga. Personal interview. February 16, 2006 (in-person).

109
Malamud, Bernard. The Assistant: A Novel. New York, N.Y.: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy,
1957.
Mandel, Dena. “Keeping Up with Faith: Grace Paley’s Sturdy American Jewess.” Studies in
American Jewish Literature 3: 1983, p. 85-98.
Mayer, Egon. Love and Tradition: Marriage between Jews and Christians. New York, N.Y.:
Plenum Press, 1985.
Mehlman, Jeffrey. “A review of ‘Jewish Self-hatred: Anti-Semitism and the Hidden

Language of the Jews’.” MLN, Vol. 102, No. 3, German Issue (April 1987), p. 668-
672.
Mendelssohn, Moses. Jerusalem or On Religious Power and Judaism. Translated by Allan

Arkush. Hanover, New Hampshire: Brandeis University Press, 1983.
Milbouer, Penny. “A review of ‘Jewish Self-hatred: Anti-Semitism and the Hidden Language
of the Jews’.” The German Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 2 (Spring 1988), p. 337-339.
Mittelberg, David. The Israel Connection and American Jews. Westport, Connecticut:
Praeger Press, 1999.
Mittleman, Alan, Jonathan D. Sarna, and Robert Licht, editors. Jewish Polity and American
Civil Society: Communal Agencies and Religious Movements in the American Public
Sphere. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.
Mor, Menachem, editor. Eretz Israel, Israel, and the Jewish Diaspora: Mutual Relations:
Proceedings of the first annual Symposium of the Philip M. and Ethel Klutznick
Chair in Jewish Civilization, held on Sunday-Monday, October 9-10, 1988. Lanham,
Maryland: University Press of America; Omaha, Nebraska: Center for the Study of
Religion and Society, Creighton University, 1991.
Morris, Robert and Michael Freund, editors. Trends and Issues in Jewish Social Welfare in
the United States, 1899-1952: The history of American Jewish social welfare, seen
through the proceedings and reports of the National Conference of Jewish
Communal Service. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Jewish Publication Society of
America, 1966.
Moses, Larry. Personal interview. April 22, 2005 (phone).
Neusner, Jacob. Israel in America: A Too-comfortable Exile? Boston, Massachusetts:

Beacon Press, 1985.
Newman, Peter Charles. King of the Castle: The Making of a Dynasty: Seagram’s and the
Bronfman Empire. New York, N.Y.: Atheneum Press, 1979.
110
Niekerk, Carl. “Review of ‘Nathans Ende? Von Lessing bis Tabori: Zur deutsch judischen
Rezeption von “Nathan der Weise”,’ by Barbara Fischer.” Seminar: A Journal of
Germanic Studies: 2000, p. 171-173.
Novick, Peter. The Holocaust in American Life. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1999.
O’Brien, Lee. American Jewish Organizations & Israel. Washington, D.C.: Institute for
Palestine Studies, 1986.
Omer-Sherman, Ranen. Diaspora and Zionism in Jewish American Literature: Lazarus,

Syrkin, Reznikoff, and Roth. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New
England, 2002.
Ozick, Cynthia. The Shawl. New York, N.Y.: Knopf Press, 1983.
Paley, Grace. The Little Disturbances of Man: Short Stories of Women and Men at Love.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1959.
Parker-Royal, Derek. “Unfinalized Moments in Jewish American Narrative.” Shofar: An

Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies: Spring 2004, Vol. 22, No. 3, p. 1-11.
Plesur, Milton. Jewish Life in Twentieth-century America: Challenge and Accommodation.

