The Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies has released “U.S. Jewish Young Adults React to the Gaza Conflict: A Survey of Birthright Israel Applicants.”
This study examines the reactions of a diverse group of Jewish young adults (applicants to Taglit-Birthright Israel) to the 2014 conflict in Gaza.
The report compares their responses to the opinions of young adults in the U.S. The findings are based on a survey conducted in early August 2014 of a sample of U.S. based individuals who applied to the trip – both participants and nonparticipants – from 2011 to 2013. Survey questions focused on media consumption, opinions about Israel’s and Hamas’ action during the conflict, and support for Israel.
From the report:
The present survey was designed to understand the reactions of Taglit-Birthright Israel applicants to the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas. The results make clear that Taglit applicants, regardless of whether they ultimately went on a Taglit trip, are concerned with the situation. These Jewish young adults follow the news closely and attend to both U.S. and Israeli news sources. Furthermore, although their general political views are liberal, and they are concerned about the loss of innocent Palestinian lives, they overwhelmingly believe that Israel’s actions in the conflict were justified.
The headline of one of the recent articles reporting on American attitudes to the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas is that “Young Americans take a dim view of Israel’s actions” (Blake, 2014, July 29). Clearly, Taglit applicants do not share these views. The results of the present survey, which are based on responses to the same questions that were the basis for the headline, make clear that Jewish young adults have a different assessment of the situation.
Furthermore, Taglit participants – who recently experienced an educational, peer trip to Israel – were significantly more supportive of Israel than nonparticipants. Their attitudes more closely resemble those of Jewish Israelis, 90% of whom felt that Israel’s military actions in Gaza were justified (Yaar & Hermann, August 2014). As Israel experiences become more widespread among Jewish young adults, overall support for Israel among American Jews is likely to increase.
Some have suggested that Taglit attracts only right-wing applicants and that liberal Jews are not welcomed, but that claim is belied by the finding that almost two-thirds of Taglit participants and nonparticipants consider themselves liberal. It has also been suggested that Taglit gives participants a one-sided view of the situation. To be sure, Taglit participants did not have a chance as part of the program to visit Gaza (or the West Bank) and to engage with Palestinians from these areas. Yet, Taglit participants demonstrate considerable sympathy for victims on both sides of the conflict. A significant sub-group believed that Israel has gone “too far” in responding to Hamas, while at the same time, believing that Hamas, not Israel, is responsible for the conflict.
There has been substantial discussion about whether or not Jewish young adults are “distancing” themselves from Israel (Cohen & Kelman, 2007, 2010; Sasson, Kadushin, & Saxe, 2010). The present findings make clear that those who have applied to Taglit are not distanced – rather, they are highly engaged, even those who ultimately did not go on a Taglit trip. The degree to which they follow the news and the passion expressed in their comments suggests that Jewish young adults have a thirst for more information and more involvement.
The complete report is available in English here and in Hebrew here.
Top
Unfortunately, this is yet again another example of poorly designed research trying to justify the value of birthright. The core question that continues to be raised in the Jewish community is does birthright participation elevate Jewish engagement and is it worth the cost. This report does nothing to address that question and in fact seems to offer data suggesting it actually fails at that goal. First, the dependent variables chosen are terrible. Is birthright really successful if applicants/attendees listen to the news media more? Really? Where are the critical action-oriented variables? Did they attend a campus rally in support of Israel? Did they make a meaningful contribution to an Israel Emergency campaign? (both of these were lumped together and the response was quite poor overall) Did they write/call/visit their elected officials and discuss Israel’s right to defend itself? Did they directly challenge the media’s portrayal of the events in Gaza? In other words, were they activist supporters and defenders of Israel? Watching/following more news is hardly a meaningful outcome for birthright engagement. Second, the report itself actually provides no statistical significance metrics when comparing attendees/participants and applicants/nonparticipants. In fact, when looking at the data reported in the tables, there seems to be little difference between participants and nonparticipants actually suggesting that the commitment to Israel exists PRIOR to attending a birthright trip. The commitment is what motivates individuals to apply to birthright and attending a trip actually does little to elevate that commitment. In other words, those applying are already a self-selected group of individuals committed to Israel and that commitment does not, in fact, seem to be enhanced by actually attending a trip. For example, when looking at the question about how closely one followed news in the last week about the fighting between Israel and Hamas, 84% of participants said “fairly or very closely” while 79% of nonparticipants responded exactly the same way – essentially no difference. When looking at attendance at a rally in support of Israel, 16% of participants did while 14% of nonparticipants did. Again, NO DIFFERENCE. Which begs the question why are we spending billions to send kids already committed to Israel to Israel other than sustaining what has now become the “birthright industry”? What are we doing to engage the kids who aren’t motivated enough to even apply? Finally, comparing participants/nonparticipants to the overall US population of 18-29 year-olds is ludicrous. That comparator is so heterogeneous for so may variables at so many levels that in essence the comparisons are really participants/nonparticipants as one cohort and “other” as the second cohort. The differences between participants/ nonparticipants is tiny/non-existent by comparison to the entire US population of 18-29 year olds. A far better “general” comparator would have been Jewish kids ages 18-29 who have never applied to birthright or the “general” Jewish population which, while also very heterogeneous, has more to do with Israel and birthright that any 18-29 year old in the US. The modus operendi of birthright is to elevate Jewish engagement – comparing it to the entire non-Jewish population is meaningless.
Conducting this kind of research is important to help the Jewish community understand needs, outcomes, successes and failures. Conducting poorly conceived and designed research does more harm than good in achieving this goal. This research unfortunately falls into the second category and offers little real insight other than being self-serving to the birthright industry.