Opening Session

Introduction What does Israel mean? What does Israel mean to us?

This course is aimed to empower participants to work through their own personal well- informed answers to these fundamental questions.

Is Israel about religion? About politics? About statecraft? About belonging? About the Jewish People?

This opening session is aimed at orienting the individual participants and the group as a whole to what is coming. The group needs to begin to form, memories of Birthright need to be honored and stored, and the learning needs to begin…

Goals  Participants will begin to get to know each other, and each other’s relationship to Israel.  Participants will begin to appreciate the ways in which common language, such as “National Anthem”, often hides fascinating difference, not similarity.  Participants will emerge with a sense of the shape of the course to come.

Big Question  How can we talk about Zionism when we don’t really know what it is?

Guiding Questions  How does my experience in Israel compare with others’?  What does nationalism have to do with it?  Why is Israel so different?  What did Amos Oz mean, when he said that Zionism was a “family name”?

Preparation for Facilitator  Read through the entire session and make sure you are comfortable with all the material.  Decide how you will implement the session. Note that in Part 3 there is an option of 2 different activities for you to choose from.  Read the “Materials Needed” section of this session, and make sure to prepare materials in advance.  Make sure to set up the room in a thoughtful way that supports the activities.  In order to be prepared to guide the students through the session, we highly recommend doing the activities in this session yourself, prior to teaching it. This will ensure that you are ready to answer their specific questions within each exercise, and will also reveal for yourself your personal biases, which will help you when facilitating.

Make It Modular  Ideally, the session is done in its entirety. However, if time is limited, you should feel free to be selective about which components of this session you cover. To ensure alignment to the session's goals, we suggest the following:  Choose only one of the two options for Part 3  During the Hatikvah activity, don’t play the various videos

Bearing in mind this is the opening foundational session, we recommend that if you leave out Part 3a, please email it to everyone afterwards. If you miss out Part 3b, please email it to everyone afterwards. It would be a shame for this material not to be part of everyone’s knowledge bank.

Planning Tip: when planning the session it is important to not only think about timing but also about what activities and materials are going to resonate the most with your students. It’s important to have a variety of activities for the variety of learners in the group and we recommend being thoughtful about this as you decide how to set up the session.

Materials Needed  Computer, connected to computer projector and GOOD speakers  Screen  Pens and paper for all participants  Print outs of the lyrics in the Hatikvah section, and/or print-outs of the Zionism Quotation sheet

Session Outline Suggested Segment Description Time Briefly introduce yourself and share names Introduction 5 minutes around the room Part 1: Pre-session 20 minutes Sharing the pre-Session assignment assignment Participants will watch the video of Gadi Taub, Part 2: Gadi Taub 20 minutes and share initial thoughts Participants will explore their connection to Part 3a: Hatikvah 30 minutes their own National Anthem, and gain information about the origins of Hatikvah Participants will learn about different Part 3b: Zionism 101 30 minutes approaches to early Zionism Part 4: Four Hatikvah Here the course structure will be introduced, 20 minutes Questions and a brief exercise about 4HQ Wrap up this session and briefly look to next Conclusion 10 minutes session

Pre-Session Assignment Think about your current relationship to Israel. This course is a great opportunity to think more deeply about how you want to relate to Israel and explore many possibilities for expanding that relationship.

In preparation for the opening session, please do a free write answering the following questions:

1. (In what way) Did the Birthright trip change the way you feel/think about being Jewish? 2. (In what way) Did the Birthright trip change the way you feel/think about Israel? 3. In what ways do you want to explore/expand/deepen your relationship to Israel? 4. What are you hoping to get out of this course?

Note: free write should be no longer than a page in total.

Part 1: Pre-session assignment Students should bring their written answers on a piece of paper to this session and be prepared to share with a member of the group. This is a great opportunity for the group to get to know one another. If you have a sense of who already knows each other in the group, pre-assign partners and mix up the group so people have a chance to get to know different people. If you weren’t able to pre-assign partners, ask them to pair up with someone they haven’t had a conversation with yet. This is especially important at this stage in the course as the group dynamic is beginning to form, and the written statements reveal a lot about their thinking and will help participants get to know one another in a meaningful way.

Instructions: Before breaking the students up into pairs, remind them that their responsibility during this activity is to listen and give their partner a place to express him or herself. They might hear a perspective that is very different from their own, but the goal here is not to analyze, critique or give feedback. It is simply to give their partner a place to share and listen to their experience. After you have framed the activity, break students up into their (pre-assigned) pairs. Give each person 10 minutes to share what they wrote and then cue the participants to switch to the next person when it is time.

Note: We highly recommend collecting and putting their statements in an envelope with their name on it at the end of the session for two reasons: 1) It will be important information for you to read to get a sense of how each participant feels their Jewish identity was impacted by the trip, how they see their relationship with Israel, and what they hope to get out of this course. 2) At the end of the series, they will be writing a statement about their relationship to Israel, and it will be great for them to have this statement as a reference for how their relationship to Israel has shifted or not shifted.

Transition: Now that we’ve taken a look at our experiences in Israel, let’s begin to look at why the place came about, and what it has to do with being Jewish and what it has to do with being democratic.

Part 2: Gadi Taub on Zionism http://youtu.be/-8sP71BxckY

Watch together Gadi Taub lay out his understanding of the roots of Zionism – the roots of the Jewish State. We recommend stopping viewing at 9:10, as Taub then moves on to more contemporary issues of the conflict, that we will address later in the course.

Following the screening, go round the group asking them to remark on one exclamation point (i.e. something that they learned for the first time, or surprised them), and one question mark (a question they are left with) – after having watched the film.

Encourage an open conversation about Taub’s approach, but in particular it would be worth making sure that participants appreciate his point about the connection between liberation, nationalism, and democracy. In particular, the way in which American assumptions lead us to think that national identity should not play a part in democracy. (Since Taub only refers to the US, and not Canada, it will be worth asking Canadians where US sentiments chime in with, or contradict Canadian assumptions.) In a 2007 article Taub comments:

The winds of globalization spread an American form of liberalism and with it America’s tendency to misunderstand itself as a “pure” liberal democracy – i.e. a democracy beyond and apart from identity.

This does not mean that identity is not in vogue in the US. Under the paradigm of multiculturalism a plethora of hyphenated self-definitions, are repeatedly de and reconstructed. But the unarticulated premise is that identity is what comes before the hyphen, and that what comes after it – “American” – somehow stands, or should stand, for a democratic procedure or a universal liberal framework. This is, of course, not exactly the case. “American” is a strong national identity and liberalism is part of it, not a pure procedural arrangement beyond it.

The confusion of procedure with identity is not a new product of the multicultural vocabulary. It is as old as the republic. Ever since the late eighteenth-century Americans tended to understand their liberal creed as sustained by Madisonian diversity and to ignore the extent to which it was held together by Jeffersonian uniformity. From The Federalist #10 to the current post-structuralist preoccupation with identity, this blindness to their own strong nationalism has led many Americans to believe that imposing the American Way on others is tantamount to liberating them. From Jefferson’s Empire of Liberty, to Woodrow Wilson’s determination to “teach” South-Americans to elect “good men,” and up to the George W. Bush’s badly conceived war in Iraq, this streak persisted. At its best the US was and is a true champion of liberty. But it is not at its best when liberty is confused with Americanization.

Part 3a: National Anthem

Transition: Continuing Taub’s thoughts about patriotism (national sentiment) and democracy, let’s now take a look at Israel’s national anthem. This is going to provide us with our theme and structure for the next 9 weeks.

First of all – how do we relate to our host country’s national anthem?

The final discussion, around the different lyrics for Hatikvah, should be run in smaller groups. The main body of the responses below can be run as a whole group, or in smaller groups. You should make the decision based on the size of the group, and its ability to listen to each other.

[The next section refers to the Star Spangled Banner. In Canada, you will of course replace this with O Canada.]

Quick quiz – in small groups Star Spangled Banner  Can you write down all the words of the first verse?  Can you remember any of the other verses?  What event do the lyrics refer to? (Defence of Fort Henry, Baltimore MD 1814)

[At this point, you can play an official version of the anthem] http://youtu.be/x8ONCSmBrG8  When did the Star Spangled Banner become the official anthem of USA? (1913)  What are the origins of the tune? (An English drinking song composed by John Stafford Smith. Original boozy lyrics here.) O Canada  Can you write down all the words of the first verse in English? In French?  Can you remember any of the other verses – in either language?  For what event was the song composed? (St Jean-Baptiste Day, 1880) http://youtu.be/xADAJ_oyvIs

The Music and the Words:  What feelings arise when you sing the anthem?  Do you stand/put hand on heart/take your hat off when singing it?  If you don’t do any of these gestures, what do you think when others do?  How do you understand/relate to the words? [are they difficult to understand?]  What affects you more: the words, or the music?

And now: Hatikvah… Play the famous Barbra Streisand version: http://youtu.be/8uPHaioopKM?t=3m30s

You can play the whole clip if you’d like – as Barbra Streisand talks with Golda Meir…

The music Hatikvah is one of the very few national anthems in a minor key. To a western ear, this sounds somewhat sorrowful.  Does this add to its significance for you, or does it detract from it?  Thinking back to our responses to the music of Star Spangled Banner/O Canada – should an anthem be triumphant?  What does it say to you, that Israel’s anthem is minor?

Development of the tune th An early 16 century song Ballo di Montova displays many elements of the song we know as Hatikvah, but the most direct source would be Smetana’s piece Ma Vlast – My Fatherland. It is fascinating to realize that this quintessential song of Israel was originally written in praise of Czechoslovakia!

The lyrics As long as the Jewish spirit is yearning deep in the heart, With eyes turned toward the East, looking toward Zion, Then our hope – the two-thousand-year-old hope – will not be lost: To be a free people in our land, The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

Two questions about the lyrics:  The lyrics talk of the Jewish spirit. Do you see yourself as part of the Jewish spirit? How does this song speak to you? [it is worth trying to reincorporate the thoughts and sentiments expressed about Star Spangled Banner, and encouraging their application in this conversation. Are there points of comparison?]  The song talks of a longing and a hope. Do you think the hope has now been fulfilled? Do you think this song is now a little out of date? [you may want to interject at this point and talk about the song Jerusalem of Gold. The song was originally written as a sad lament for the loss of Jerusalem in early 1967. It was a great hit. But some months later Jerusalem was conquered and Jews could once again enter the Old City. In response, Naomi Shemer added an extra verse, celebrating Jews' return to Jerusalem. So there is a precedent for updating Israeli national songs when appropriate. Perhaps the 'hope' is not yet fulfilled?]

Further Text study Naftali Herz Inber wrote the original poem in 1878 that was set to music by Samuel Cohen. The poem itself was seven stanzas long, but traditionally only the first verse and the chorus are sung. The then-Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rav Kook, suggested a more religious lyric, but it was not accepted. After Inber had since left Israel, a change was made to the words of the chorus. It is this altered version that we sing today.

Split into groups, and study the three different lyrics for ending of the Israeli national anthem. All were to be sung to the same tune. What are the differences between the three versions, and what do they say to you?

Suggested lyrics of Rav Original lyrics of Final version Kook, the first Chief Hatikvah Rabbi of Israel

Eternally living within our Our hope is not yet lost, Our hope is not yet lost hearts, The ancient hope The hope of 2000 years The Faith, the loyal faith To return to the land of To be a free people in to return to our holy our fathers, our land land, The city The land of Zion and The city where David where David encamped Jerusalem settled.

Part 4: Course Overview (20 minutes)  Show the students the video which explains the educational methodology that this curriculum was based on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LUVOfdm-CE

Make sure that you have watched this through, and feel entirely comfortable with the concept of 4HQ. If you need more help, please contact us at [email protected] and we will direct you to more information and talk you through.

The scorecard. Have everyone fill out their own “score card”. Make sure everyone knows that this is not a precise science – just a “testing of the waters”.

1. Looking at where the Jewish People were at in 1945, how would you have scored us between 0-10 on To Be (existence), Peoplehood (unity, playing out our values, culture, religion), Freedom (democracy, to make choices, be creative), and In Our Land?

2. Looking at Israel today, where would you score the State between 0-10 on To Be (existence), Peoplehood (unity, playing out our values, culture, religion), Freedom (from persecution, to make choices, be creative), and In Our Land?

3. Looking at your life in North America and the life of Jews in North America, how would you score your community between 0-10 on To Be (existence), Peoplehood (unity, playing out our values, culture, religion), Freedom (from persecution, to make choices, be creative), and In Our Land?

On the flip chart, mark down everyone’s scores to come up with a combined score on all four questions.

Ask someone to photograph the group chart. Tell them that we will return to these three scores at the end of the course, and see how things might have changed. While you could of course photograph it yourself, it is beneficial to gain buy-in from participants, and to signal to them that you expect to see them at the end of the course as well!

*Alternative Part 3 You may feel that your group will more appreciate a grounding in classic Zionist thinking, rather than this exploration of the National Anthem. This exercise can replace, or be added to the Hatikvah exercise.

Zionism 101 1. Theodore Herzl, “The Jewish State”, 1896

"And what glory awaits those who fight unselfishly for the cause! Therefore I believe that a wondrous generation of Jews will spring into existence. The Maccabeans will rise again...

The Jews who wish for a State will have it. We shall live at last as free men on our own soil, and die peacefully in our own homes.

The world will be freed by our liberty, enriched by our wealth, magnified by our greatness. And whatever we attempt there to accomplish for our own welfare, will react powerfully and beneficially for the good of humanity.”

Based on this quote, would Herzl rather: (circle your answer) a. A Jewish State in Israel or A Jewish State anywhere in the world b. Jews to be rich or Jews to be free c. The world inspired by Jews or Maccabees coming back to life

2. Ahad Ha’am: “Jewish State and Jewish Problem”, 1897

It needs not an independent State, but only the creation in its native land of conditions favorable to its development: a good-sized settlement of Jews working without hindrance in every branch of culture, from agriculture and handicrafts to science and literature. This Jewish settlement, which will be a gradual growth, will become in course of time the centre of the nation, wherein its spirit will find pure expression and develop in all its aspects up to the highest degree of perfection of which it is capable.

What seems to be most important to Ahad Ha’am? a. Jewish military/defense c. a Jewish independent State b. Jewish culture d. Jewish agriculture

3. A.D. Gordon, “People and Labor,” 1911

In Palestine, we must do with our own hands all the things that make up the sum total of life. We must ourselves do all the work, from the least strenuous, cleanest and most sophisticated to the dirtiest and most difficult. In our own way, we must feel what a worker feels and what a worker thinks – then, and only then, shall we have a culture of our own for then we shall live a life of our own. It all seems very clear: From now on our principal ideal must be Labor.

What would Gordon probably be most impressed by? a. A large donation to Israel b. A petition supporting Israel c. A soldier serving in the Israeli army d. A volunteer on Kibbutz

4. Ben-Gurion, “the Imperatives of the Jewish Revolution,” 1944

We must master our fate, we must take destiny into our own hands!...Galut [literally, Exile] means dependence – material, political, spiritual, cultural, and intellectual dependence – because we are aliens, a minority, bereft of a homeland, rootless and separated from the soil, from labor, and from basic industry.

Our task it to break radically with this dependence and to become masters of our own fate – in a word, to achieve independence. To have survived in the Galut despite all odds is not enough; we must create, by our own effort, the necessary conditions for our future survival as a free and independent people. The meaning of the Jewish revolution is contained in one word –independence! Independence for the Jewish people in its homeland!

Why did Ben Gurion most want to establish the State of Israel? a. Because he only wanted to live among Jews b. Because he felt like a minority outside Israel c. Because he was sick of being dependent on other countries d. Because he wanted to survive the Galut

Shlomo Aviner – “Special Times”, 2000

The concepts of Days of Messiah, Redemption, the Beginning of the Flowering of our Redemption… all these close-to-synonyms refer to the period in which the Kingdom returns to Israel. When did this period begin? On the 5th of Iyar, 5708, May 14, 1948, when the modern State of Israel declared its independence. Of course, this is not the ideal Kingdom for which we had prayed and are praying; it is not the Kingdom of the Messiah. But it's a start…

Our government is a preparation for the Kingdom of Israel, and the Torah Kingdom of Israel is a preparation for the Kingdom of the Messiah.

 Does “Torah Kingdom of Israel” sound like a democracy to you? Yes / no  Why do you think Aviner says that the Modern State of Israel is not “the ideal Kingdom”? a. Because there is a Prime Minister, not a King b. Because the current establishment of Israel is secular, not religious c. Because not every country at the UN voted for its establishment

Melanie Philips – “Israel as inherent”, 2012 Zionism is no more nor less than the self-determination of the Jewish people --as a people, and not just as adherents of the Jewish religion. Jews are in fact the only people – as a people -- for whom Israel (ancient Judea and Samaria) [aka West Bank] was ever their national homeland.

Unique in the world, Jews are both a people and adherents of a religion. Intrinsic to and inseparable from the religion of Judaism is the land of Israel; more specifically, the centrality of and longing for Jerusalem and its Temple. Deny that centrality and you rip the heart and soul out of Judaism. Those who deny the right of the Jews to Israel and Jerusalem deny the right of the Jews to their own religion.

Based on this quotation, would Phillips rather: (circle your answer)  A Jewish State in Israel or A Jewish State anywhere in the world

For 2000 years the Jewish People were denied the right “to Israel and Jerusalem”. Did this in your opinion “deny the right of the Jews to their own religion”?

Lyrics of Hatikvah, Israel’s National Anthem

Suggested lyrics of Rav Original lyrics of Final version Kook, the first Chief Hatikvah Rabbi of Israel

People I - Me and Jewish Peoplehood

Introduction: Being connected to “my Jewish identity” can mean so many things to so many different people. While you were on Birthright, your connection to the Jewish People, to Am Yisrael, was probably drilled into you at various moments! So what does it mean? When everyone expects me to be connected to the Jewish People, how does this connect to my life?