Chicago, Illinois, Nelson-Hall Press, 1982.
Pomerance, Rachel. “After five years, birthright shows success in building Jewish identity.”
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, December 21, 2004.
――――. “Birthright Israel’s Summer Program Reduced due to Funding Problems.” Jewish
Telegraphic Agency, January 26, 2004.
Porter, Jack Nusan. Jew as Outsider: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, collected
essays, 1974-1980. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1981.
Prawer, S.S. Heine the Tragic Satirist: A Study of the Later Poetry, 1827-1856. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 1961.
Raab, Earl, editor. American Jews in the 21st century: A Leadership Challenge. Atlanta,
Georgia: Scholars Press, 1991.
Raider, Mark A. The Emergence of American Zionism. New York, N.Y.: New York
Rainwater, Catherine & Scheick, William J., editors. Contemporary American Jewish
Women Writers: Narrative Strategies. Lexington, Kentucky: The University of
Kentucky Press, 1985.
Ramer, Bruce. Personal interview. August 23, 2005 (in-person).

111
Raphael, Marc Lee. Judaism in America. New York, N.Y.; Chichester, UK: Columbia
――――, editor. Understanding American Jewish Philanthropy. New York, N.Y.: Ktav
Publishing House, 1979.
Raphael-Sasson, Rachel. Personal interview. March 16, 2005 (in-person).
Reed, T.J.; Stillmark, Alexander, editors. Heine und die Weltliteratur. Oxford, UK:
European Humanities Research Centre of the University of Oxford, 2000.
Reinharz, Jehuda, Anita Shapira, and Shmuel Almog, editors. Zionism and Religion.
Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England, 1998.
Reisel, Esther and Rudi Reisel. Modern Jewish Identity: A Rationalistic Motivation for
Remaining Jewish. Jerusalem. Israel; New York, N.Y.: Gefen Press, 2000.
Rieder, Jonathan, and Steven Steinlight, editors. Fractious Nation?: Unity and Division in
Contemporary American Life. Berkeley, California: University of California Press,
2003.
Rieger, Howard. Personal interview. December 19, 2005 (in-person).
Rosen, Mark I. The Remaking of Hillel: A Case Study on Leadership and Organizational
Transformation. Report by The Fisher-Bernstein Institute for Jewish Philanthropy
and Leadership, Brandeis University. Waltham, Massachuetts: Brandeis University,
January 2006. <http://www.cmjs.org/index.cfm?page=216&IDNews=41>
Rosenthal, Steven T. Irreconcilable Differences?: The Waning of the American Jewish Love
Affair with Israel. Hanover, NH; London: University Press of New England [for]
Brandeis University Press, 2001.
Roth, Henry. Call It Sleep. New York, N.Y.: Robert O. Ballou Press, 1934.
Roth, Phillip. American Pastoral. Franklin Center, Pennsylvania: Franklin Library Press,
1997.
――――. Goodbye, Columbus and Five Short Stories. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton
Mifflin Press, 1959.
――――. Portnoy’s Complaint. New York, N.Y.: Random House Press, 1969.
Rubin, Derek. “Postethnic Experience in Contemporary Jewish American Fiction.” Social

Identities Journal: 2002, Vol. 8, No. 4, p. 507-520.
Rushkoff, Douglas. Nothing Sacred: The Truth about Judaism. New York, N.Y.: Crown
Publishers, 2003.
112
Ruskay, John S., and David M. Szonyi, editors. Deepening The Commitment: Zionism and
the Conservative/Masorti movement: papers from a conference of
Conservative/Masorti movement leadership held September 7-8, 1988 at the Jewish
Theological Seminary of America, New York City. New York, N.Y.: Jewish
Theological Seminary of America, 1990.
――――. Personal interview. October 14, 2005 (in-person).
――――. “Jewish Identity and Beyond: President’s Study Forum on the Diaspora: A Speech
delivered at Beit HaNasi (President’s House) in Israel on February 20, 2005,” UJA
Federation of New York website.
<http://www.ujafedny.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8539>.
Rutherford, Jonathan, editor. Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. London: Lawrence

