The following essay is part of a collaboration between eJewishPhilanthropy and the Center for Jewish Peoplehood Education, which will publish a new edition of its Peoplehood Papers series, “The Rifts Within Israeli Society – How Should World Jewry Respond?”, with this essay and more, in the beginning of April.

The Zionist Movement, from its inception, has been a battleground of competing visions for the Jewish future. Almost all major political trends of the last 150 years — Marxism, liberal democracy, militant nationalism, anti-colonialism, religious messianism — have all had some iteration within the Zionist movement. Before the establishment of the state, these competing movements organized political parties, built youth movements and published newspapers to sway the Jewish public toward their vision. And despite working in direct opposition, they sat together in the democratic institutions of the World Zionist Congress and later the Israeli Knesset. While much has changed, the past five years demonstrate that we continue to live within the struggle between competing visions. 

In contrast, mainstream American support for Israel demonstrates a historical reluctance to participate in such conversations. As Rafael Medoff writes in The Emergence of American Zionism:

“Most American Zionists were ‘stam Zionists.’ They were convinced of the need for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, but not wedded to any particular vision of that homeland’s future economic, social, or religious contours.”

Within the DNA of the American Jewish communities’ relationship to Israel, there exists an intentional distance — sometimes outright disinterest — from many of these more “particular” discussions about Israeli society’s inner workings. Politically, this attitude manifests through bipartisan support predicated on the insistence that Israelis will determine their own fate through democratic elections. Educationally, it is reproduced as building general identification with Israel while expanding Israel literacy (history, politics, culture).

This approach proves increasingly insufficient and untenable in our current reality.

The situation in Israel today makes this position untenable. Israeli citizens live amidst crippling polarization where previously assumed “rules of the game” erode before our eyes. Opponents label each other “traitors,” “messianic psychos,” and — at our worst moments — enemies of the state. The last five years witnessed the dissolution of clear consensus as foundational principles disintegrate.

In this environment, maintaining “general identification with Israel” resembles walking a tightrope rather than a firm ground to stand on.

Israel educators previously explained societal disagreements as expressions of a thriving democracy. But what meaning do such comments hold when a significant portion of Israelis spent 2023 screaming out that Israeli democracy was facing extinction? How can young Jewish students maintain a love for Israel when the current finance minister advocates to “restore the Torah justice system…[to] the days of King David,” calls himself a “proud homophobe,” and states the Palestinian “village of Huwara should be wiped out”?

Consider a scene from a recent Birthright trip. Since Oct. 7, groups from across the Jewish world visit Israel to connect with the Jewish people during one of our darkest hours — showing solidarity, bearing witness, volunteering, asking questions, and drawing strength. Among visits to the Nova massacre site, packing supplies for soldiers and meeting displaced communities, many groups have met with the families at Hostage Square. What should the group’s guide explain beyond expressing empathy and identification? Should they show videos of police violence against family members during protests? Should they share Netanyahu’s son’s statements about them? Or perhaps quote Einav Zangauker, whose son Matan remains held in Gaza, who compared her previous support for Benjamin Netanyahu to membership in a cult?

Facing this reality, we must acknowledge the traditional model fails to meet current needs. Jewish young people today are challenged to navigate their own relationship with Israel in an incredibly hostile environment, and our current model provides inadequate tools to do so. While identification and literacy are essential, they offer insufficient answers to the genuine questions that are shaking our country to its core. And any thinking young person will pick up on this, as they already have.

A vision-based approach to Israel enables true critical engagement coupled with the value of participation and action. To do so, I propose five initial directions:

1. Open and honest engagement with Israel’s challenges through frank discussions that address big questions in their totality.
2. Reframing the story of Israel as a struggle between competing visions that — while coexisting under a single democratic umbrella — represent alternative value systems that clash with one another.
3. Encouraging the analysis of such visions, with an emphasis on identification with particular traditions over general identification. 
4. Facilitated meetings with current activists and leaders engaged in constructive work for Israel’s future based on their values and vision.
5. Providing young people platforms to participate constructively in the country’s advancement and direction.

The vision and action-based approach can bring forward a new understanding of arevut in the Israel-Diaspora relationship — not just through mutual responsibility and help during crises, but by true involvement (hitarvut) in the unfolding story of Israel itself.

Adam Levi is an educator with 15-plus years of creating Jewish educational experiences, specializing in curriculum on Jewish identity, Israeli society and youth leadership. A Canadian-born Israeli, Levi serves as the co-director of Hechalutz, where he works to bridges Israeli and Diaspora communities through critical engagement and dialogical learning.