In this session, we will receive the help of a master-educator, to gain a useful frame for understanding Jewish Peoplehood, and the Declaration of Israel’s Independence will help us begin to float ideas of how all this connects with Israel.

Goals:  Participants will appreciate that Israel was built on an understanding of Jewish Peoplehood  Participants will assess their own connection to Jewish Peoplehood, through a 5- legged paradigm  Participants will begin to grapple with the breadth of connections to the Jewish People.

Big Question  In what way am I a Jew?

Guiding Questions  What does Israel have to do with the Jewish People?  Do I see myself as part of the Jewish people? What makes me a part of the Jewish people?

Preparation for Facilitator

 Watch all the video clips prior to the session. For the Avraham Infeld video, make sure you understand his points. If you have time, decide which of the 5 “Legs” of Jewish Peoplehood most resonate with you.  Set up the link for Avraham Infeld’s “5 Legged Table” speech on a computer or projector. Make sure you have speakers. You might wish to download the videos to your computer, in case the internet connection is weak. www.keepvid.com  Make sure to get 5 laptops for use prior to the session. (You could ask some students to volunteer their computers. They should come 10 minutes early to set up the video links) Make sure the sound works on each computer.  In Part 2: Gateways to Jewish Peoplehood students will need to walk around the room and look at 5 different texts and 5 different videos or songs. You should set up six tables with a title page, printouts of the texts, strips of colored paper, a black marker and a computer with the video or song loaded at at each table. You should also cut out the trigger questions for the songs and tape them to the top right or left corner of the computers.

Make It Modular Ideally, the session is done in its entirety. However, if time is limited, you should feel free to be selective about which components of this session you cover. To ensure alignment to the session's goals do not eliminate:  Part 1: Israel’s Declaration of Independence  Part 2: Gateways to Jewish Peoplehood: Either (a) watch the Infeld video and then jump into selecting the colored strips of paper building the Group Chart. OR (b) Do the text/media study around the room (skipping the Infeld video) and move right to the Group Chart. Then, no matter which activity you choose, move right into the personal mission statement.  Part 3: Course Overview

Materials Needed  Five computers and 6 tables set up around the room  6 sets of different colored pieces of paper, three sizes of each (see instructions under the section “Group Chart”)  Black marker at each table  Masking tape to make the graph (see instructions under the section “Group Chart”)  Print-outs of Israel’s Declaration of Independence – a copy per pair.  1 Printout of each of the 5 legs sheets (Memory, Family, etc)  The “Post Its”

Suggested Room Layout: tables should be set up around the room so students can walk to each table. Chairs should be set up in a circle (separate from the tables) to foster discussion.

Session Outline Suggested Segment Description Time Israel Update, Briefly review last session, Introduction 15 minutes introduce this session Part 1: Pre-session Participants will share their writing 20 minutes assignment assignment in pairs. Participants will watch Infeld’s video on the “5 Part 2: Gateways to Legged Table” and then explore which aspects 65 minutes Jewish Peoplehood of Jewish Peoplehood they use to express their identity Conclusion  Wrap Up Close this session and briefly look to next 15 minutes  Looking session Ahead

Session Implementation/Description: Note: At the beginning of each session you will give an introduction. This section is important as it functions as a bridge between sessions – reminding students about the material that was covered in the prior session and framing the material for the current session. Below are some suggested points to help you create that bridge between sessions. Note that don’t need to read the points below word for word!

Israel Update Before launching into the session, selected participant(s) present an update on Israeli current events. Remind them to present their findings through the prism of 4HQ. Help the group to hone their understanding and application of these four ideas. It may well be that all four questions crop up in all news headlines, but even then you will find that opposing parties involved probably place different emphasis on the four issues and/or have different answers to the four questions.

Remember, what we are trying to do is transform the participants into 4HQ people – for these four questions to become instinctive, natural to them. Keep helping them learn.

Review Last Session – 2 minutes Last session, we looked into a different way of defining Israel to the Jewish People. As we saw, To Be A People, Free In Our Land, maps out the four key ideas that we are going to be exploring. The first of which, going by the order of the Hebrew words, is People. In Hebrew, Am. In what way am I a part of the Jewish People, and where does Israel fit in?

Introduce Current Session – 3 minutes Being connected to “my Jewish identity” can mean so many things to so many different people. While you were on Birthright, your connection to the Jewish People, to Am Yisrael, was probably drilled into you at various moments! So what does it mean? When everyone expects you to be connected to the Jewish People, how does this connect to your life?

Part 1: Israel and the Jewish People http://youtu.be/I5Y9j1WhrKc?t=5m25s

In pairs, read through the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel [attached to the end of this document], and note down answers to the following three questions:  How many times is “Jewish religion” or “Jewish faith” mentioned? Why do you think this is?  Compare this to the amount of times you see “Jewish People” mentioned. Why does it appear so often?  What might we learn from this about the connection between the Jewish People and the State of Israel?

Transition: Bearing in mind that this founding document would seem to place equal if not more emphasis on the “Jewish People” as opposed to “Judaism”, it makes sense to work out what we might mean by Jewish Peoplehood… We are going to hear from a speaker who has thought a lot about Jewish Peoplehood and who has some ideas about how every member of the Jewish community can opt-in to the Jewish world.

Note: Students may have heard Avraham Infeld speak during Birthright. If they did, remind them of that experience now. As they watch the video, they should consider which of the 5 Legs resonate with them.

Part 2: Gateways to Jewish Peoplehood The 5 Legged Table: Jewish Peoplehood according to Avraham Infeld JDOV Video (15m) http://limmud.org/publications/videos/limmud-conference-2012/jdov-2012-avraham-infeld/

After they have watched the video, explain to the group that we are now going to take each of these concepts and decide which of the “legs” most resonate with each of us in terms of expressing our Jewish identity in the context of community. It might be worth pointing out that we are not necessarily saying that Infeld’s scheme is perfect, or that they must 100% agree with it, but that it does provide “a way” (not necessarily “the only way”) to talk generatively about Jewish Peoplehood. This is why we are using it.

Processing the 5 Legs Instructions: Instruct the participants to visit each of the 5 stations. At each station, there should be: 1) a computer with a video or a song 2) the sheet for that station with a song, quote and text to consider 3) a marker 4) colored strips of paper

The educational content is there in order to help them consider and determine which of the 5 legs most resonates with their Jewish identity. (At the “other” station, there should be a large sheet of paper with various colored markers so students can write additional words or phrases to describe their additional idea). There should be 3 slips of paper in each color, length, and for every student, so they all have the option of choosing any of the lengths of construction paper at each station. (For example: Memory = pink, Family = green, Covenant = orange, Land/State of Israel = yellow, Heb language/Culture = blue.) After they’ve visited each table, they should take a slip of colored paper, and use the marker to write their name on it in order to add it to the “Group chart.”

MEMORY Traditional Text ִׁש ְב ַעת יָ ִׁמים ,ת ֹּא ַכל ַמצ ֹּת ;ּו ַבּיֹום , Seven days you shall eat unleavened ַה ְש ִׁבי ִׁעי , ַחג , ַליהוָה bread, and on the seventh day there ַמצֹות ,יֵָא ֵכל , ֵאת , ִׁש ְב ַעת ַה ָּי ִׁמים; .shall be a festival of the lord היֵרָאֶ לְָך ץחָמֵ וְ ֹלא Throughout the seven days unleavened - יֵ ָר ֶאה לְָך וְֹלא bread shall be eaten; no leaven shall be -גְבֻלֶָך בְכָל-שְ אֹּר found in all your territory. And you וְ ִׁה ַג ְד ָתָּ ְל ִׁבנְָך , ַבּיֹום ַההּוא ֵלאמ ֹּר ,shall explain to your son on that day ַב ֲעבּור זֶה ,עָשָ ה יְהוָה ִׁלי , ְב ֵצא ִׁתי it is because of what the Lord did for“ ִׁמ ִׁמ ְצ ָריִׁם ”.me when I went free from Egypt ח-ויג: שְ מֹות- -Exodus 13: 6-8

Contemporary Quote “JEWS HAVE SIX SENSES…Touch, taste, sight, smell, hearing … memory. While Gentiles experience and process the world through the traditional senses, and use memory only as a second-order means of interpreting events, for Jews memory is no less primary than the prick of a pin, or its silver glimmer, or the taste of the blood it pulls from the finger. The Jew is pricked by a pin and remembers other pins. It is only by tracing the pinprick back to other pinpricks – when his mother tried to fix his sleeve while his arm was still in it, when his grandfather’s fingers fell asleep from stroking his great-grandfather’s damp forehead, when Abraham tested the knife point to be sure Isaac would feel no pain – that the Jew is able to know why it hurts. When a Jew encounters a pin, he asks: What does it remember like?” ― Jonathan Safran Foer, Everything Is Illuminated

Modern Media Song: “Exodus from Egypt” by Eti Ankri http://youtu.be/l_j5QpvR-pY

Eti Ankri was born in 1963 in Lod, to a Tunisian Jewish family. She served in the Israeli Education Corps, and then studied at the Rimon school of music. A successful actress and former Singer of the Year, Eti has undergone a gradual and creative transformation into a devout religiosity.

FAMILY

Traditional Text כלָּישראלָּערבימָּזהָּלזהָָָָּּּּ .All of Israel is responsible for one another

The Talmud, Shavuot 39a- ָּ

Contemporary Quote

“I’m always so proud when it’s a Jew who wins the Pulitzer Prize or the Nobel Prize. And conversely, I’m always so glad when the serial killer isn’t Jewish.”

–Joan Rivers, American comedian

Modern Media

I’ll Be There For You: Studio G-dcast Berkeley was a Torah study group, organized by Kevah, of six families from Berkeley, CA. Jane Gottesman, Geoffrey Biddle and their three girls, Eloise, Petra, and Penina, hosted Studio G-dcast in their home to make a film about sibling relationships in the Torah. The group featured eleven kids aged 5 to 15. Their parents included a speechwriter, studio painter, landscape architect, art photographer, museum curator, singer, programmer, professor, and several entrepreneurs. The group, which also benefited from interfaith dialogue, came together from very different backgrounds and experiences with Torah study. To learn the texts, the group wrote, painted, drew, storyboarded, and sang. This is the result of their learning: http://www.g-dcast.com/studioberkeley/

COVENANT

Traditional Text Moses ascended to God, and the Lord ּומ ֶשהָּ ָע ָלהָּ ֶאלָּ ָה ֱאֹל ִׁהיםָּוַ ִּׁי ְק ָראָּ ֵא ָליוָּ ,called to him from the mountain, saying יְהֹוָהָּ ִׁמןָּ ָה ָהרָּ ֵלאמ ֹּרָּכ ֹּהָּת ֹּא ַמרָּ ְל ֵביתָּ So shall you say to the house of Jacob" יַ ֲעק ֹּבָּוְ ַת ֵגידָּ ִׁל ְבנֵיָּיִׁ ְש ָר ֵאל and tell the sons of Israel, You have seen ַא ֶתם ְר ִׁאי ֶתם אֲשֶ ר ָע ִׁשי ִׁתי ְל ִׁמ ְצ ָריִׁם וָאֶשָ א what I did to the Egyptians, and [how] I אֶתְ כֶם ַעל ַכנְ ֵפי נְ ָש ִׁרים וָָא ִׁבא אֶתְ כֶם ֵא ָלי bore you on eagles' wings, and I brought וְ ַא ֶתם ִׁת ְהיּו ִׁלי ַמ ְמ ֶל ֶכת כ ֹּ ֲהנִׁים וְגֹוי קָ דֹוש you to Me. And now, if you obey Me and ֵא ֶלה ַה ְד ָב ִׁרים אֲשֶ ר ְת ַד ֵבר אֶל ְבנֵי יִׁ ְש ָר ֵאל keep My covenant, you shall be to Me a treasure out of all peoples, for Mine is the שמות יט:ג-ה entire earth. -Exodus Chapter 19:3-5

Contemporary Quote “A contract is made for a limited period, for a specific purpose, between two or more parties, each seeking their own benefit. A covenant is made open-endedly by two or more parties who come together in a bond of loyalty and trust to achieve together what none can achieve alone. A contract is like a deal; a covenant is like a marriage. Contracts belong to the market and to the state, to economics and politics, both of which are arenas of competition. Covenants belong to families, communities, charities, which are arenas of cooperation. A contract is between me and you – separate selves – but a covenant is about us – collective belonging. A contract is about interests; a covenant is about identity. And hence the vital distinction, not made clearly enough in European politics, between a social contract and a social covenant: a social contract creates a state; a social covenant creates a society.” -Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, thinker, philosopher, former Chief Rabbi of England

Modern Media Song: “Prayer for the Secular” by Kobi Oz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXJvIx-7ubE

Yaakov (Kobi) Oz was born in Sderot to Tunisian Jewish parents. He began playing music and composing at the age of 15. He started out playing keyboards for the band Sfatayim, which performed traditional Moroccan music. Oz organized a demonstration in 2007 to raise public awareness of the tragedy of his hometown, which is constantly under missile attack from the Gaza Strip. In 2010, Oz released his second solo album, Mizmorey Nevochim (Psalms for the Perplexed).

LAND/STATE OF ISRAEL Traditional Text

וְ ַד ֵבר ֲא ֵלי ֶהם, כֹּה-ָא ַמר אֲדֹּנָי יְהוִׁה, ִׁהנֵה Then say to them, Thus says the ֲאנִׁי ֹל ֵק ַחָּ אֶת- ְבנֵי יִׁ ְש ָר ֵאל, ִׁמ ֵבין ַהגֹויִׁם Lord God: Behold, I will take the אֲשֶ ר הָלְכּו-שָ ם; וְ ִׁק ַב ְצ ִׁתי אֹּתָ ם ִׁמ ָס ִׁביב, people of Israel from the nations וְ ֵה ֵבא ִׁתי אֹותָ ם אֶל-ַאדְמָתָ ם. among which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land. - יְ ֶחזְ ֵקאל37:21 - Ezekiel 37:21

Contemporary Quote Ours is a country built more on people than on territory. The Jews will come from everywhere: from France, from Russia, from America, from Yemen… Their faith is their passport. -David Ben-Gurion, First Prime Minister of Israel

Modern Media Song: “I Have No Other Country” by Ehud Manor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LakSjcFZvcs

Ehud Manor (born July 13, 1941; died April 12, 2005) was an Israeli songwriter, translator and radio/TV personality.

HEBREW LANGUAGE / CULTURE

Hebrew Slang :(כפרה עליך) Kapara Alecha Literally translates to 'Atonement over you' and figuratively means ’darling' or 'loved one'. The word Kapara, actually refers to an old ritual carried out in Orthodox Jewish Custom during Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, when villagers take a chicken and swing it over their heads while reciting a prayer. The chicken is slaughtered and it (or its cash value) is given to the poor. I might use this to address my friend after they did a wonderful favor by saying: "John, 'Atonement over you'. I can't believe you did such a wonderful thing

:(יאללה) Yalla “Yalla” is actually an Arabic word and it means “let’s go!” or “hurry up!” You might also hear Israelis use it when ending a phone call – “Yalla, bye!” This combination of Arabic and English is distinctly Israeli!

Contemporary Quote

“Hebrew word for "charity" tzedakah, simply means "justice" and as this suggests, for Jews, giving to the poor is no optional extra but an essential part of living a just life.”

― Peter Singer, The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty

Modern Media Song: “Hebrewman” by Ehud Banai https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naHbB15Eav8

Ehud Banai was born in Jerusalem and is an Israeli singer/songwriter. In 2005, Banai was voted the 28th-greatest Israeli of all time, in a poll by the Israeli news website Ynet to determine whom the general public considered the 200 Greatest Israelis.

Additional “Post-It’s” to Help Students Understand the Songs It can be a little challenging to understand a culture that is different from one’s own without a little framing. Since there isn’t time to explain the cultural context of each song, we have provided these trigger questions to help guide students in their understanding of the media. We recommend cutting these questions out and taping them to the edge of the computer screen, (like a post-it ) so students can see them while listening to/watching each song.

Memory:

The phrase, “Each day and age, one must see oneself as though having escaped Egypt” is taken directly from the Passover Haggadah. What do you think Zohar is trying to say about memory in the context of her song?

Covenant: Kobi Oz is an Israeli who has explored combining his secular views with his traditional roots in his music. What complexities does the song point to about his desire to speak to God and his beliefs/actions?

Land/State of Israel: Though this song has turned into a sort of national anthem, the songwriter originally meant this song as a critique. What do you think the songwriter may have intended the listener to consider during the song?

Hebrew Language/Culture: Note the significance: a religious word (Kapara, “atonement”) makes its way into common vernacular and the word “yalla” is actually Arabic, borrowing a word from another culture.

What do you think Banai was trying to say by writing this song in English?

Group Chart – 20 minutes

Each participant should rank his or her 3 “legs” in order of priority, with #1 (And the longest strip of paper) being what they value the most. Note: Remind participants to rank their real “legs,” and not their ideal ones. Participants might associate the “Covenant” category with being religious, but try to encourage students not to shy away from this category, as they don’t have to be religious to be moved by a spiritual or religious ritual or place. For example, they may have had a bar or bat mitzvah because their parents made them do it because it is a tradition of the community. As teenagers, they may have only done it because they were commanded (by their parents ) but as emerging adults they might be glad they had the experience even if they weren’t intrinsically motivated at the time.