& Wishart Press, 1998.
Sachar, Howard M. A History of the Jews in America. New York, N.Y.: Knopf Press, 1992.
Sales, Amy L. & Saxe, Leonard. How Goodly Are Thy Tents. Report by the Maurice and
Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University. Waltham,
Massachusetts: Brandeis University, December 2003.
<http://www.cmjs.org/index.cfm?page=229&IDResearch=97>
―――― & Saxe, Leonard. Particularism in the University: Realities and Opportunities For
Jewish Life On Campus. Report by the Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for
Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University and the Avi Chai Foundation. Waltham,
Massachusetts: Brandeis University, January 2006.
<http://cmjs.org/files/JewishLifeonCampusB%20(4).pdf>
Sammons, Jeffrey L. “By the Rivers of Babylon: Heinrich Heine’s Late Songs and
Reflections.” JEGP, Journal of English and Germanic Philology, January 2000; 99, 1;
Humanities Module, p. 106-108.
――――. “Zu Heinrich Heine.” The German Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 2 (March 1982), p. 260-
262.
Saperstein, David. Personal interview. November 27, 2005 (phone).
Sarna, Jonathan D., editor. The American Jewish Experience. New York, N.Y.: Holmes &
Meier Press, 1986.
――――. American Judaism: A History. New Haven, Connecticut; London: Yale University
Press, 2004.
――――. “The Secret of Jewish Continuity.” Commentary Magazine, Vol. 98, Issue 4 (October
1994), p. 55.
113
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Anti-Semite and Jew. Translated by George J. Becker. New York, N.Y.:
Schocken Books, 1948.
Saxe, Leonard. Personal interview. December 26, 2005 (in-person).
――――, et. al. Evaluating birthright Israel: Long-Term Impact and Recent Findings. Report
by the Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis
University. Waltham, Massachusetts: Brandeis University, November 2004.
<http://www.cmjs.org/files/evaluatingbri.04.pdf>
Schechter, S. (Solomon). Studies in Judaism. Third series. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The

Jewish publication society of America, 1924.
Schleifer, Yigal. “Birthrights and Wrongs.” The Jerusalem Report. July 3, 2000, p. 32.
Schlesinger, Arthur M. The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society.

New York, N.Y.: W.W. Norton Press, 1998.
Schlessinger, Evan. Personal interview. May 17, 2005 (phone).
Schorsch, Ismar. “An American Jewish Communal Necessity.” The Jerusalem Post Op-Ed page,
December 19, 2005.
Selis, Allen. Wexner Graduate Fellowship Program Summer Institute 2003: Pre-Institute
Materials: Part II: Pre-Institute Survey Results. Report for the Wexner Foundation.
Columbus, Ohio: The Wexner Foundation, August 1, 2003.
Shapiro, David H. From Philanthropy to Activism: The Political Transformation of

American Zionism in the Holocaust Years, 1933-1945. Oxford, UK; New York,
N.Y.: Pergamon Press, 1994.
Shapiro, Harold. Personal interview. January 19, 2006 (in-person).
Shatzky, Joel & Taub, Michael, editors. Contemporary Jewish Dramatists and Poets: A Bio-
Critical Sourcebook. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1999.
Silverman, Jane. Personal interview. December 18, 2005 (in-person).
Skerry, Peter. Counting on the Census?: Race, Group Identity, and the Evasion of Politics.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2000.
Sklare, Marshall. Observing America’s Jews, edited and with a foreword by Jonathan D.
Sarna; afterword by Charles S. Liebman. Hanover, New Hampshire: University
Press of New England for Brandeis University Press, 1993.
Slavin, Stephen L. and Mary A. Pradt. The Einstein Syndrome: Corporate Anti-Semitism in
America Today. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1982.
114
Solomon, Barbara Miller. Pioneers in Service: The History of the Associated Jewish
Philanthropies of Boston. Boston, 1956.
Solomon, Jeffrey R. Reinventing North American Jewish Communal Structures: The Crisis
of Normality. Arnulf M. Pins Memorial Lecture, Paul Baerwald School of Social
Work, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, March 5, 2000.
――――. Personal interview. March 23, 2006 (in-person).
Stocksicker Di Maio, Irene. “Review of ‘The Elusiveness of Tolerance: The “Jewish