On the floor, create the following diagram (using masking tape – the bigger the better!):

MEMORY FAMILY COVENANT LAND/STATE HEBREW OF ISRAEL LANG/CULTURE

Participants should place their 3 cards the appropriate columns, each participant adding on top of the others. This exercise will create a visual group bar graph that displays the tendencies of how the group relates to Jewish Peoplehood and community through the expression of their individual Jewish identity.

Invite people to come stand around the graph in order to look at the results and have a group discussion. Look at the group's "Top 3" tendencies, according to the graph. Discuss the results with the group. Pay special attention to any glaring results.

Ask the group:  Were these results unexpected?  If so, what surprises you about the results?  Why did you choose the categories that you chose? (Pick a few people to explain their choices, at least one from each of the 5 categories)  Does seeing others’ responses make you reconsider your own? Would you change any of your choices if you could? If so, which one(s)?  Do you think Infeld’s schema is insufficient? Is he missing something? Would you add a different leg to the table?

“The Israel Update” a. Ask if there are any lingering questions b. Pick the volunteers for next week

Conclusion/Wrap Up – 10 minutes Summary: Today, we addressed questions of identity and Peoplehood by thinking about how your Israel is fundamentally connected to the Jewish People, how you define and express your Jewish identity, and how to connect to the Jewish People as a result of expressing that identity. Hopefully you have a clearer understanding of what this People is, that you are such an honored member of!

To close, ask participants to share one question (lingering issue, challenge, question) and one exclamation point (something new you learned today, something that surprised you) they are taking away from today’s session. (You can use the ? mark and ! document by putting it on the table or the floor to animate this part of the session.)

Looking Ahead – 5 minutes  Next week, we will start to think about Peoplehood and Obligation, and we will explore what our responsibilities are in the context of Jewish Peoplehood. If we are part of a collective, does this collective expect anything from us, or is it just a facebook page we occasionally get updates from?  Homework: Remind them they will receive an email with their homework for the following week the next day. See Pre-Session Assignments in Session #2 for homework.

Post-Session Reflection for Facilitator

Success Checklist  Did participants develop a deeper understanding of how their Israel experiences affected their Jewish identity?  Did participants respond to the 5 Legged Table metaphor? Did it help them to more clearly articulate their Jewish identity preferences? How did it go? Reflection on the session:

In the "Success Checklist," if you aren't able to answer "yes," to the questions, why do you think these objectives weren't achieved? ______

What was one thing that surprised you during the session? ______

What was something that happened that you weren't prepared for? ______

Was there anything that happened in the group that needs to be addressed in the next session? ______

Is there anything you want to discuss with your mentor or supervisor? ______

Israel’s Declaration of Independence, May 1948

ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.

After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.

Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, ma’pilim [(Hebrew) - immigrants coming to Eretz- Israel in defiance of restrictive legislation] and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country’s inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood.

In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.

This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re- affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.

The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people – the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe – was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the comity of nations.

Survivors of the Nazi holocaust in Europe, as well as Jews from other parts of the world, continued to migrate to Eretz-Israel, undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers, and never ceased to assert their right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in their national homeland.

In the Second World War, the Jewish community of this country contributed its full share to the struggle of the freedom- and peace-loving nations against the forces of Nazi wickedness and, by the blood of its soldiers and its war effort, gained the right to be reckoned among the peoples who founded the United Nations.

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.

ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE’S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ- ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.

WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People’s Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People’s Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called “Israel”.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.

WE APPEAL to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations.

WE APPEAL – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

WE APPEAL to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream – the redemption of Israel.

PLACING OUR TRUST IN THE “ROCK OF ISRAEL”, WE AFFIX OUR SIGNATURES TO THIS PROCLAMATION AT THIS SESSION OF THE PROVISIONAL COUNCIL OF STATE, ON THE SOIL OF THE HOMELAND, IN THE CITY OF TEL-AVIV, ON THIS SABBATH EVE, THE 5TH DAY OF IYAR, 5708 (14TH MAY,1948).

David Ben-Gurion Daniel Auster Mordekhai Bentov Yitzchak Ben Zvi Eliyahu Berligne Fritz Bernstein Rabbi Wolf Gold Meir Grabovsky Yitzchak Gruenbaum Dr. Abraham Granovsky Eliyahu Dobkin Meir Wilner-Kovner Zerach Wahrhaftig Herzl Vardi Rachel Cohen Rabbi Kalman Kahana Saadia Kobashi Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Levin Meir David Loewenstein Zvi Luria Golda Myerson Nachum Nir Zvi Segal Rabbi Yehuda Leib Hacohen Fishman David Zvi Pinkas Aharon Zisling Moshe Kolodny Eliezer Kaplan Abraham Katznelson Felix Rosenblueth David Remez Berl Repetur Mordekhai Shattner Ben Zion Sternberg Bekhor Shitreet Moshe Shapira Moshe Shertok

People II – Connections and Commitments

Introduction Last week we looked into ways of understanding our connection to the Jewish People, and how Israel is – from its very first declaration committed to the Jewish People. Today we are going to explore what it means to be committed to someone, or to a particular group. What emotions arise, what actions might be expected, and most importantly – how this might affect those to whom we are not committed.

Goals  Participants emerge with a taste of how Jewish text can illuminate and enrich discussions of current moral import.  Participants will explore how Peoplehood offers not just connections, but also expects commitments.  Favoritism, discrimination, solidarity, commitment – these terms will now bustle with their inner complexity and tensions between one another.

Big Question Is it a form of racial discrimination for Jews to care first and foremost for Jews?

Guiding Questions  What happens when you are born into Judaism? Can you inherit obligations?  What does Judaism have to say about universal global concerns versus local concerns?  What is the difference between feeling connected to someone, or some groups, and being committed to them?

Preparation for the Facilitator 1. Make sure you have watched the video yourself. 2. Make sure the internet connection is broad enough to screen the video, or download it beforehand. www.keepvid.com 3. Check that you have a computer, projector, screen, and EXCELLENT speakers connected to your computer. 4. Print the text study sheets. 5. Make sure there is paper and felt tip pens for everyone.

6. Make sure there are enough chairs for everyone to sit in a circle!

Part 4: Discussion of the video screened.

Session Outline Suggested Segment Description Time Briefly review last session. Israel update Introduction 15 minutes through the prism of 4HQ. Introduce this session Part 1: How do we Exploring the ways we choose to connect with 10 minutes bond? others Part 2: From Drawing our own concentric circles of Connection to 20 minutes connection, and specifying where Commitment commitment ends. Text study of four Jewish texts, two modern Part 3. Text study: 30 minutes and two ancient, that explore how we should Who is first? or should not prioritize our commitments. Part 4. Video Discussion of video that throws up the discussion of 40 minutes connection between solidarity and particularity discrimination. Conclusion  Wrap Up Close this session and briefly look to next 5 minutes  Looking session Ahead

Session Implementation/Description:

Israel Update – 10 minutes Before launching into the session, selected participant(s) present an update on Israeli current events. Remind them to present their findings through the prism of 4HQ. Help the group to hone their understanding and application of these four ideas. It may well be that all four questions crop up in all news headlines, but even then you will find that opposing parties involved probably place different emphasis on the four issues and/or have different answers to the four questions.

Part 1 – Bonds of the heart

1. Sit the group in a circle, with enough chairs for all but one person.

2. The lone standing person is in the middle, and calls out a collective characteristic that s/he shares. All others who share said characteristic must move chairs, while the standing person must try to grab a chair to sit on.

3. Allow the game to run a few times before you add a chair, and you take over the “standing” role. Continue to call collective characteristics, but begin to call characteristics that have a moral or emotional weight to them. For example:  Everyone move who – has ever been bullied  Everyone move who – has ever felt lonely  Everyone move who – has moved country  Everyone move who – believes that evil exists  Everyone move who – believes in a God who affects the world today  Everyone move who – has ever suffered for expressing a minority opinion  Etc…

4. In a gathering conversation, open up the question as to whether participants feel a stronger bond to those with whom they shared characteristics.  What kind of experience or belief made them feel more or less bonded?  Is the bond only an internal emotional bond, or might it lead to action – talking with these people more easily, looking out for them more in public?

Part 2 – From connection to commitment So to whom are we connected, and to whom are we committed?

1. Have participants draw concentric circle diagrams that reflect their circles of connection. Have participants draw at least 10 circles on a piece of paper, so that participants may fill in their circles with the various ways they relate to the world. Note: They might need some help thinking about the various communities they associate with. You may want to have a list written on a large piece of poster board to give them some options to consider. For example: Family: Me Nuclear family extended family Jewish community  Israel, etc. Or: Geography: Me household  neighborhood  city  region  country  world Or: Affiliations: Me friends  study major  campus organizations  campus, etc.

2. When students have finished creating their concentric circles, note that there is not always such a clear distinction between those to whom I feel closer, and those to whom I feel obligated or committed to.

Having drawn their circles of connection, they now must draw their lines of commitment, by drawing three clear lines through their circles according to their answers to the following three questions: Where would you draw the line? 1. A person in this circle asks you to help them out by giving them $10. Where does the refusal line go in your circles? And what about $100?

2. You see a person in this circle commit a petty crime. After which line would you report them to the authorities?

3. This person asks you to put your career on hold for a year, in order to offer them help they really need. Before which line do you say yes?

Part 3 – Us or Them? When? TRANSITION: Most of us are striving to “do the right thing” most of the time. Yet one key question that surrounds our attempts to do good, is – for whom? Bearing in mind that we can’t help everyone in need in the whole world, where should we start? Is it okay to begin with “our inner circle”, or is it morally wrong?

Being part of the Jewish People, we are lucky to be able to draw on our rich and deep culture to gain additional perspective on these issues. Let’s see what we can learn…

Split into chevruta pairs: Each of these four texts, two ancient and two modern, answer the same questions in different ways. The question: Who is first?

דתני רב יוסף )שמות כ”ב( אם כסף תלוה את עמי את העני עמך… עני ועשיר – עני קודם, ענייך .ועניי עירך – ענייך קודמין, עניי עירך ועניי עיר אחרת – עניי עירך קודמין Rabbi Joseph learnt: “If you lend money to any of my people that are poor with you” [this teaches, if the choice lies between lending money to] … the poor or the rich, the poor takes precedence; your poor [i.e. your relatives] and the [general] poor of your town, your poor come first; the poor of your city and the poor of another town, the poor of your own town have prior rights. [5th century AD]

This teaching from the Talmud (compiled in the 5th Century) has been applied as a proof-text for the idea that we should always help our own first, before extending a helping hand to others.

We should… work to make all human beings part of our community of dialogue and concern, base our political deliberations on that interlocking commonality, and give the circle that defines our humanity special attention and respect… To count people as moral equals is to treat nationality, ethnicity, religion, class, race, and gender as “morally irrelevant”… the accident of being born a Sri Lankan, or a Jew, or a female, or an African-American, or a poor person, is just that– an accident of birth. It is not and should not be taken to be a determinant of moral worth. [20th century]

Martha Nussbaum (b. 1947) is an American philosopher and professor at University of Chicago. Her published works focus on issues of social justice, and her approach to Judaism develops these areas as well.

Whosoever loses one soul, it is as if s/he has lost an entire world; and whosoever saves one soul, it is as if s/he has saved an entire world. כל המאבד נפש אחת, מעלים עליו כאילו איבד עולם מלא; וכל המקיים נפש אחת, מעלים עליו ”כאילו קיים עולם מלא Mishnah, Masechet Sanhedrin 4,5 [2nd century AD]

Are any distinctions here being made between “our own” and others? If each and every soul embodies an entire world, are we not then obligated to save as many lives as we can, regardless of their affiliation or descent? 6

At a time when Jewish communal institutions are failing to attend to the needs of Jews at home and abroad, the hot trend in Jewish philanthropic and organizational circles, incredibly, is to channel ever more of their resources to nonsectarian causes. Preachers in every corner of the Jewish community are intent on urging the faithful to drop their parochial concerns for the welfare of fellow Jews and instead think globally. How can Jews worry about their own, they ask, when so many unfortunates in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia are suffering even worse afflictions?

One could ask, of course, why this effort to repair the world cannot also extend to aiding fellow Jews? Proponents of Jewish service learning express great confidence in the sufficiency of resources in the Jewish community to address all needs—a demonstrably incorrect assessment, as we have seen. Alternatively, they will say that young Jews do not want to be bothered with their fellow Jews. If we are to attract anyone outside the committed core, they argue, programs must direct young Jews to nonsectarian causes, bearing out the truth of Cynthia Ozick’s dead-on observation that “universalism is the parochialism of the Jews.” And so, based on these rationalizations, an entire set of organizations under Jewish auspices now seeks to rally Jews to help everyone except their own co-religionists.

Jack Wertheimer, The Peoplehood Papers, 6, p. 13-14 [21st century]

Jack Wertheimer is a professor of American Jewish History at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. He has written numerous books and articles on topics of modern Jewish history, education, and “life.”

Part 4 – Looking after our own TRANSITION: Up until now, we have been exploring an individual’s commitment to a family, a group, a collective. How does the collective express its commitment to its own? And if a collective cares for its “own”, does that mean it cares for no one else?

Screen this video

There are several moments when a “pause” button appears, inviting you to pause the video and open up to conversation. Feel free to use these cues, to ignore them, or to choose alternative moments to pause the video and explore what arises. You may also wish to offer the “right of the pause” to the participants, who can call for a pause whenever they have something to say or ask. 7

Allow the group and the video itself to direct the nature of the group gathering of responses. Keep aware of the key areas you are hoping them to enter into:  What is the difference or similarity between a family, an extended family, and a People?  Does belonging entail commitments and obligations?  Is “solidarity” a form of “discrimination”? And is that bad, or good?

Conclusion

Allow space for participants to share their thoughts and feelings at the end of this session. What do they know now that they didn’t? What do they question now that they didn’t? What do they more firmly believe than before?

Looking Ahead  Next week, we will move on to the key question that seems to be troubling Jews about Israel, and particularly on campus. What does it mean to be “loyal”? Is loyalty measurable? Is loyalty immoral? And how can loyalty encompass critique?  Homework: Remind them they will receive an email with their homework for the following week the next day.  Israel Update: Make sure to assign the 4HQ update to someone else in the group.

Post-Session Reflection for Facilitator Success Checklist  Did participants emerge with a taste of how Jewish text can illuminate and enrich discussions of current moral import?  Do you think participants explored how Peoplehood offers not just connections, but also expects commitments?  Are the terms favoritism, discrimination, solidarity, commitment now more alive and nuanced for the participants?

How did it go? Reflection on the session: In the "Success Checklist," if you aren't able to answer "yes," to the questions, why do you think these objectives weren't achieved? ______

What was one thing that surprised you during the session? ______

What was something that happened that you weren't prepared for? ______

Was there anything that happened in the group that needs to be addressed in the next session? ______

Is there anything you want to discuss with your mentor or supervisor? ______9

Who is First?

1. דתני רב יוסף )שמות כ”ב( אם כסף תלוה את עמי את העני עמך… עני ועשיר – עני קודם, ענייך .ועניי עירך – ענייך קודמין, עניי עירך ועניי עיר אחרת – עניי עירך קודמין Rabbi Joseph learnt: “If you lend money to any of my people that are poor with you” [this teaches, if the choice lies between lending money to] … the poor or the rich, the poor takes precedence; your poor [i.e. your relatives] and the [general] poor of your town, your poor come first; the poor of your city and the poor of another town, the poor of your own town have prior rights. [5th century AD]

2. We should… work to make all human beings part of our community of dialogue and concern, base our political deliberations on that interlocking commonality, and give the circle that defines our humanity special attention and respect… To count people as moral equals is to treat nationality, ethnicity, religion, class, race, and gender as “morally irrelevant”… the accident of being born a Sri Lankan, or a Jew, or a female, or an African-American, or a poor person, is just that– an accident of birth. It is not and should not be taken to be a determinant of moral worth. Martha Nussbaum, For Love of Country [20th century]

3. Whosoever loses one soul, it is as if s/he has lost an entire world; and whosoever saves one soul, it is as if s/he has saved an entire world. כל המאבד נפש אחת, מעלים עליו כאילו איבד עולם מלא; וכל המקיים נפש אחת, מעלים עליו ”כאילו קיים עולם מלא Mishnah, Masechet Sanhedrin 4,5 [2nd century AD]

4. At a time when Jewish communal institutions are failing to attend to the needs of Jews at home and abroad, the hot trend in Jewish philanthropic and organizational circles, incredibly, is to channel ever more of their resources to nonsectarian causes. Preachers in every corner of the Jewish community are intent on urging the faithful to drop their parochial concerns for the welfare of fellow Jews and instead think globally. How can Jews worry about their own, they ask, when so many unfortunates in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia are suffering even worse afflictions?

Jack Wertheimer, The Peoplehood Papers, 6, p. 13-14 [21st century]

People III – Must I be Loyal?

Introduction: The previous session looked into how a connection can become a commitment. Now we are going to take this further, and try to understand what is it the Jewish Community expects of Birthright alumni, vis a vis Israel. Through direct appeal and through unspoken expectation, the organized Jewish community, the funders of Birthright, and Hillel International, hope and expect alumni to “support Israel”. What does “support” mean? What is loyalty all about? This session is where Jewish Peoplehood, local Jewish organizations, and Israel, come together…

Goals:  Participants will become familiar with an ongoing discourse in the Jewish world, ancient and modern, about the nature of loyalty.  The nature of group loyalty will take its place in a broader understanding of morality.  For participants to engage with the expectations of Birthright alumni vis a vis Israel, and begin to form their own opinions.

Big Question: Should Jews be loyal to Israel?

Guiding Questions?  What does loyalty mean?  Does one inherit loyalties?  Can loyalty involve critique?

Preparation for Facilitator: We recommend taking a few weeks to read Jonathan Haidt’s excellent book The Righteous Mind! But if you don’t have time for that, make sure you read this review of his book, and google some of his articles, and/or watch a lecture or two. Just google Jonathan Haidt, and Moral Foundations Theory. It really is worth it – both for your own enrichment, and for you to be able to feel completely confident in running this part of the session.

Materials Needed: • Computer with speakers or projector for videos (should have the links launched and ready to go prior to the session so you can just hit play when it’s time to watch) • Print-outs of the texts for study

Pre-Session Assignment Send all participants this short document, quoting from the objectives and mission of Birthright/Taglit. [Our emphases]

We believe that the experience of a trip to Israel is a building block of Jewish identity, and that by providing that gift to young Jews, we can strengthen bonds with the land and people of Israel and solidarity with Jewish communities worldwide.

Objectives Taglit-Birthright Israel aims to change the course of Jewish history and ensure the continuity of the Jewish people by strengthening Jewish identity, Jewish communities, and solidarity with Israel via an educational trip to Israel for Jewish young adults around the world.

A Bond Between Israel and Jewish Communities Worldwide We aim to foster participants’ understanding and identification with Israel, and through the “mifgash” program, strengthen the solidarity of Israeli young adults with their Jewish peers abroad and develop the Jewish identity of individuals in both groups.

A Lasting Impact on Jewish Life Our hope is that our trips motivate young people to continue to explore their Jewish identity, support for Israel, and to maintain long- lasting connections with Israelis after their trip has ended. We encourage our alumni to take active roles in Jewish organizations and to participate in follow-up activities worldwide.

Bearing in mind the aims of Taglit, and in particular the words highlighted, write two portraits of half a page each. The portrait of a Taglit poster-child, that Taglit organizers would point to and say – “Look! We succeeded beyond our wildest dreams!”; and the portrait of a Taglit Shame, that person Taglit organizers would hope to hide from the public eye. In your portraits place emphasis on what these people DO, not only on how they think or feel.

Session Outline:

Suggested Segment Description Time Israel Update. Briefly review last session, Introduction 15 minutes introduce this session Part 1: Chevruta text Three different approaches to Jewish unity, 40 minutes study uniformity, and commitments Part 2: The morality Screening of the Haidt video, and further 30 minutes of loyalty group discussion of its key points Part 3: Loyalty to Sharing participants’ responses to the 30 minutes Israel? Birthright goals vis a vis support for Israel Conclusion 5 minutes Wrap up, and look ahead

Introduction Israel Update: Help the presenter and the participants parse the news headlines according to 4HQ.

What does it mean to be loyal? Why would anyone sacrifice their own individual comfort for the good of a group of people? In this session, we will explore some traditional Jewish notions of collective commitment, loyalty, as well as modern philosophical ones. We will examine some of the relationships in our lives where we feel loyalty is present, and then consider expectations of our loyalty toward Israel. What are the limits of loyalty? Can you disagree with what Israel does and still be considered a loyal supporter?

Part 1 – Text Study We will now look at three very different texts, three very different approaches loyalty, dis-loyalty, and split loyalties.

You may choose to split the group into chevruta pairs, and ask everyone to look at all three texts.

Alternatively you might split the participants into three different groups, with each group studying a different text. After having studied their text, ask each group to report to the other groups what they have learned.

If you have a particularly creative group, you might ask each group to create a short theater performance of their text, or have them create a graphic novel version…

Whatever form you choose, make sure that by the end of the exercise all participants are familiar with the story and the fundamental questions underlying all three texts.

בְּרֵאשִׁ ית Genesis Chapter 34 Dina is the daughter of Jacob, born to his less-loved wife Leah. This could well be one of the most disturbing stories in the book of Genesis, and asks many questions about the nature of family loyalties.

And Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom 1 א וַתֵ צֵא דִׁ ינָה בַת-לֵָאה, ראֲשֶׁ יָלְּדָ ה she had borne unto Jacob, went out to see לְּיַעֲקֹב,לִׁרְּ אוֹת, בִׁבְּ נוֹתהָָארֶׁ ץ. the daughters of the land. And Shechem the son of Hamor the 2 ב אוַיַרְּ אֹתָּהשְּ כֶׁם בֶׁ ן-חֲמוֹר, הַחִׁ וִׁ י--נְּשִׁ יא Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her; and הָָארֶׁ ץ; וַיִׁקַ חאֹתָ ּה וַיִׁשְּ כַב אֹתָ ּה, וַיְּעַ נֶׁהָ . he took her, and lay with her, and humbled her. And his soul did cleave unto Dinah the 3 ג וַתִׁדְּ בַק נַפְּ שוֹ,בְּדִׁ ינָה בַת-יַעֲקֹב; וַיֶׁאֱהַ ב, ,daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel אֶׁ ת-הַ ,נַעֲרָ וַיְּדַ בֵר, עַל-לֵב הַ נַעֲרָ . and spoke comfortingly unto the damsel. And Shechem spoke unto his father 4 ד וַיֹאמֶׁר שְּ כֶׁם, אֶׁ ל- חֲמוֹרָאבִׁ יו '.Hamor, saying: 'Get me this damsel to wife לֵאמֹר: קַ ח-לִׁי אֶׁ ת-הַ היַלְּדָ הַ זֹאת, לְּאִׁשָ ה. Now Jacob heard that he had defiled 5 ה וְּ יַעֲקֹב שָמַ ע, כִׁי אטִׁמֵ אֶׁ ת-דִׁ ינָה בִׁ תוֹ, Dinah his daughter; and his sons were with ובָ נָיו הָ יו אֶׁ ת-מִׁקְּ נֵהו, בַשָדֶׁ ה;וְּהֶׁחֱרִׁ ש his cattle in the field; and Jacob held his יַעֲקֹב, עַד-בָֹאם. peace until they came. And Hamor the father of Shechem went 6 ו אוַיֵצֵ חֲמוֹר אֲבִׁ י שְּ -כֶׁם, אֶׁ ל-יַעֲקֹב, לְּדַ בֵ ר, .out unto Jacob to speak with him אִׁ תוֹ. And the sons of Jacob came in from the 7 ז ובְּ נֵי יַעֲקֹב בָאו מִׁ ן-הַשָדֶׁ ה, כְּשָמְּ עָם, field when they heard it; and the men were וַיִׁתְּ עַצְּ בוהָאֲ נָשִׁ ים, וַיִׁחַ רלָהֶׁם מְּ אֹד: כִׁ י- grieved, and they were very wroth, because נְּבָ לָהעָשָה בְּ יִׁשְּרָאֵ ל,לִׁשְּ כַב אֶׁ ת-בַ ת-יַעֲקֹב, he had wrought a vile deed in Israel in lying וְּכֵן, ֹלא יֵעָשֶׁ ה. with Jacob's daughter; which thing ought not to be done. And Hamor spoke with them, saying 'The 8 ח וַיְּדַ בֵ ר חֲמוֹר, אִׁתָ ם לֵאמֹר: שְּ כֶׁםבְּ נִׁי, soul of my son Shechem longeth for your החָשְּקָ נַפְּ שוֹבְּבִׁתְּ כֶׁם--תְּ נו נָא אֹתָ ּה לוֹ, daughter. I pray you give her unto him to לְּאִׁשָ ה. wife.

And make ye marriages with us; give your 9 ט וְּהִׁתְּ חַתְּ נו, אֹתָ נו: בְּ נֹתֵ יכֶׁם, תִׁתְּ נו-לָנו, daughters unto us, and take our daughters וְּאֶׁ ת-בְּ נֹתֵ ינו, תִׁקְּ חו לָכֶׁם. unto you. And ye shall dwell with us; and the land 10 י וְּאִׁתָנו, תֵשֵ בו; וְּהָָארֶׁ ץ, תִׁ הְּ יֶׁה לִׁפְּ נֵיכֶׁם-- shall be before you; dwell and trade ye שְּ בו וסְּ חָ רוהָ ,וְּהֵ ָאחֲזו בָּה. therein, and get you possessions therein.' And Shechem said unto her father and 11 יא וַיֹאמֶׁר שְּ כֶׁם אֶׁ ל-ָאבִׁיהָ וְּאֶׁ ל-ַאחֶׁיהָ , unto her brethren: 'Let me find favour in אֶׁמְּ צָ א-חֵן בְּעֵינֵיכֶׁם; רוַאֲשֶׁ תֹאמְּ רו אֵ לַי, your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I אֶׁתֵ ן. will give. ,Ask me never so much dowry and gift 12 יב הַרְּ בועָלַי מְּ אֹד, רמֹהַ ומַתָ ן,וְּאֶׁתְּ נָה, and I will give according as ye shall say unto כַאֲשֶׁ רתֹאמְּ רו אֵ לָי; ותְּ נו-לִׁי אֶׁ ת-הַ נַעֲרָ , '.me; but give me the damsel to wife לְּאִׁשָ ה. And the sons of Jacob answered 13 יג וַיַעֲנו בְּ נֵי-יַעֲקֹב אֶׁ ת שְּ - כֶׁםוְּאֶׁ ת-חֲמוֹר ,Shechem and Hamor his father with guile ָאבִׁ יו, בְּמִׁרְּ מָ ה--וַיְּדַ בֵרו: אֲשֶׁר טִׁמֵ א, אֵ ת and spoke, because he had defiled Dinah דִׁ ינָה אֲ חֹתָ ם. their sister, and said unto them: 'We cannot do this 14 יד וַיֹאמְּ רו אֲלֵיהֶׁ ם, ֹלא נוכַל לַעֲשוֹת הַדָ בָר thing, to give our sister to one that is הַזֶׁה-- תלָתֵ אֶׁ ת-אֲ חֹתֵ נו, לְּאִׁ יש אֲשֶׁ ר-לוֹ uncircumcised; for that were a reproach עָרְּ לָה: כִׁ י-חֶׁרְּ פָה הִׁ וא, לָנו. unto us. Only on this condition will we consent 15 טו אַ ְך-בְּ זֹאת, נֵאוֹת לָכֶׁם: אִׁםתִׁ הְּ יו unto you: if ye will be as we are, that every כָמֹנו, לְּהִׁ מֹל לָכֶׁם כָל-זָכָר. male of you be circumcised; then will we give our daughters unto 16 טז וְּ נָתַ נו אֶׁ ת-בְּ נֹתֵ ינו לָכֶׁם, וְּאֶׁ ת-בְּ נֹתֵ יכֶׁם ,you, and we will take your daughters to us נִׁקַ ח-לָנו;וְּ יָשַבְּ נו אִׁתְּ כֶׁם, וְּהָ יִׁינו לְּעַם אֶׁחָ ד. and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people. But if ye will not hearken unto us, to be 17 יז וְּאִׁ ם-ֹלא תִׁשְּמְּ עואֵ לֵינו, לְּהִׁ מוֹל-- circumcised; then will we take our וְּ לָקַחְּ נו אֶׁ ת-בִׁתֵ נו, וְּהָ לָכְּ נו. daughter, and we will be gone.' And their words pleased Hamor, and 18 יח וַיִׁיטְּ בודִׁ בְּרֵ יהֶׁ ם, בְּעֵינֵי חֲמוֹר, ובְּעֵינֵי, .Shechem Hamor's son שְּ כֶׁם בֶׁ ן-חֲמוֹר.

And the young man deferred not to do 19 יט וְּ ֹלא- ראֵחַ הַ נַעַר לַעֲשוֹת הַדָ בָ ר, כִׁ י חָפֵץ the thing, because he had delight in Jacob's בְּבַ ת- יַעֲקֹב;וְּ הוא נִׁכְּבָ ד, מִׁ כֹלבֵ ית ָאבִׁ יו. daughter. And he was honoured above all the house of his father. And Hamor and Shechem his son came 20 כ וַיָבֹא חֲמוֹרושְּ כֶׁםבְּ נוֹ, אֶׁ ל-שַ עַר עִׁירָ ם; unto the gate of their city, and spoke with וַיְּדַבְּ רו אֶׁ ל- יַאנְּשֵ עִׁ ירָ ם, לֵאמֹר. the men of their city, saying: ;These men are peaceable with us' 21 כא הָאֲ נָשִׁ יםהָאֵ לֶׁה שְּ לֵמִׁ ים םהֵ אִׁתָ נו, therefore let them dwell in the land, and וְּיֵשְּבו בָ ָארֶׁ ץ וְּיִׁסְּ חֲרואֹתָ ּה, ץוְּהָָארֶׁ הִׁ נֵה trade therein; for, behold, the land is large רַ חֲבַת-יָדַ יִׁם, לִׁפְּ נֵיהֶׁ ם; אֶׁ ת-בְּ םנֹתָ נִׁקַ ח-לָנו enough for them; let us take their לְּנָשִׁ ים, וְּאֶׁ ת-בְּ נֹתֵ ינו ןנִׁתֵ לָהֶׁ ם. daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters. Only on this condition will the men 22 כב אַ ְך-בְּ זֹאת יֵאֹתו לָנוהָאֲ נָשִׁ ים, לָשֶׁ בֶׁת consent unto us to dwell with us, to אִׁתָ נו--לִׁהְּ יוֹת, לְּעַם אֶׁחָ ד: בְּהִׁ מוֹל לָנו כָל- become one people, if every male among us זָכָר, רכַאֲשֶׁ הֵ םנִׁמֹלִׁים. be circumcised, as they are circumcised. Shall not their cattle and their substance 23 כג מִׁקְּ נֵהֶׁ םוְּקִׁ נְּיָנָם וְּכָל-בְּהֶׁמְּתָ ם, הֲלוֹא לָנו and all their beasts be ours? only let us הֵם; אַ ְך נֵאוֹתָ הלָהֶׁ ם,וְּ יֵשְּ בו אִׁתָ נו. consent unto them, and they will dwell with us.' And unto Hamor and unto Shechem his 24 כד וַיִׁשְּמְּ עו אֶׁ ל- חֲמוֹרוְּאֶׁ ל שְּ -כֶׁם בְּ נוֹ, כָל- son hearkened all that went out of the gate יֹצְּאֵ ישַ עַרעִׁ ירוֹ; וַיִׁמֹלו, כָל-זָכָר--כָל-יֹצְּאֵ י, ,of his city; and every male was circumcised שַ עַר עִׁ ירוֹ. all that went out of the gate of his city. ,And it came to pass on the third day 25 כה וַיְּהִׁ יבַ יוֹם הַשְּ לִׁישִׁ י בִׁהְּ םיוֹתָ כֹאֲבִׁ ים, when they were in pain, that two of the וַיִׁקְּ חו שְּ נֵי-בְּ נֵי-יַעֲקֹב שִׁמְּ עוֹן וְּ לֵוִׁי יאֲחֵ דִׁ ינָה sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's אִׁ יש חַרְּ בוֹ, וַיָבֹאו עַל-הָעִׁיר, בֶׁטַ ח; וַיַהַרְּ גו, brethren, took each man his sword, and כָל-זָכָר. came upon the city unawares, and slew all the males. And they slew Hamor and Shechem his 26 כו וְּאֶׁ ת- חֲמוֹרוְּאֶׁ ת שְּ כֶׁם- בְּ נוֹ, הָרְּ גו לְּפִׁ י- son with the edge of the sword, and took חָרֶׁ ב;וַיִׁקְּ חו אֶׁ ת-דִׁ ינָה מִׁ בֵית שְּ כֶׁם, וַיֵצֵ או. Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went forth.

,The sons of Jacob came upon the slain 27 כז בְּ נֵי יַעֲקֹב, בָ או עַל-הַחֲלָלִׁים, וַיָבֹזו, and spoiled the city, because they had הָעִׁ יר-- אֲשֶׁרטִׁמְּ או, אֲ חוֹתָ ם. defiled their sister. They took their flocks and their herds 28 כח אֶׁ ת- צֹאנָםוְּאֶׁ ת-בְּקָרָ ם, וְּאֶׁ ת-חֲמֹרֵ יהֶׁ ם, and their asses, and that which was in the וְּאֵ ת אֲשֶׁ ר-בָעִׁ יר וְּאֶׁ ת- ראֲשֶׁ בַשָדֶׁ ה, לָקָ חו. city and that which was in the field; and all their wealth, and all their little 29 כט וְּאֶׁ ת-כָל-חֵ ילָםוְּאֶׁ ת-כָל טַ - פָםוְּאֶׁ ת- ones and their wives, took they captive and נְּשֵיהֶׁ ם, שָ בו וַיָבֹזו; וְּאֵ ת, כָל- ראֲשֶׁ בַבָיִׁת. spoiled, even all that was in the house. And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi: 'Ye 30 ל רוַיֹאמֶׁ יַעֲקֹב אֶׁ ל-שִׁמְּ עוֹןוְּאֶׁ ל-לֵוִׁ י, have troubled me, to make me odious unto עֲכַרְּתֶׁ ם אֹתִׁ י, לְּהַבְּאִׁישֵ נִׁיבְּ יֹשֵ בהָָארֶׁ ץ, the inhabitants of the land, even unto the בַכְּנַעֲנִׁי ובַפְּרִׁ זִׁ י; וַאֲנִׁי, מְּתֵי מִׁסְּ פָר,וְּ נֶׁאֶׁסְּ פו Canaanites and the Perizzites; and, I being עָלַי וְּהִׁ כונִׁי,וְּ נִׁשְּ מַדְּתִׁ יאֲנִׁי ובֵיתִׁ י. few in number, they will gather themselves together against me and smite me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.' And they said: 'Should one deal with our 31 לא וַיֹאמְּ רו: הַכְּ זוֹנָה, יַעֲשֶׁה אֶׁ ת- {sister as with a harlot?' {P אֲ חוֹתֵ נו. }פ{

 Why do you think that Jacob “held his peace” until the very end of the story?  Assuming that Jacob in verse 30 is referring to his “house” as the entire tribe of Israel, and assuming that his fear of attack is well- founded – is his anger justified?  Is the concern for their sister that Shimon and Levi display, to be admired?