Question” from Lessing to the Napoleonic Wars,’ by Peter R. Erspamer.”
Monatsheftes: 2003, Vol. 95, No. 2, p. 330-332.
Strom, Stephanie. “Big But Not Easy.” The New York Times, November 15, 2004, p. F1.
Tabak, Israel. Judaic Lore in Heine: the Heritage of a Poet. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
Tanner, Harold. Personal interview. May 6, 2005 (in-person).
Taylor, Jacqueline. Grace Paley: Illuminating the Dark Lives. Austin, Texas: University of
Texas Press, 1990.
Tigay, Chanan. “Birthright seeks to expand funding as the demand for trips multiplies.”
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 31, 2005.
Tobin, Gary A. and Sharon L. Sassler. Jewish Perceptions of Anti-Semitism. New York,
N.Y.: Plenum Press, 1988.
――――. Opening The Gates: How Proactive Conversion can Revitalize the Jewish
Community. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1999.
――――. The Transition of Communal Values and Behavior in Jewish Philanthropy. Report
by The Institute for Jewish & Community Research. San Francisco, California:
Institute for Jewish & Community Research, 2001.
<http://www.jewishresearch.org/PDFs/Transition_Phil_2001.pdf>
Troen, S. Ilan and Deborah Dash Moore, editors. Divergent Jewish Cultures: Israel and
America. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2001.
Tölölyan, Khachig. “Rethinking Diaspora(s): Stateless Power in the Transnational

Moment.” Diaspora 5: 1996, p. 3-36.
Urofsky, Melvin I. American Zionism from Herzl to the Holocaust. Garden City, N.Y. :
Anchor Press, 1975.
115
Veit, Phillip. “Fichtenbaum und Palme.” Heine’s Arbor: The Germanic Review, vol. XLVII
(1972), p. 20-40.
Vital, David. The Future of the Jews. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,
1990.
Wade, Stephen. Jewish American Literature Since 1945. Edinburgh, United Kingdom:
Edinburgh University Press, 1999.
Walzer, Michael, Menachem Lorberbaum, Noam J. Zohar, editors. The Jewish Political
Tradition. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2000.
――――. Personal interview. May 18, 2005 (in-person).
Waxman, Chaim I. and Roberta Rosenberg Farber, editors. Jews in America: A

Contemporary Reader. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New
England for Brandeis University Press, 1999.
――――. Personal interview. April 21, 2005 (in-person).
Weignand, Hermann J. “Heine’s Return to God.” Modern Philology, Vol. 18, No. 6 (October
1920), p. 309-342.
Wenger, Beth S. and Jeffrey Shandler, editors. Encounters with the “Holy Land”: Place,
Past and Future in American Jewish Culture. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: National
Museum of American Jewish History: Center for Judaic Studies, University of
Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Library; Hanover, New Hampshire:
Distributed by University Press of New England, 1997.
Wertheimer, Jack, editor. The Modern Jewish Experience: A Reader’s Guide. New York,
N.Y.: New York University Press, 1993.
――――. A People Divided: Judaism in Contemporary America. New York, N.Y.:

BasicBooks, 1993.
――――. Uses of Tradition: Jewish Continuity in the Modern Era. New York, N.Y.: Jewish
Theological Seminary of America; Cambridge, Massachusetts: Distributed by
Harvard University Press, 1992.
Wilentz, Amy. Martyrs’ Crossing: A Novel. New York, N.Y.; London, UK: Simon &
Schuster, 2001.
Wilf, Mark. Personal interview. February 1, 2006 (in-person).