שוֹפְּטִׁ ים Judges Chapter 16 Samson the Jewish super-hero – Israel’s very own Judge Dredd – marries a Philistine woman by the name of Delilah. Bearing in mind the Philistines are the Hebrews’ sworn enemy (based in Gaza, no less!), this is a problematic marriage. Philistine lords offer Delilah money, if she can discover the secret to Samson’s power. Three times Samson confesses the nature of his “kryptonite”, three times Delilah his wife reveals the secret to the Philistines, and three times it turns out Samson has been lying to her.

And she said unto him: 'How canst thou say: I 15 טו רוַתֹאמֶׁ אֵ לָיו, אֵ יְך תֹאמַ ר love thee, when thy heart is not with me? thou אֲהַבְּתִׁ יְך,וְּלִׁבְּ ָך, אֵ ין אִׁתִׁ י: זֶׁה שָ ֹלש hast mocked me these three times, and hast not פְּעָמִׁ ים, הֵתַ לְּתָבִׁ י, וְּ ֹלא הִׁ - גַדְּתָ לִׁי, '.told me wherein thy great strength lieth הבַמֶׁ כֹחֲָך גָדוֹל. And it came to pass, when she pressed him 16 טז וַיְּהִׁ י כִׁ י-הֵצִׁיקָ ה לוֹ בִׁדְּ בָרֶׁ יהָ , כָל- daily with her words, and urged him, that his soul הַ יָמִׁ ים--וַתְּ ַאלְּצֵ הו; וַתִׁקְּ רצַ נַפְּ שוֹ, .was vexed unto death לָמות. And he told her all his heart, and said unto 17 יז וַיַגֶׁד-לָּה אֶׁ ת-כָל-לִׁבוֹ, וַיֹאמֶׁ ר לָּה ;her: 'There hath not come a razor upon my head המוֹרָ ֹלא-עָלָה עַל-רֹאשִׁ י--כִׁ י-נְּזִׁ יר for I have been a Nazirite unto God from my אֱֹלהִׁ ים אֲנִׁי, מִׁ ןבֶׁטֶׁ אִׁמִׁ י; אִׁ ם-גֻּלַחְּתִׁ י mother's womb; if I be shaven, then my strength וְּסָרמִׁמֶׁ נִׁי כֹחִׁ י, וְּחָ ילִׁיתִׁ וְּהָ ייִׁיתִׁ כְּכָל- will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be הָָאדָ ם. like any other man.' And when Delilah saw that he had told her all 18 יח אוַתֵרֶׁ דְּ לִׁילָה, כִׁ י הִׁ -גִׁיד לָּה אֶׁ ת- his heart, she sent and called for the lords of the כָל-לִׁבוֹ, וַתִׁשְּ לַחוַתִׁקְּרָ אלְּסַרְּ נֵי Philistines, saying: 'Come up this once, for he פְּ לִׁשְּתִׁ ים לֵאמֹר עֲלו הַפַעַם, כִׁ י-הִׁ גִׁ יד hath told me all his heart.' Then the lords of the לה )לִׁי( אֶׁ ת-כָל-לִׁבוֹ; וְּעָלואֵ לֶׁיהָסַרְּ נֵי Philistines came up unto her, and brought the פְּ לִׁשְּתִׁ ים, וַיַעֲלוהַ ףכֶׁסֶׁ בְּ יָדָ ם. money in their hand. And she made him sleep upon her knees; and 19 יט וַתְּ יַשְּ נֵהו, עַל בִׁרְּ -כֶׁיהָ ,וַתִׁקְּרָ א she called for a man, and had the seven locks of לָאִׁ יש, וַתְּ גַלַח אֶׁ ת שֶׁ -בַ עמַחְּ לְּפוֹת ,his head shaven off; and she began to afflict him רֹאשוֹ; וַתָ חֶׁ ל, לְּעַנוֹתוֹ, וַיָסַ ר כֹחוֹ, .and his strength went from him מֵ עָלָיו. ,And she said: 'The Philistines are upon thee 20 כ וַתֹאמֶׁ ר, פְּלִׁשְּתִׁ ים עָלֶׁיָך שִׁמְּ שוֹן; Samson.' And he awoke out of his sleep, and וַיִׁקַץמִׁשְּ נָתוֹ,וַיֹאמֶׁר אֵצֵא כְּפַעַם said: 'I will go out as at other times, and shake בְּפַעַם וְּאִׁ נָעֵר,וְּ הוא ֹלא יָדַע, יכִׁ יְּהוָה myself.' But he knew not that the LORD was סָר מֵ עָלָיו.

departed from him. And the Philistines laid hold on him, and put 21 כא וַיֹאחֲזוהופְּ לִׁשְּתִׁ ים, וַיְּנַקְּ רו אֶׁ ת- out his eyes; and they brought him down to עֵ ינָיו; וַיוֹרִׁ ידו אוֹתוֹ עַזָתָ ה, וַיַַאסְּ רוהו Gaza, and bound him with fetters of brass; and בַנְּחֻּשְּתַ יִׁם, יוַיְּהִׁ טוֹחֵן, בְּבֵ ית .he did grind in the prison-house האסירים )הָאֲ סורִׁ ים(.

 The narrative has us understand Delilah as a money-grabbing betrayer (v.18). But one can easily imagine the “Philistinian narrative”, presenting Delilah as a hero of her people. Is Delilah’s crime one of betrayal, or of clashing loyalties?

 In revealing his true weakness to Delilah, does Samson show that he values his bond with Delilah greater than his own life? That he is dumb? That he hopes his commitment to his wife will draw similar commitment from her?

 Has anyone ever expected you to sacrifice your own best interests for what they argue is a “greater good”?

אֶׁסְּתֵ ר Esther Chapter 4 Esther is the heroine of the Purim tale. She is a Jewish girl, Mordecai’s niece. The King has made her queen, without knowing that she is Jewish. In the meantime, Haman the villain has plans to massacre all the Jews in the land, for which he has gained the King’s approval. Mordecai must “activate” Esther…

Then called Esther for Hathach, one of the 5 ה וַתִׁקְּרָא ראֶׁסְּתֵ לַהֲתָ ְךמִׁסָרִׁ יסֵ י king's chamberlains, whom he had appointed to הַמֶׁ לְֶׁך,אֲשֶׁ ר הֶׁ עֱמִׁ יד ,לְּפָנֶׁיהָ וַתְּ צַוֵהו, attend upon her, and charged him to go to עַל-מָרְּ דֳּכָי--לָדַ עַת מַ ה-זֶׁה, וְּעַל-מַ ה-זֶׁה. Mordecai, to know what this was, and why it was. So Hathach went forth to Mordecai unto the 6 ו אוַיֵצֵ הֲתָ ְך, אֶׁ ל-מָרְּ דֳּכָי--אֶׁ ל-רְּ חוֹב broad place of the city, which was before the הָעִׁ יר, אֲשֶׁ רלִׁפְּ נֵי שַ עַר-הַמֶׁ לְֶׁך. king's gate. And Mordecai told him of all that had 7 ז וַיַגֶׁד-לוֹ מָרְּ דֳּכַי, אֵ ת כָל-אֲשֶׁר קָרָ הו; happened unto him, and the exact sum of the וְּאֵ תפָרָשַ תהַ כֶׁסֶׁף, אֲשֶׁ ר ָאמַ ר הָמָ ן money that Haman had promised to pay to the לִׁשְּ קוֹל עַל-גִׁנְּזֵי הַמֶׁ לְֶׁך ביהודיים .king's treasuries for the Jews, to destroy them )בַיְּהודִׁ ים(--לְּאַבְּדָ ם. Also he gave him the copy of the writing of 8 ח וְּאֶׁ ת-פַתְּשֶׁ גֶׁן כְּתָ ב- תהַדָ אֲשֶׁ ר-נִׁתַ ן the decree that was given out in Shushan to בְּשושָ ן לְּהַשְּמִׁידָ ם, נָתַ ן לוֹ --לְּהַרְּ אוֹת destroy them, to show it unto Esther, and to אֶׁ ת-אֶׁסְּתֵ ר, ולְּהַגִׁידלָּה; ולְּצַ ווֹת עָלֶׁיהָ , declare it unto her; and to charge her that she לָבוֹא אֶׁ ל-הַמֶׁ לְֶׁךלְּהִׁתְּחַ נֶׁן- לוֹולְּבַקֵ ש should go in unto the king, to make supplication מִׁ לְּפָנָיו--עַל-עַמָ ּה. unto him, and to make request before him, for her people. And Hathach came and told Esther the words 9 ט וַיָבוֹא, הֲתָ ְך;וַיַגֵד לְּאֶׁסְּתֵר, אֵ ת .of Mordecai דִׁ בְּרֵימָרְּ דֳּכָי. Then Esther spoke unto Hathach, and gave 10 י וַתֹאמֶׁ ר ראֶׁסְּתֵ לַהֲתָ ְך, וַתְּ צַוֵהו אֶׁ ל- :him a message unto Mordecai מָרְּ דֳּכָי. All the king's servants, and the people of the' 11 יא כָל-עַבְּדֵ יהַמֶׁ לְֶׁך וְּעַם-מְּדִׁ ינוֹת הַמֶׁ לְֶׁך ,king's provinces, do know, that whosoever יֹדְּ עִׁ ים, אֲשֶׁ ר כָל אִׁ - יש הוְּאִׁשָ אֲשֶׁ ר whether man or woman, shall come unto the יָבוֹא-אֶׁ ל-הַמֶׁ לְֶׁך אֶׁ ל- רהֶׁחָצֵ הַפְּ נִׁימִׁ ית ,king into the inner court, who is not called ראֲשֶׁ ֹלא- איִׁקָרֵ ַאחַת דָ תוֹ לְּהָמִׁ ית, לְּבַד there is one law for him, that he be put to רמֵאֲשֶׁ יוֹשִׁ יט-לוֹ הַמֶׁ לְֶׁך אֶׁ ת-שַרְּ בִׁ יט הַזָהָ ב, וְּחָ יָה; וַאֲנִׁי, ֹלא נִׁקְּרֵאתִׁ י לָבוֹא 11

death, except such to whom the king shall hold אֶׁ ל-הַמֶׁ לְֶׁך--זֶׁה, שְּ לוֹשִׁ ים יוֹם. out the golden sceptre, that he may live; but I have not been called to come in unto the king these thirty days.' .And they told to Mordecai Esther's words 12 יב וַיַגִׁידו לְּמָרְּ דֳּכָי,אֵ ת דִׁ בְּרֵיאֶׁסְּתֵ ר. Then Mordecai bade them to return answer 13 יג רוַיֹאמֶׁ מָרְּ דֳּכַי,לְּהָשִׁ יב אֶׁ ל- unto Esther: 'Think not with thyself that thou אֶׁסְּתֵ ר: ַאל-תְּ ידַמִׁ בְּ נַפְּשֵ ְך, לְּהִׁמָ לֵט shalt escape in the king's house, more than all בֵ ית-הַמֶׁ לְֶׁך מִׁ כָל הַ -יְּהודִׁ ים. the Jews. For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at 14 יד כִׁי אִׁ ם-הַחֲרֵ שתַ חֲרִׁישִׁ י, בָעֵת this time, then will relief and deliverance arise הַ זֹאת--רֶׁ וַח וְּהַצָ לָה יַעֲמוֹדלַיְּהודִׁ ים to the Jews from another place, but thou and מִׁמָ קוֹם ַאחֵ ר, וְּאַתְּ ובֵ ית-ָאבִׁ יְך thy father's house will perish; and who knoweth תֹאבֵ דו; ומִׁ י יוֹדֵ עַ --אִׁ ם-לְּעֵת כָזֹאת, whether thou art not come to royal estate for הִׁ גַעַתְּ לַמַ לְּכות. such a time as this?' Then Esther bade them return answer unto 15 טו וַתֹאמֶׁ ראֶׁסְּתֵ ר,לְּהָשִׁיב אֶׁ ל-מָרְּ דֳּכָי. Mordecai: Go, gather together all the Jews that are' 16 טז לְֵךכְּ נוֹס אֶׁ ת-כָל הַ -יְּהודִׁ ים present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and הַ נִׁמְּצְּאִׁיםבְּשושָ ן,וְּ צומו עָלַיוְּ ַאל- neither eat nor drink three days, night or day; I תֹאכְּ לו וְּ ַאל-תִׁשְּתו שְּ ֹלשֶׁ תיָמִׁ ים לַיְּלָה ;also and my maidens will fast in like manner וָיוֹם--גַם-אֲנִׁי וְּ נַעֲרֹתַ י, ָאצום כֵן; ובְּ כֵן and so will I go in unto the king, which is not ָאבוֹא אֶׁ ל-הַמֶׁ לְֶׁך, ראֲשֶׁ ֹלא-כַדָ ת, '.according to the law; and if I perish, I perish וְּכַאֲשֶׁ רָאבַדְּתִׁ י,ָאבָדְּתִׁ י. So Mordecai went his way, and did according 17 יז וַיַעֲבֹר, מָרְּ דֳּכָי; וַיַעַש, כְּ כֹל אֲשֶׁ ר- .to all that Esther had commanded him צִׁוְּתָ העָלָיו אֶׁסְּתֵ ר.

 What is Esther’s concern in verse 11?  What is the combination of belonging, solidarity, and commitment, that Mordecai presents to Esther in verses 13-14?  What kind of sacrifice is Esther willing to make?

 In the end the risk paid off, and Esther was able to save the Jews. But if it had not worked out so nicely? Was this a fair sacrifice for Mordecai to expect of his niece? 12

And then, just for the fun of it…

Purim is Israel’s Halloween. The entire country spends the whole day in fancy dress. There is a growing concern in Israel that girl’s costumes are too sexual, too young. This clip is from an Israeli comedy show. The translation of the Hebrew “zonah” as “slut” is a bit too gentle. The more correct translation would be “whore”…

Screen this two minute sketch from Israeli TV’s Channel 1 show, “The Jews are coming”: http://youtu.be/KS64ZFL9AKc

Part 3 - The Morality of Loyalty TRANSITION: All three of these texts ask challenging questions of us. Loyal behavior can lead to betrayal of loved ones, to dangerous self-sacrifice, and to violence. It would seem that “loyalty” can break the rules of what we regard as moral behavior. Is it true that Loyalty acts outside of morality, or is there a way to understand Loyalty within a moral context?

Screen this video.

Go round the group asking for each participant to offer their “question mark” and their “exclamation mark”. What are they left questioning, or not fully understanding? And what are they surprised by, or understanding something anew?

Allow time to clarify Haidt’s approach.

Discussion  Do you find yourself more comfortable on the left hand side of the “Moral Graphic Equalizer”, or on the right, or across all six channels?  Are there situations in which you have felt frustrated at another’s political stance, that Haidt’s moral palates offer an enlightening prism? i.e., while you may still vehemently disagree with them, you can now understand their stance is not entirely evil or not wholly dumb?  The end of the video begins to hint at a conflict within the University community, and within the Jewish community. Can liberty and freedom of speech lead to support for evil? Can calls for loyalty lead to censorship?

Part 4 – Loyalty to Israel? What should a Birthright alum do?

Share the portraits of the “good” alum, and the “bad” alum, from everyone’s homework.

Make sure that this exercise is conducted in reference to what has come before. If they do not arise from the participants, try to make reference to the Biblical texts and characters we have explored, and to Haidt’s sliding scales of morality. How do these portraits compare to Shimon, Levi and Jacob? Delilah? Esther or Mordecai? How do these portraits measure on the Moral Graphic Equalizer of Haidt?

Important: Stress to participants that we are examining the goals of Birthright together for learning purposes only, and not in order to push a particular agenda.

1. How do you feel about these kinds of expectations? 2. Do you feel gratitude to those who funded your trip? 3. To what extent does this gratitude feed into a sense of obligation?

It is important to be ready to accept negative answers to 2 and 3. We are beginning an exploration, not an investigation. This is a discussion that need not, or cannot, reach a point of consensus. Connection to and commitment to the Jewish People, support of and loyalty to Israel, are extremely complex issues. The more we broaden our conceptions, and enrich our vocabulary, the better we are able to address the issues without falling into conflict or despair.

Conclusion TRANSITION TO CONCLUSION: At the start of this session we looked at three Jewish texts that addressed issues of unity and uniformity. Let’s end with another approach to these issues – a song by HaDag Nahash. Your homework this week will be to write answers to these three questions: 1. What do you like about the lyrics? 2. What do you dislike about the lyrics? 3. For the song more accurately to speak for you, what would you add or change to the lyrics?

Show the following music video by HaDag Nahash: Rak Po: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikjiMbJIG8g

Promise to email everyone the link to the video, and the lyrics. 14

Post-Session Reflection for the Facilitator Success Checklist:  Participants will become familiar with an ongoing discourse in the Jewish world, ancient and modern, about the nature of collective commitment.  The nature of group loyalty will take its place in a broader understanding of morality.  For participants to engage with the expectations of Birthright alumni vis a vis Israel, and begin to form their own opinions.

How did it go? Reflection on the session:

In the "Success Checklist," if you aren't able to answer "yes," to the questions, why do you think these objectives weren't achieved? ______

What was one thing that surprised you during the session? ______

What was something that happened that you weren't prepared for? ______

Was there anything that happened in the group that needs to be addressed in the next session? ______

Is there anything you want to discuss with your mentor or supervisor?