116
Wirth-Nesher, Hana & Kramer, Michael P., editors. The Cambridge Companion to Jewish
American Literature. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press,
2003.
Wisse, Ruth R. If I Am Not For Myself: The Liberal Betrayal of the Jews. New York, N.Y.:
Free Press, 1992.
Wohlgelernter, Elli. “Specializing in Jewish Philanthropy.” The Jerusalem Post, June 11, 1999,
reproduced on Wexner Foundation website.
<http://www.wexnerheritage.org/asp/articles.asp?x=m&op1=10>
Wolpert, Julian. Patterns of Generosity in America: Who’s Holding the Safety Net? New
York, N.Y.: Twentieth Century Fund Press, 1993.
――――. Personal interview. April 15, 2005, etc. (in-person).
Woocher, Jonathan S. Sacred Survival: The Civil Religion of American Jews. Bloomington,
Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1986.
Wuthnow, Robert, and Virginia A. Hodgkinson. Faith and Philanthropy in America:

Exploring the Role of Religion in America’s Voluntary Sector. San Francisco,
California: Jossey-Bass Press, 1990.
Yezierska, Anzia. Salome of the Tenements. New York, N.Y.: Boni and Liveright Press,
1923.
Yoffie, Eric. Personal interview. December 20, 2005 (in-person).
――――. “Remarks for URJ Executive Committee Meeting, NYC, March 8, 2004.” Union for
Reform Judaism website. <http://urj.org/yoffie/remarks040308>
――――. “Steinhardt’s Folly.” The New York Jewish Week. December 26, 2003.
Yudkin, Leon Israel. Jewish Writing and Identity in the Twentieth Century. London, United
Kingdom: Croom Helm Press, 1982.
Zeldner, Max. “A Note on ‘Schlemiel’.” The German Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 2 (March 1953),
p. 115-117.
Zelon, Helen. “Camp Comeback.” Moment Magazine, Vol. 25, No. 1 (February 2000), p. 64-
72.
117
INTERNET SOURCES WITHOUT AUTHORS, ALPHABETIZED BY TITLE:
“Aish Ha’torah Trip Organizer Description.” Taglit-birthright Israel website.

<http://register.birthrightisrael.com/DescriptionsByTO.cfm?id=60&ShowMe=1&
Round=14>
“Canada Israel Experience Trip Organizer Description.” Taglit-birthright Israel website.

<http://register.birthrightisrael.com/DescriptionsByTO.cfm?id=3&ShowMe=1&R
ound=14>
“Diesenhaus Unitours Trip Organizer Description.” Taglit-birthright Israel website.

Round=14>
“Ezra World Youth Movement Trip Organizer Description.” Taglit-birthright Israel website.
Round=14>
“Fundacja Forum Dialogu Między Narodami,” Forum for Dialogue Among Nations website.
<http://www.dialog.org.pl>
“General Information and Awards: Wexner Graduate Fellows.” Wexner Foundation website.
<http://www.wexnerfoundation.org/GFA>
“How to choose a Trip Organizer?” Taglit-birthright Israel website.

<http://www.birthrightisrael.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view
&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=WinnerPhoto%5El14&enZone=WinnerPhoto
&enVersion=0&&channel=TheTrip>
“Israel on Campus Coalition: About Us: Mission.” Israel on Campus Coalition website.
<http://israeloncampuscoalition.org/aboutus/mission>
“Israel21c: A Focus Beyond the Conflict: About Israel 21c.” Israel 21c website.
<http://www.israel21c.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDi
spWhat=Zone&enZone=OurMission&>
“Jewish Funders Network: About Us,” Jewish Funders Network website.

<http://www.jfunders.org/about>
“The Leader, The Newsletter of the Wexner Heritage Foundation, Winter 2004, Vol. 5, No.
1.” Wexner Heritage Foundation website.
<http://www.wexnerheritage.org/pdf/Winter2004.pdf>
“Livnot U’Lehibanot Trip Organizer Description.” Taglit-birthright Israel website.

Round=14>
118
“March of the Living Trip Organizer Description.” Taglit-birthright Israel website.

Round=14>
“The National Jewish Council for the Disabled Trip Organizer Description.” Taglit-birthright
Israel website.
Round=14>
“Oranim Experience Trip Organizer Description.” Taglit-birthright Israel website.

Round=14>
“The Sephardic Educational Center Trip Organizer Description.” Taglit-birthright Israel website.
Round=14>
“Shorashim Trip Organizer Description.” Taglit-birthright Israel website.