Rak Po – Only Here By HaDag Nahash

רואה יפנים קונים בקיוסק ממול I see some Japanese shopping at the kiosk איזה כיף לאנשים שבשבילם פה זה חו"ל across the way על פניו ישראל בסדר בגדול ’What fun for people, that here is ‘overseas Basically, Israel is totally fine בניו יורק יש מיליונים שאין להם מה לאכול. In New York there are millions without food אבל מדגדג לי להתרחק But I’ve got this itch to get away from this מהמקום הזה להתנתק להתנתקות להתעופף place - detach, clean out, space out at least for לפחות לתקופה להתחפף a while, to hang out and finally put behind me ולשים סופית מאחורי the doubts about my country את הלבטים הנוגעים לארץ מגורי. Because only here unpleasant means nothing כי רק פה Only here governing’s less important than אין משמעות ללא נעים. pleasure רק פה שלטון פחות חשוב ממנעמים. Only here רק פה שלושה ראשי ממשלה נחקרים Prime Ministers are under investigation 3 ולא משתפים פעולה. …And aren’t cooperating

Only here (rak po) I feel I belong רק פה אני מרגיש שייכות Although I’m angry about the corruption למרות שאני כועס על השחיתות And if you find yourself abroad and hear of an“ "ואם אתה בחו"ל נמצא ועל פיצוץ שומע?" ”?explosion אז רק לפה פתאום אני מתגעגע. So I suddenly long to be Only Here

נשאר לי לעשן רק חומר מקומי I only get to smoke local stuff here הקופי שופ באמסטרדם זה בינלאומי When in a coffee shop in Amsterdam it’s מסתכל מבסוט על השפשוף שבג'ינס international מהרהר בבלוז בבר בניו אורלינס Look at my faded jeans with pride חושב על הריוויירה כשאני עובר ליד אכזיב And wonder about the blues in a bar in New Orleans מפליג כמו בוונציה בחורף 1 Think about the Riviera when I go past Achsiv בדרום תל אביב Boat like in Venice in the Winter in South Tel Aviv2

כי רק פה יש שוטףBecause only here 90+ רק פה The pay comes in 4 months late כולם רוצים להיות כרישים Because only here רק פה Everyone wants to be a shark כשאתה עובר ליד בית עסק Because only here אתה נרגע אם אתה רואה איזה רולה עם נשק. When you pass a place of business you relax when you see a guy with a gun3 17

רק פה אני מרגיש שייכות Only here (rak po) I feel I belong למרות שאני כועס על השחיתות Although I’m angry about the corruption "ואם אתה בחו"ל נמצא ועל פיצוץ שומע?" And if you find yourself abroad and hear of an“ אז רק לפה פתאום אני מתגעגע. ”?explosion So I suddenly long to be Only Here

הכל אצלי עניין של הרגל It’s all a matter of habit with me סך הכול סבבה להתגלגל בישראל. All in all it’s cool to hang out in Israel הכל אצלי עניין של מה בא לי With me it’s all about what I’m into חלק מהכפר או חלק מהגלובלי. To be part of the village or part of the global

כי רק פה כולם מדברים בעברית Because only here we talk in Hebrew ומקללים ברוסית, אנגלית וערבית. And swear in Russian, Arabic, and English רק פה Because only here אנשים הולכים מכות בתור. We queue up to exchange blows רק פה Because only here כולם בצבא ורוצים פטור. Everyone’s in the army and want exemptions

רק פה בחויבי ובשלילי. Only here רק פה הכל מוכר מרגיש שלי. The positive with the negative רק פה לי נוח זה הסיכום Only here everything’s familiar feels like mine אז למה לי לברוח לכל מקום ביקום? Only here I feel comfortable That’s the conclusion So what’s the point of running away all over the cosmos?

רק פה אני מרגיש שייכות Only here (rak po) I feel I belong למרות שאני כועס על השחיתות Although I’m angry about the corruption “And if you find yourself abroad and hear of an "ואם אתה בחו"ל נמצא ועל פיצוץ שומע?" ”?explosion אני קולט מאיפה באתי I realize where I came from ומזדעזע. …And go into shock

1. Achsiv is a beach resort in the North of Israel. 2. During the winter rains there is often flooding in South Tel Aviv, the poorer end of Tel Aviv, where infrastructure is aging. 3. A security guard… 18

Freedom I – Identity, Creativity, and the State

Introduction This is the start of the second section of our work: Freedom. After having explored aspects of Jewish Peoplehood, we are now moving into the intricacies and fascinations of Israel’s freedom. This first piece looks into the arts. It is likely to be upbeat and enjoyable on the one hand, and thought-provoking and challenging on the other hand.

Goals  Participants will experience a taste of the variety and power of Israeli arts and their interface with Israeli society  Participants will begin to appreciate the way in which Israel’s public space is governed according to unique guidelines  Confusion and complexity will begin to feel familiar and even enjoyable!

Big Question What happens when Jews “come out of the closet” and feel free to express their Jewishness in a public made up of a majority of Jews?

Guiding Questions  Is Israel even trying to maintain any separation between Religion and State? (No..!)  Should governments have a say over the nature of artistic creation?  Can I think of parallels in North America?  What would happen if this took place in North America?

Preparation for the Facilitator 1. Make sure you have watched the videos and the images yourself. 2. Make sure the internet connection is broad enough to screen the videos, or download them beforehand. www.keepvid.com 3. Check that you have a computer, projector, screen, and EXCELLENT speakers connected to your computer 4. Print and cut out the different “bluffs”, and the lyrics to Out of Egypt 5. Print out the quotation from Rabbi Marder 6. Set up a flip chart, with working marker pens of different colors. 7. Download large hi-res versions of Da Vinci’s and Nes’ Last Supper, so you can screen them large.

Part 3: Call your Bluff

Session Outline Suggested Segment Description Time Briefly review last session. Israel update Introduction 15 minutes through the prism of 4HQ. Introduce this session Part 1: Jewish Public Sharing responses to the Jewish nature of 15 minutes Space Israel’s public space Exploring the notion of “coming out of the Part 2: The Entrance 15 minutes cultural closet” – advantages and Sign disadvantages Three amazing cases of where creativity met Part 3: Call your Bluff 60 minutes Jewish identity, and clashed in Israel’s public sphere. Conclusion  Wrap Up Close this session and briefly look to next 15 minutes  Looking session Ahead

Introduction So having explored dimensions of Jewish Peoplehood in the last three sessions – what does it mean to be Jewish? What obligations come with being Jewish? And What differentiations are expected of us? – we are now moving on to explore the idea of Freedom as it plays out in Israel. “To Be A People, Free In Our Land”. What does it mean to be a free people?

In the next two sessions we will look at where Freedom intersects with Jewish creativity in Israel.

Part 1 – Jewish Public Space Have someone read out this quotation from Rabbi Jane Marder, and then have them stick it on the top of the clip board:

R. Jane Marder – Israel as Jewish Public Space, 2007

“Some of what I love is the reality of Israel: the automatic teller machine that spits out a receipt wishing me a happy Sukkot; the taxi drivers with tehilim (psalms) taped to the dashboard; street signs in Hebrew, named for sages and poets and great figures in our history; concerts that begin with the crowd singing “Hatikvah”; public lectures, literature, films, plays, and even rock music that wrestle with Jewish themes; the siren that announces Shabbat on Friday afternoons in Jerusalem; the buses that stop running, the quiet that falls over the city, and the streets full of people carrying flowers home or walking to synagogue. Israel is the only place in the world that offers me public Jewish space—an external environment that reflects my inner identity. I belong there, in a way that I belong nowhere else.”

A Dream of Zion: American Jews Reflect on Why Israel Matters to Them

Leave room for participants to express their agreement or otherwise with Marder’s comments, and then ask the group to brainstorm on the clip-board any other aspects of Jewish Public Space that the group noticed when they were on Birthright.

It is worth asking a member of the group to be the person to write down the comments. Unless your handwriting is particularly beautiful…

Transition: The Jewish nature of Israel’s public space is not by chance. Some would say that it is at the heart of the Zionist enterprise. This short video offers us a little historical perspective about this kind of Jewish freedom.

Part 2 - The Entrance Sign

Screen this short video: http://youtu.be/t_V43ULk6fs

Write up on the flip chart this quotation from Taub:

“In order to be free one must have a public dimension to one’s identity”

Some questions for general conversation:  In what way would you say there is a public dimension to your Jewish identity on campus? In your country?  Are there elements of your Jewish identity do you prefer to keep private? What are they? Why?  In North America, where there are so many religious and ethnic identities in play, is it possible for everyone to have a public dimension to their identity? What would/does that look like? Is it a good thing, or should the public sphere be left “neutral”?

Allow for many different opinions, and encourage different voices and perspectives.

Transition: There are certainly advantages and disadvantages to the way in which Israel has few separations between religious identity and the public space. On the one hand, everyone can feel liberated that they do not need to be “closeted”, but on the other hand it means there are many more people with an opinion about the way in which you choose to express your identity…

We are now going to examine three different case studies, three different examples of where religious identity meets with public expression – and responses from the public in return…

Part 3 - Call My Bluff Split everyone into three groups. Everyone is going to be exposed to three different cases of Israeli art – all of which touch on themes of Pesach – Passover – the Jewish Festival of Freedom.

After each piece, we will ask the question: What was the response in Israel to this piece of art?

Group 1 will answer for the first example Group 2 will answer for the second example Group 3 will answer for the third example

I will give to each group three different answers to the question. Two of these answers will be fabrications – lies – and one of these answers is correct.

It will be the responsibility of each group to present all three answers in as convincing a fashion as possible.

It will be the job of the other two groups to decide which of the three answers offered is the correct one.

The group that manages to convince everyone of the wrong answer, wins.

At the end of each example, I will tell you which was the correct answer…. [Correct answer below in italics]

Example one - Ehad Mi Yodea

Before screening the video, make sure that everyone in the group is familiar with the traditional Seder Night song, Ehad Mi Yodea. If they are not, it will be important to go through its cumulative nature, and its place in Pesach culture:

The song itself first appeared in Jewish tradition in the 16th Century, and has been sung in different languages throughout the Jewish world.

"Echad Mi Yodea" is a cumulative song, meaning that each verse is built on top of the previous verses. There are thirteen verses, to correspond with the magical number of God’s attributes, and that crops up on Bar/Bat Mitzvahs…

The first verse runs: Who knows one? I know one. One is our God, in heaven and on earth.

The second verse: Who knows two? I know two. Two are the tablets of the covenant; One is our God, in heaven and on earth.

...and so forth. The last verse is: Who knows thirteen? I know thirteen. Thirteen are the attributes of God; Twelve are the tribes of Israel; Eleven are the stars of Joseph's dream; Ten are the Commandments; Nine are the months of pregnancy; Eight are the days of circumcision; Seven are the days of the week; Six are the books of the Mishnah; Five are the books of the Torah; Four are the Matriarchs; Three are the Patriarchs; Two are the tablets of the covenant; One is our God, in heaven and on earth.

This is a performance of Israeli Dance Company Batsheva. This piece was choreographed by their Artistic Director, Ohad Naharin, and is built around the song “Ehad Mi Yodea” as performed by Nikmat HaTraktor (Revenge of the Tractor). The video is from a performance overseas.

Play this video from 4:14 minutes in. (The link should jump to that point automatically) http://youtu.be/GIeYHU7pEYc?t=4m14s

In 1998 it was Israel’s 50th year. There was a huge televised performance of all of Israel’s best arts and culture, to be broadcast throughout the world. Batsheva Dance Company was invited to perform Ehad Mi Yodeya as part of the show. (The video we saw was of a different performance of the same dance piece.) 7

How was this received in Israel?

A: On the night, when the time came to throw their jackets into the ring, everyone in the audience stood up at the same time, and also threw their own clothes into the air. The cameras caught it all, and there are records of viewers laughing in surprise and respect throughout the world. The dancers themselves saw what was going on in the audience and were caught giggling throughout the rest of the performance. By the time they reached “13”, instead of throwing off another piece of clothing, some of the dancers went and put on some of the jackets thrown from the audience. The evening went down as one of the highlights of Israel’s public relations of the entire decade. (After the performance some people sued Batsheva because they never got their jackets back…)

B: The Ultra-Orthodox parties in the Government coalition heard about the performance, and threatened to bring down the government unless the Batsheva dance was removed from the program. In search of a compromise, the President of Israel, Ezer Weizmann, went to ask the dancers to wear long-johns underneath their clothes, so that when they throw of their trousers their skin would not show. The dancers refused. Batsheva Dance Company refused to perform. They were roundly condemned by members of the government, with threats of cuts to their funding. However within weeks their private donations increased massively.

C: On the night, in a gesture towards the Holocaust, as the pile of clothes grew larger, images of Auschwitz were screened on the wall above the stage. Live cameras cut from the clothes on the dance floor, to images of piles of clothing and shoes in Auschwitz. As the dance ended, a huge slide saying “Tanz Macht Frei” (Dance sets you free) – a macabre reference to the infamous sign above the entrance to the Auschwitz Concentration Camp. The German Ambassador to Israel, who was in the audience, stormed out. It took many months for the controversy to die down.

Example two – The Last Supper Try to ascertain if everyone is familiar with Leonardo Di Vinci’s original Last Supper. If they are not, first screen the original image, explaining that this iconic painting is a late 15th-century mural painting by Leonardo da Vinci in the refectory of the Convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan. It is one of the world's most famous paintings, and 8

one of the most studied, scrutinized, and satirized. It presents a scene from the Christian Gospel, when Christ (center) eats what came to be known as The Last Supper with his disciples. This meal (widely acknowledged to be a Seder night Pesach meal) is where Jesus tells his disciples that one of them will betray him, and another will deny him.

This next image was staged and photographed by Adi Nes, in 2005. Screen this image.

Ask for at least 60 seconds of silence, as everyone takes in the details of the image.

How was this received in Israel?

A: In a rare show of collaboration, Arab Christian leaders throughout Jerusalem and Nazareth joined with ex-Generals in the IDF to demonstrate outside the exhibition gallery. Some said the photo insulted Christianity, others complained it insulted the IDF. Unfortunately towards the end of the evening a fight broke out between the demonstrators themselves, as the exhibition continued uninterrupted.

B: This was one of the most successful Israeli pieces of art ever. Massive success. Two copies have been sold, for almost a quarter of a million dollars. The photo is on permanent exhibition at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

C: The photo remains a curio, happily used by Israel educators(!), but if we are being honest, it didn’t really make an impact on Israel. Most people in Israel did not recognize the Christian references, and were not impressed with staged photography. His later work of Old Testament characters was far more successful and received much greater attention. Adi Nes himself acknowledges: “The Last Supper was a bit of a joke. A bit of a mistake. No one got it, and now I don’t really remember why I went to all the trouble. All those guys wanted to be fed after the shoot!”

Example three – Out of Egypt Continuing our Pesach theme, here is the final exhibit. A song that draws on another piece of the liturgy from the Seder Night Haggadah:

The Mishnah states, "In every generation one is obligated to view himself as though he came out of Egypt, as it says: ‘Tell your son on that day saying, "Because of this God acted for me when I came out of Egypt"’ (Shemot 13:8). Therefore, we are obligated to thank, praise, glorify, exalt, bless, and honor Him who performed all of these miracles for our fathers, and for us. He took us from slavery to freedom, from sadness to joy, from mourning to festivity, from darkness to light, from servitude to redemption, we shall recite before Him the Hallel" (Pesachim 10:5).

Play the following song by Alma Zohar: http://youtu.be/ufW-Wb8F7NQ

After playing the song, you may wish to hand out copies of the lyrics. [See appendix]

A: When this song was released in Israel it went straight to the top of the charts. It was played constantly on radio, and at a subsequent rally for the rights of African refugees in Israel Alma Zohar was top performer. More fascinating was that the rally was noted for the number of orthodox religious campaigners in its midst, singing especially loudly at the chorus.

B: While the song itself was not a great hit in the music business, it had a fascinating impact on Israel’s religious realm. Nearly every new Haggadah that is printed in Israel (many!) now includes the lyrics of Zohar’s song, together with suggestions for leaving a seat empty for African refugees. Her song, and its application of Jewish values to Israeli immigration/refugee policy, may not have changed Israeli policy, but it has certainly changed Jewish practice.

C: The major radio station, to which over 40% of all radio listeners turn, is Galgalatz, run by the IDF. Although Zohar’s previous two songs were smash hits, and she had earned the title of Best Newcomer to the Israeli music scene, it was decided that “Out of Egypt” would not be played on Galgalatz. It was not officially prescribed as “censored”, but it was never heard, and so made little impact on the Israeli public. Its youtube views never reached higher than 60,000. (Her previous song received over one million hits).

Conclusion Allow space for participants to share their observations from this game of “Call my bluff.”

The chances are that people will search for some consistency in Israel’s responses to these expressions of Jewish identity in public space, and will find none! This is in itself a key piece of information about the religion/state mix: since it is an undefined mix, consistency is rare. At the same time, as with all “mash-ups”, the room for creativity is inspiring….

Looking Ahead  Next week, we will start to think about Freedom as it plays out in the democratic process of the country. When you have a Jewish state, how can or should Jewish values play out in democratic decisions? We’ll be looking at actual case studies of decisions made by the Knesset – the Israeli Parliament – and see what we think of them.  Homework: Remind them they will receive an email with their homework for the following week the next day. See Pre-Session Assignments in Session #2 for homework.  Israel Update: Make sure to assign the 4HQ update to someone else in the group.

Post-Session Reflection for Facilitator Success Checklist  Did participants experience a taste of the variety and power of Israeli arts and their interface with Israeli society?  Did participants begin to appreciate the way in which Israel’s public space is governed according to unique guidelines?  Are participants beginning to enjoy the complexities of Israeli society?