Round=14>
“The Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel Trip Organizer Description.” Taglit-
birthright Israel website.
Round=14>
“Taglit-birthright Israel: About Us Main Page.” Taglit-birthright Israel website.

&enDispWhat=Zone&enZone=AboutUs>
“Taglit-birthright Israel Alumni Association (BRIAA).” Taglit-birthright Israel website.

&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=WinnerPhoto%5El24&enZone=WinnerPhoto
&enVersion=0&&channel=TheTrip>
“T’lalim Experience Trip Organizer Description.” Taglit-birthright Israel website.

Round=14>
“USD of WZO Trip Organizer Description.” Taglit-birthright Israel website.

Round=14>
“Wexner Heritage Program History.” Wexner Heritage Foundation website.

“The Wexner Israel Fellowship Program.” Wexner Foundation website.


Dylan Tatz Senior Thesis Revised

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Dylan Tatz Senior Thesis Revised

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

YEARNING FOR A VOLUNTARY DIASPORA:

THE PLACE OF ISRAEL IN AMERICAN JEWISH IDENTITY AS

Dylan Henry Tatz ’06

A senior thesis submitted to

April 17, 2006

This paper represents my own work in accordance with University

I authorize Princeton University to lend this thesis to other institutions or

I further authorize Princeton University to reproduce this thesis by

Dylan Tatz ’06

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO THE ROLE OF ISRAEL IN A

American Zionism’s Reaction to the Creation of the State of Israel . . . . . . . . . . .3

The Growing Divide Between American Jewry and Israel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

A Crisis of Continuity: Philanthropy as a Source for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

CHAPTER II: AN OVERVIEW OF BIRTHRIGHT ISRAEL AND THE

CHAPTER III: AN ANALYSIS OF HOW THE WEXNER FELLOWSHIPS USE

The Graduate Fellowship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

The Heritage Fellowship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

The Israel Fellowship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

The Philosophy of the Wexner Foundation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

CHAPTER IV: AN ANALYSIS OF HOW BIRTHRIGHT ISRAEL USES

The Significance of the Location: What is Israel’s Role in Birthright?

A Critical Exploration of the Brandeis Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Comparative Conceptions of Israel among Birthright Providers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

The Paradoxical Problem of Birthright Follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Israel Advocacy as a Tool for Birthright Follow-up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

The Synagogue’s Role in Birthright Follow-up: A Counter-Argument

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION: REFLECTIONS ON THE PLACE OF

mine, and I treasure his reminders.

While attempting to relax, I encountered a plethora of individuals generous enough

professionals to academics, but are united by their intellectual philanthropy:

Steven Bayme Keith Krivitzky

Sandy Cardin Deborah Lipstadt

Steven M. Cohen Olga Litvak

Jim Diamond Larry Moses

Hasia Diner Bruce Ramer

Josh Dubler Howard Rieger

Arnie Eisen John Ruskay

Lisa Eisen Jonathan Sarna

David Elcott David Saperstein

Howard Farber Len Saxe

Wayne Firestone Evan Schlessinger

Nathan Glazer Hal Shapiro

Bob Goodkind Jeffrey Solomon

Dana Goodman Gary Tobin

Doug Greenberg Harold Tanner

David Harris Michael Walzer

Susannah Heschel Chaim Waxman

Ammiel Hirsch Jack Wertheimer

Malcolm Hoenlein Mark Wilf

Avraham Infeld Ruth Wisse

Richard Joel Julian Wolpert

Charles Kadushin Eric Yoffie

In addition, Professor emeritus Julian Wolpert deserves special recognition.

kindness that has pervaded every word which follows.

April 17, 2006

Dry with thirst, oh let my tongue cleave

real-life journey obsolete.

envisioning that of Halevy.

AMERICAN ZIONISM’S REACTION TO THE CREATION OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL

around the world as a singular nation. 4

The Women’s Zionist Organization of America Press, 1998), p. 3

Israel (many of whom loosely referred to themselves as “Zionists”) encountered strong

was a subversion of Zionism.

Zionist Organization of America, declared, “the concept of golah [Diaspora] connotes