How did it go? Reflection on the session: In the "Success Checklist," if you aren't able to answer "yes," to the questions, why do you think these objectives weren't achieved? ______

What was one thing that surprised you during the session? ______

What was something that happened that you weren't prepared for? ______

Was there anything that happened in the group that needs to be addressed in the next session? ______

Is there anything you want to discuss with your mentor or supervisor? ______

Who knows one?

I know one. One is our God, in heaven and on earth.

The second verse: Who knows two? I know two. Two are the tablets of the covenant; One is our God, in heaven and on earth…

The last verse is:

Who knows thirteen? I know thirteen. Thirteen are the attributes of God; Twelve are the tribes of Israel; Eleven are the stars of Joseph's dream; Ten are the Commandments; Nine are the months of pregnancy; Eight are the days of circumcision; Seven are the days of the week; Six are the books of the Mishnah; Five are the books of the Torah; Four are the Matriarchs; Three are the Patriarchs; Two are the tablets of the covenant; One is our God, in heaven and on earth.

Ehad Mi Yodea

The Last Supper

Out of Egypt

Out of Egypt Music and Lyrics by Alma Zohar

תמיד יש מלחמה באפריקה There’s always war in Africa מזל שהיא רחוקה ,What luck it’s so far away שלא רואים ולא שומעים ,We don’t have to see or hear it אותה מכאן from here גם אני הלכתי פעם I too walked, once בנתיב הייסורים Down lengthy paths of pain ממצרים לירושלים ,From Egypt to Jerusalem במדבר, ימים רבים ,Across a desert for many days בלי מים ,Without water, no water עם אותה שאלה בעיניים .With the same question in the eyes גם אני פגשתי רשע ,I, as they, encountered evil המכה בלי אבחנה ,Striking out in all directions אנשים חפים מפשע ,A falsely accused people אנשים בלי הגנה People lacking all protection בלי בית Without a home, no home עם ילדים קטנים בידיים .Carrying small children as they go הם דופקים לך בדלת ,They come knocking at your door הם בוכים בכי תמרורים ,Crying out bitterly אל תאמר – מה לי עם אלה ?And you say – what do I need them for אלה אנשים זרים .Foreigners from foreign lands כי בכל דור ודור ,Don’t you know each day and age חייב אדם לראות עצמו One and all must see himself, כאילו הוא יצא ממצרים As though having escaped Egypt, שלא ישכח איך ברח So he won’t forget how he fled, ,הוכה, הושפל, נרצח How he was beaten, humiliated, murdered, איך צעק לשמיים How he called out to the heavens. גם אני חיפשתי כוח I too vainly tried, להציל מה שאפשר כשלא היה לאן לברוח ,To save the little that I could דמי היה מותר With no place left to hide אות קין ,Anyone could let my blood אנשים נופלים לברכיים ,Mark of Cain, Mark of Cain הם דופקים לך בדלת .People pleading on their knees הם בוכים בכי תמרורים ,They come knocking at your door אל תאמר – מה לי עם אלה אלה ,Babes and bundles on their backs אנשים שחורים ?And you say – what do I need them for 18

כי בכל דור ודור… ?Who needs any more of those blacks אז שמור נא על כולנו …Don’t you know each day and age ריבונו של עולם Ruler of the World שלא נזדקק אף פעם Save us please while you still can לרחמים של בני אדם And bless we’ll never ever need כי בכל דור ודור… The mercies of another man תמיד יש מלחמה באפריקה …Don’t you know each day and age מזל שהיא רחוקה ,There’s always war in Africa שלא רואים ולא שומעים אותה מכאן ,What luck it’s so far away תמיד יש מלחמה באפריקה .We don’t have to see or hear it, from here מזל שהיא רחוקה ,There’s always war in Africa שלא רואים ולא שומעים ,What luck it’s so far away את הצעקה …We don’t have to see or hear The screams

Freedom II – Case studies of Democracy Introduction While a People may choose to be free from religion in its governance, so too a People may choose to be allow religion to play a free role within the nation’s governance. And if this governance is freely elected by the People, then this too is a form of freedom.

When the State was founded in 1948, the Declaration of Independence became the mission statement of Israel. One of the intentions was to preserve the “Jewish character” of the State while also preserving the freedoms of the variety of people living here, Jews and non-Jews alike: “The State of Israel will be open for immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles…it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex…it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture and will safeguard the Holy places of all religions.” (Declaration of Independence, 1948)

How does Israel maintain the Jewish character of the State, while also maintaining freedoms? When there are different opinions about what “Jewish character” should look like, it can be challenging to create a unified governing body to preserve that character with many Jewish perspectives equally represented.

Culturally, however, Jewish traditions and sacred text play a central role in public life. There is one weekly day off in Israel – the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday. There is no public holiday at Christmas, New Year’s, or Easter: rather, Chanukah, Pesach, Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur and Sukkot are the Israelis’ holidays. Few Israelis dress up for Halloween, but the streets are full of costumes at Purim. The public bus system stops in Jerusalem for Shabbat, Bible is taught in public schools and the Rabbinate is in charge of official marriages, even if the couple isn’t Orthodox.

At the same time, about 75% of the country’s Jewish citizens see themselves as secular and don’t live their lives according to Jewish law1. In this session, we will explore what questions arise when Israel strives to be both democratic and Jewish.

1 A Portrait of Israeli Jews: http://www.idi.org.il/media/1026905/Abstract_GuttmanAviChai2012_Eng.pdf 1

Goals  Participants will discuss and analyze current case studies that involve balancing Jewish and Democratic values  Participants will develop a deeper understanding of the challenges that arise when trying to hold democratic and Jewish values together

Big Question: What happens when a state tries to be both Jewish and democratic?

Guiding Questions  How do you instill the Jewish character of the State while still preserving the personal freedoms of its individuals?  When Jews of all different backgrounds experience life cycle events, what are the responsibilities of the State vs. the Rabbinate when there are diverse needs and desires of the citizens?

Preparation for Facilitator 1. Because of the material in this session, we recommend reading some background information about Israel’s government, since students might ask you clarifying questions. Specifically, we recommend: https://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_work_org.htm https://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_work_chak1.htm https://www.knesset.gov.il/faction/eng/FactionMain_eng.asp 2. Make sure to read all of the articles and information prior to the session. Additionally, make sure to watch the Donniel Hartman video. If you have time, it would be helpful for you to fill out the chart for each case study, so you clearly understand both sides of each issue. 3. Decide how you want the participants to sign up for the case studies. In order to break up the partners clearly and efficiently, it is recommended to prepare pieces of paper in advance, with the names of each case study as the title and an allotted number of spots in each category where students can sign up. However, if you prefer not to do that, you could also announce each case study, and have them volunteer before they split up into chevruta. It is important that the group is dispersed equally among the 4 categories. 4. Make sure to set up a computer with the video ready to go. 5. Make sure the screen and projector are working and connected to the computer, and that your speakers are LOUD without distortion.

6. Have extra copies of the case studies ready in case students forget their handbooks. 7. Cut outs of each of the applicant’s claims (from the Brother Daniel case), folded with the number written on the paper 8. The verdicts of each case study, in a sealed envelope with the name of the case study on the envelope. 9. If you have time, it is recommended to read the first article under “Continuing Education” on page 31 entitled A Zionist State, a Binational State and an In- Between Jewish and Democratic State. This article thoughtfully outlines some of the suggested models for Israel as a State and will give provide you with some baseline knowledge that might be important to know prior to facilitating this session.

Pre-Session Assignment Instructions: Please read the following letter. All of the modern day case studies, which will be done in our session, will stem from the four categories that Ben Gurion addresses in his letter.

Background Information: In Israel, the term status quo (or the secular-religious status quo) refers to the political understanding between religious and secular political parties not to alter the communal arrangement in relation to religious matters, in a predominantly non-Orthodox population. The established Jewish religious communities in Israel desire to maintain and promote the Orthodox religious character of the state, while the secular community wishes to reduce the impact of Orthodox regulations in their everyday lives. Occasionally, one political side seeks to make changes to inter- communal arrangements, and these are often met by fierce political opposition from the other side. The status quo is seen to preserve the established religious relations in Israel.

Ben Gurion’s Status Quo Letter of 1947 For over sixty years, Israel’s religious laws have been determined by the famous “status quo” agreement entered into before the state was founded. The following letter was written by David Ben-Gurion, (who at the time was the Chairman of the Jewish Agency – there was still no State of Israel) to Agudath Israel (the original political party representing the Haredi population of Israel) in order to form a united policy to present to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which had commenced its fact-finding tour 4 days earlier. The letter was meant to address their concerns that the emerging State of Israel will be a secular one, which might hurt the status of religion and religious institutions, as well as the values of their followers. 3

From: The Jewish Agency for Palestine, etc. To: The World Organization of Agudath Israel, etc., Jerusalem

Dear Sirs,

The Agency’s Executive has learned from its chairman of your requests concerning guarantees on matters of matrimony, Shabbat, education, and kashrut in the Jewish state, once it is established in our days.

As you were informed by the Chairman of the Executive, neither the Agency’s Executive nor any other body in the country is authorized to determine the law of the Jewish state in advance. The establishment of the state requires the approval of the United Nations, and this is impossible unless freedom of conscience in the state is guaranteed to all its citizens, and unless it is clear that there is no intention of establishing a theocratic state. The Jewish state will also have non-Jewish citizens, Christians and Moslems, and, evidently, it will be necessary to ensure in advance full equal rights to all citizens and the absence of coercion or discrimination in matters of religion or in any other matter. We were satisfied to hear that you understand that there is no body authorized to determine in advance the constitution of the state, and that the state will be, in some spheres, free to determine its constitution and regime according to its citizens’ wishes.

Still, the Executive appreciates your demands, and is aware that these are matters that worry not only the members of Agudath Israel, but also many of the religious faithful in all Zionist parties or in no party, and it is sympathetic to your demands that the Agency’s Executive inform you of its position regarding the issues you have brought up, and what it is willing to do, as far as its influence and directives reach, in order to fulfill your wishes regarding the said issues. The Agency’s Executive has authorized the undersigned to formulate its position regarding the issues you have mentioned at the meeting. The position of the Agency’s Executive is as follows:

“A. Shabbat. It is clear that Saturday will be the legal day of rest in the Jewish state. Permission will naturally be given to Christians and to those practicing other religions to rest on their weekly day of rest.

“B. Kashrut. All means should be pursued to ensure that every state-run kitchen for the use of Jews serve kosher food.

“C. Marital Law. All the members of the Executive appreciate the seriousness of the problem and the grave difficulties pertaining to it, and all the bodies represented in the Agency’s Executive will do whatever possible to satisfy the deep need of the religiously observant in this matter, lest the House of Israel be divided in two.

“D. Education. Full autonomy will be guaranteed to every education network (incidentally, this policy already exists in the Zionist Federation and Knesset Yisroel) and the state will not infringe on the religious philosophy or the religious conscience of any part of the Jewish people. The state will naturally determine the minimum requirement of compulsory studies in Hebrew language, history, science, and so forth, and will supervise this minimum, but will allow full independence to each network to educate according to its outlook and will avoid any injury to the religious conscience.

Sincerely, On behalf of the Jewish Agency Executive, D. Ben-Gurion, Rabbi Y.L. Fishman, Y. Grinboim.”

Source: Israel in the Middle East: Documents and Reading on Society, Politics and Foreign Relations Edited by Itamar Rabinovich and Jehuda Reinharz

Additional Important Background Information: The Chief Rabbinate of Israel is recognized by law as the supreme ruler on Jewish law and spiritual authority for the Jewish people in Israel. The Chief Rabbinate Council assists the two chief rabbis, who alternate in its presidency. It has legal and administrative authority to organize religious arrangements for Israel's Jews. It also responds to halakhic questions submitted by Jewish public bodies in the Diaspora.

The Council sets guides, and supervises agencies within its authority. The Chief Rabbinate of Israel consists of two Chief Rabbis: an Ashkenazi rabbi and a Sephardi rabbi, also known as the Rishon leZion. The Chief Rabbis are elected for 10 year terms. The present Sephardi Chief Rabbi is Yitzhak Yosef and the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi is David Lau, both of whom commenced their terms in 2013.

The Rabbinate has jurisdiction over many aspects of life of Jews in Israel. Its jurisdiction includes personal status issues, such as Jewish marriages and Jewish divorce, as well as Jewish burial, conversion to Judaism, Kashrut and kosher certification, aliyah (immigration to Israel), supervision of Jewish holy sites, working with various mikvaot (ritual baths) and yeshivot (Jewish school, focused on the study of traditional texts), and overseeing Israeli Rabbinical courts.

The Rabbinical courts are part of Israel's judicial system, and are managed by the Ministry of Religious Services. The courts have exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce of Jews and have parallel competence with district courts in matters of personal status, alimony, child support, custody, and inheritance. Religious court verdicts are implemented and enforced—as for the civil court system—by the police, bailiff's office, and other agencies. For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Rabbinate_of_Israel

haˈkneset]; lit. the gathering or assembly; is the] ַה ְּכנֶ ֶסת :The Knesset (Hebrew unicameral national legislature of Israel. As the legislative branch of the Israeli government, the 120 Knesset members pass all laws, elects the President and Prime Minister (although the latter is ceremonially appointed by the President), approves the cabinet, and supervises the work of the government. In addition, the Knesset elects the State Comptroller.

Israel has an electoral system based on nation-wide proportional representation, and the number of seats which every political party receives in the Knesset, is proportional to the number of voters who voted for it. However, a party must receive at least 2% of the votes in order to be elected. According to this system, the voters vote for a political party, and not for a particular person on the list. Since the institution of the primaries system in some of the parties, these parties directly elect their candidates for the Knesset. Some of the parties elect their candidates via the party's institutions, for example, in the ultra-religious parties their spiritual leaders appoint the candidates. The Knesset elections take place once every four years, but the Knesset or the Prime Minister can decide to hold early elections, and under certain circumstances can serve for more than four years. The Knesset is located in Givat Ram, Jerusalem. The Knesset has de jure parliamentary supremacy, and can pass any law by a simple majority, even one that might arguably conflict with the Basic Laws of Israel, unless the basic law includes specific conditions for its modification; in accordance with a plan adopted in 1950, the Basic Laws can be adopted and amended by the Knesset, acting in its capacity as a Constituent Assembly. Israel has no formal constitution. In addition to the absence of a formal constitution,

and with no Basic Law thus far being adopted which formally grants a power of judicial review to the judiciary, the Supreme Court of Israel has in recent years asserted its authority, when sitting as the High Court of Justice, to invalidate provisions of Knesset laws it has found to be inconsistent with a Basic Law. The Knesset is presided over by a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker. For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knesset

Questions for consideration:  Did you understand what was meant by the phrase with regards marriage: “Lest the House of Israel be divided in two”?  What were your initial reactions to the items discussed in the Status Quo letter? Were you surprised that these were the items being negotiated?  What do you think about the role of the Rabbinate? Does it seem to support or contradict Israel’s desire to be both Jewish and Democratic?  How is the Israeli government similar to the American government? How is it different?

Make it Modular Ideally, the session is done in its entirety. However, if time is limited, you should feel free to be selective about which components of this session you cover. To ensure alignment to the session's goals do not eliminate: Group Sharing of Case Studies The “Brother Daniel” activity The video of Donniel Hartman Part 2: Status Quo Case Studies

Materials Needed 1. Computer with the Donniel Hartman video loaded 2. Extra copies of the case studies and charts in case students forget their handbooks 3. Cut outs of each of the applicants claims (from the Brother Daniel case), folded with the number written on the paper 4. Extra pens 5. Copies of the ‘verdicts’ from each case study, sealed in an envelope with the title of the case study on the envelope 6. If you decide to have them sign up for case studies, have sheets of paper set out on a table with the names of each case study as the title and an allotted number of spots in each category where students can sign up. Don’t forget to put out pens!

Session Outline

Suggested Segment Description Time Briefly review last session and introduce this Introduction 5 minutes session Facilitator will read a famous court case Opening Activity: 20 minutes regarding the Law of Return and students will Brother Daniel participate Part 1: Jewish Students will listen to Donniel Hartman’s Democracy: Donniel 15 minutes charge addressing how Israel can strive to be Hartman’s Charge both Jewish and Democratic Based on Ben Gurion’s Status Quo agreement Part 2: Status Quo 40 minutes letter, students will explore modern day case Case Studies studies within the four categories The group will come back together and hear Part 3: Group the different positions of each case study and Presentations of Case 20 minutes will hear about the current status of each case Studies study. Conclusion Close this session and look forward to next Wrap Up 10 minutes session Looking Ahead

Introduction Note: The introduction is important as it functions as a bridge between sessions – reminding students about the material that was covered in the prior session and framing the material for the current session. Below are some suggested points to help you create that bridge between sessions. Note that we do not recommend reading the points below word for word.

NO Israel Update Since we will be spending the majority of our time looking at current case studies, there is no Israel update for this session. Review Last Session –2 minutes Last session: In our last session, we looked at how the free blend of Jewish and Public leads to all sorts of confusions, conflicts, and complexities. In some areas, the State does not take a stand. But on key fundamental issues, the interface between individual freedom, religious observance, and the law – the democratically elected government must make decisions. Introduce Current Session – 3 minutes Today we are going to explore how Israel strives to be both freely Jewish and freely democratic in an extremely diverse population with a plethora of needs. Reference/read out loud the Big Question as a way of framing the whole session.

Opening Activity: Brother Daniel Background Information for Facilitator: Persistent religious controversies within Israel have given rise to legal and political problems for the state. In what became known as the Brother Daniel case, a convert to Christianity applied for Israeli citizenship under the provisions of the Law of Return, and the courts were forced to deal with the problem of defining “who is a Jew.” The Supreme Court ruling, excerpted here, was a landmark decision that still stands. It has not, however, ended the controversy. Factions of the religious parties have frequently demanded a Knesset law giving the religious courts sole jurisdiction over defining “who is a Jew” as a condition for their participation in a government coalition. To date, these factions have been unsuccessful. Moreover, non- Orthodox religious movements have attempted to pass resolutions in recent Zionist congresses calling on the Israeli government to recognize marriages and conversions performed by their rabbis, thus, in effect, giving them some authority over defining “who is a Jew.”

Instructions: 1) Before reading the following story to the group, pass out the small, folded strips of paper with the verdicts on them to a few students. Ask them to hold the sheets of paper without opening them until you ask them to read them at the end of the story. 2) Before you start the story, the students will need some background about the Law of Return. Use the following paragraph to explain this law, so they understand the context for the story. Ask a student to read this paragraph out loud, adding some drama:  Israel's Basic Laws: An Introduction to the Law of Return Zionist ideology was premised upon the reconstitution of the Jews as a free, self-determining nation in their own state. In recognition of this aspiration, Israel’s Declaration of Independence declared: “The State of Israel will be open to the immigration of Jews and for the ingathering of exiles from all countries of their dispersion.” In 1950, this principle was given shape as the Law of Return, enshrining this Zionist principle within Israeli law. The Law of Return did not stem from ideology alone; it was also a practical measure. In the wake of the Holocaust, the first act of the new Israeli government was to abolish all restrictions on Jewish immigration. Israel, the government declared, would provide Jews the world over with safe haven from anti- Semitism. For more on this topic: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/return.html

3) Then, tell the group you want to read them a story, and you will be asking them to respond to a question throughout the story, by raising their hands. At the suggested points, stop and ask the group if, by a show of hands, they think Daniel is Jewish.

The Brother Daniel Case The applicant was born in Poland, in 1922, to Jewish parents and received a Jewish upbringing. In his youth he was active in a Zionist youth movement, spending two years, approximately, in a pioneer training farm in preparation for his immigration to Palestine.

 Is he Jewish? (ask for a show of hands yes or no, then continue reading)

With the outbreak of war between Germany and Russia, in June 1941, he was imprisoned by the Gestapo, but fled. After managing to acquire a certificate stating that he was a German Christian, he became secretary and translator for the German police station in Mir, the district capital.

 Is he Jewish?

While in Mir, he used to notify the Jews of German plans for anti-Jewish actions. When he discovered the German intention of destroying the Mir ghetto, he informed the Jews of the city and the surrounding area and provided them with weapons. On the basis of this information, many fled from the ghetto and joined the partisans; most of the survivors now live in Israel. He was denounced, interrogated by the police and jailed, but once again he fled. For a long time he hid in a convent, and at the first opportunity, joined the ranks of the Russian partisans. The Russians suspected him of being a German spy and sentenced him to death, but he was saved thanks to evidence given in his favor by a Jewish survivor of Mir; in the end he received a Russian medal of honor for his partisan activity.

 Is he Jewish?

In 1942, during his stay in the convent, he converted to Christianity; in 1945 he became a priest, entering the Carmelite order because it would give him the opportunity to join the Carmelite monastery in Israel.

 Is he Jewish?

During the War of Independence in 1948, and many times after, he requested permission from his superiors to immigrate to Israel; his request was granted only in 1958. In all his appeals to the Polish authorities he emphasized that, despite his conversion to Christianity, he had never stopped thinking of himself as a nationalist Jew, tied heart and soul to the Jewish people.

 Is he Jewish?

Note to Facilitator: Before continuing, and sharing with the group what happened, take a few comments from the group by asking them, when they stopped raising their hand, why? For those who raised their hands until the end of the story, why did they continue raising their hands? Take 3-4 comments. Then read what happened:

What happened: The travel certificate issued to him by the Polish authorities was of the kind issued only to Jews immigrating to Israel and leaving Poland forever; as far as his native country was concerned, he left for Israel as a Jew. His request for an immigrant’s certificate and to be registered as a Jew on his identity card was refused by the Israeli minister of the interior on the basis of a government decision from July 20, 1958, which determines that only a person who declares in good faith that he is a Jew, and has no other religion, will be registered as a Jew.

Note to Facilitator: by this time the students will have been listening to your voice for a long time. In order to break up the reading, pass out slips of folded paper with the applicant’s claims. There should be numbers on the tops of the paper so it is easy for the students to read the claims in order, and so you can call on them easily.

The applicant’s claims were: 1) That the concept “nationality” is not identical with the concept “religion” and that a Jew by nationality need not be a Jew by religion; 2) That according to Jewish religious law (halacha) he is a Jew because he is the son of Jewish parents; 3) That the decision of the government from July 20, 1958, which served as the basis for the minister of the interior’s refusal, has no legal basis and is therefore not binding; 4) That the minister of the interior’s refusal to grant him rights is arbitrary, that it is based on considerations outside the legal framework, that it is an affront to the law and to the rights of the applicant, and that it constitutes an act of discrimination against him.

Facilitator reads: On the basis of the above claims, the minister of the interior was served with an order nisi2 to come and explain his reasons for not granting the applicant an immigrant’s certificate in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Registration of

2 The term given to the order to request a thing be done within a certain period of time. (Black’s Law Dictionary)

Inhabitants Ordinance (1949), in which it would be registered in the column “Nationality” that the applicant is Jewish. The court ruled that while the national term "Jew" did not necessarily imply the practice of religious Judaism, "in common parlance" it could not be applied to someone who practiced another faith. As a practicing Catholic, therefore, he could not be recognized by the State of Israel as a Jew and thus could not immigrate under the Law of Return.

Source: Supreme Court Decision 72/62, Osvald Rufeisen v. Minister of the Interior, In the Supreme Court Sitting as a Supreme Court of Justice (March 14, November 19, December 6, 1962). “Israel in the Middle East: Documents and Readings on Society, Politics and Foreign Relations, 1948-Present.

If you have time, take a few reactions about the results of this story from the group.

Transition: This famous and tough case study is one of many that Israel faces when striving to be both Jewish and Democratic. As you can see from this story, the lines aren’t always clear when trying to make decisions that affect the future of the Jewish State and its diverse population.

On the one hand, the Law of Return was put in place to ensure that the Jewish people would have a place of refuge – it would be dumb to set up a State for the Jews if Jews couldn’t gain swift entrance, yet on the other hand this put the State in a position to make decisions that to many would seem discriminatory or undemocratic.

Today as we delve into more of the modern-day issues that arise when Israel strives to be both Jewish and democratic, it would be useful to work with some framework in mind. In order to help us set up a framework for this discussion, we are now going to hear from a leading contemporary thinker, Donniel Hartman, about how Israel might strive to be both democratic and Jewish.

Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman is President of the Shalom Hartman Institute. Donniel is the founder of some of the most extensive education, training and enrichment programs for scholars, educators, rabbis, and religious and lay leaders in Israel and North America.

Part 2: The Charge for Jewish and Democratic – 15 minutes Instructions: Please watch the following video from the Shalom Hartman Institute:

Full talk: from 33:00-1:00:24: http://youtu.be/CItRaKcNpEM?t=32m46s If there is time, take a few comments/reactions: What is one comment or idea that particularly struck you?

Transition: Keeping Donniel Hartman’s charge in mind: can Israel be as Jewish as democracy allows, and not as democratic as Judaism allows?

We are now going to turn our attention to some contemporary case studies. In the homework that you read for today, Ben Gurion addressed four key areas in his Status Quo letter: Shabbat, Kashrut (Dietary Laws), Marital Law, and (Jewish) Education. By exploring the various case studies in these areas, we are going to check how Israel is doing in these areas, 66 years after these agreements were made.

Use the instructions below to explain the activity before breaking them into partners.

Part 2: The Status Quo Today: Case Studies – 40 minutes Chevruta study Instructions: 1) Each Chevruta should pick one case study to explore. At the end of the session, the group will come back together and share their case study, so it is important that each topic is represented. Therefore, you should limit the amount of people for each case study and try to disperse the group equally among the topics. 2) Unpacking the case studies: “Constructive Controversy” is a technique that can be used to help the students more deeply understand both sides of an issue by literally “trying on” both sides of the issue in order to develop empathy for multiple positions. While in chevruta, they should read the material and make sure they clearly understand the issues in the case study. (The chart provided will help them.) Only after they understand both sides should they start discussing their own opinion of the situation. 3) Discussion: Then, they should use the chevruta discussion questions to unpack the article(s) with their partner. 4) Presentation: During the last five minutes, they should decide which perspective they are going to present to the group. Each member of the pair should pick a different side, so they can present multiple sides of the issue to the larger group. Even if they don’t agree with the side they are presenting, the point is for them to understand it enough to present it. The goal of this exercise is to help them understand both sides of the issue, and hopefully develop empathy for both sides. 5) Verdict: After their chevruta study is completed, the group will come back together, students will share the details of their case study, and then the “answer” or “verdict” will be read for that issue. 6) Note: Make sure to let the group know that when the “Status Quo” is brought up in the article(s) they are referring to Ben Gurion’s letter.

Case Study 1. Should Public Buses be allowed on Shabbat in Tel Aviv?

Instructions: 1) Decide which person in your group will keep the time. You will be presenting your case study to the group at the end of the session, so it’s important you are ready by the end of this activity. 2) Read the background information as preparation for the case study. Then read one article and fill in the chart. Lastly, read the second article and complete the chart. (15 minutes) 3) Discuss this case with your chevruta, using the discussion questions as a guide. (15 minutes) 4) Each of you should pick two different issues from the case study, which you will be presenting to the group. The majority of the group has not read your case study, and you will be presenting this in a style that a lawyer would present to a jury, so make sure to make your presentation is clear and lively! (10 minutes)

Background Information: Observing the Sabbath, when no work is permitted, in public was an issue which greatly engaged decision makers in Israel in its early years. As a rule, the leaders of the country supported the state's obligation to avoid, as much as possible, desecration of the Sabbath in public, but rejected any interference in people's private behavior. A topic that came up repeatedly was work in essential industries on the Sabbath. As the country was struggling for economic survival and wanted to step up production as much as possible, the leaders believed that work on the Sabbath in essential factories should be allowed. They even expected the Chief Rabbinate to issue certificates of Kashrut (body of religious laws concerning the suitability of food) to food processing plants that worked on the Sabbath, which they considered to be essential. http://www.archives.gov.il

Article 1: Time for Israel to allow buses on the Sabbath Israel has to get over its obsession with its religious character and be a country for all its citizens – including the non- religious and non-Jewish By Seth Freedman 4/6/2012

Walk around Tel Aviv on any given Saturday, and religious fervor is the last thing you'll encounter. The people vote with their sandal-clad feet, which carry them from Tel Aviv: considering allowing public transport to operate on Shabbat.

grocer's shop to cafe to golden mile of sand without the slightest inclination to walk into a synagogue – and in a free country it should be their cast-iron right to do just that. Yet the vagaries of a country defiantly defining itself along religious lines are disrupting the lives of millions of Israel's citizens every weekend, and there seems precious little the state is prepared to do about it.

In February, the Tel Aviv municipality approved a resolution to petition the transport ministry to allow public transport to operate in the city on Shabbat (the Sabbath), but the idea was rejected outright by the transport minister Yisrael Katz. This week, members of the leftwing Meretz party took the case to the high court, arguing that Katz is obliged by Israeli law to consider the proposal. Given the secular character of the vast majority of Tel Aviv – whose roads heave with private cars round the clock, and whose beaches boast thousands of near-naked youths packed together like sardines every Shabbat – such a proposition seems hardly out of place. Yet the establishment is up in arms about the plans, and is mobilizing its “troops” to prevent any change to the status quo.

As is the case so often in internal Israeli politics, the religious factions are throwing a spanner in the works, with the likes of Tel Aviv chief rabbi Lau expressing his "deep disappointment and pain" at the idea that buses should run on the Sabbath. Forbidding public transport on Shabbat is a decidedly hypocritical stance when everything from state TV to state FA-run football leagues to state-run public facilities are allowed to operate on Shabbat in direct contravention to religious law. Were Israel to rigidly enforce the laws of the Sabbath on its entire populace, there would be a revolution before the Shabbat siren could sound its first notes, as the government knows only too well. Instead, the state clings desperately to ludicrous notions that by banning public transport on Shabbat, the Jewish nature of the country is somehow reinforced, despite the majority of the population neither adhering to, nor caring about, religious laws and statutes. And that's just the Jewish citizens – as for non-Jewish Israelis, their rights mean even less when it comes to state provision of services in this instance.

For those for whom Saturday is neither Sabbath nor sacred, why should they be denied the right to public transport on their one day off in the week, just to pander to the rights of one religious group? The answer is, of course, that the state is not interested in giving Christian and Muslim citizens any say in such matters – as rightwing politicians like to say: if you don't like the rules, no one is keeping you here, and don't forget to shut the door behind you when you leave.

But the worm is turning, and Meretz's case in the high court will be a major test of Israel's self-proclaimed definition as a democratic state for all its citizens. The country 18

being held hostage by religious parties is hardly news – the decades-old argument about national service for yeshiva students is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to secular-religious warfare. But in this case, the state is firmly on the side of the ultra- Orthodox, albeit for different reasons. The moment that you argue that Israel should be entirely secular, and that there should be no religious trappings, you lose the case for Israel. Those who champion Israel as a Jewish state are compelled to require it to have a Jewish identity of some description, and in that context Shabbat is a major icon.

But banning buses operating on Shabbat is shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted down to the beachside cafe for a seafood salad. The vast majority of Israelis want the freedom to eat what they want, dress how they want, and travel where and when they want by whatever mode of transport is most suitable. For those who can't afford a car or taxi fare, cutting off public transport means isolating them on the one day a week when they most want the liberty to roam.

Israel has to get over its obsession with its religious character, and fast. It must be a country for all its citizens, and if that means changing the status quo to suit the modern, secular demographic of cities such as Tel Aviv, then so be it. You can break Shabbat in a million ways in Tel Aviv, and making it a million and one by running buses to assist the poorer residents is hardly a game-changing proposition. And by doing so, non-Jewish citizens might just get a much-needed glimmer of hope that their needs are being catered for as well, rather than feeling perpetually second-class and sidelined.

For full article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/06/sabbath-buses-israel

 Understanding the Article: Using your chart (found on page 38) make a list of the arguments in favor of allowing buses to run on Shabbat.

Article 2. Haredi politicians say Shabbat buses won’t happen Deputy Mayor Naftali Lubert (United Torah Judaism ) called the decision 'cheap, Meretz spin,' referring to the left-wing party. By Yair Ettinger | Feb. 22, 2012 |

Ultra-Orthodox politicians refused to be daunted Tuesday by the Tel Aviv city council’s resolution to sanction buses on Shabbat, saying the move would be defeated soon enough.

Deputy Mayor Naftali Lubert (United Torah Judaism ) called the decision “cheap, Meretz spin,” referring to the left-wing party. Similarly, Shas MKs completely ignored the decision on the assumption that it would be overridden in the city government or by Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz. A Shas official said the party refused to “be dragged into an argument that would portray Shas as primitive Haredim who prevent the secular community from having fun on Shabbat.”

But Tel Aviv Chief Rabbi Meir Lau slammed the resolution, saying that it “shamed the history of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, founded 103 years ago as the first Hebrew city. The former Chief Rabbi of Israel quoted historical Tel Aviv figures such as national poet Hayim Nahman Bialik, Zionist thinker Ahad Ha’am and the city’s first mayor, Meir Dizengoff all opposed desecration of Shabbat. Lau quoted a 1933 pamphlet by Dizengoff stating that “we called several times on the Tel Aviv public to refrain from public desecration of Shabbat, an act that hurts the feelings of the Haredi public and the good reputation of Tel Aviv as a pure Hebrew city.”

Lau said he felt “pain and deep disappointment due to the council’s recommendation to operate public transportation on Shabbat. It’s a wound to Shabbat’s holiness, which commemorates the Creation and the Exodus from Egypt. It’s a day of rest for every worker and a day for spiritual elation and family unity.” Lau appealed to Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai not to “put out the Shabbat candle.” He also urged the interior and transportation ministries not to approve the resolution. They should preserve the sanctity “of Shabbat in the public sphere, as befitting the Jewish State.”

The organization of Tzohar Rabbis, a moderate religious-Zionist group, called on the city council “not to seriously harm Israel’s Jewish character without a serious public debate.” Tzohar’s chairman, David Stav, said in a statement: “despite the city’s image, most of its inhabitants are traditional Jews who care about Shabbat. Many secular residents “yearn for quiet” on Shabbat, he added. “The financial motive to help businesses and young people cannot be the municipality’s main consideration.”

Additional Thoughts to Consider: The rights of the drivers. The drivers themselves have the right to rest from their work. If the buses run on Shabbat, someone has to drive the buses and this would mean working on Shabbat. For the drivers who aren’t Sabbath observant, or not Jewish, it might not be such a big deal. But for the drivers who are Shabbat observant, this law could marginalize them.

 Understanding the Article: Using your chart (found on page __), make a list of the arguments against allowing buses to run on Shabbat.

Discussion Questions: After reading both of the articles and filling in the chart, discuss the following with your Chevruta: 1. Using the chart, pick one argument in favor and one argument against to discuss with your chevruta. Even if you prefer one perspective to another, make sure you at least understand both perspectives. 2. By allowing buses to run on Shabbat, do you think it will affect the “Jewish Character” of Tel Aviv? 3. One of the arguments for allowing the buses to run is to enable the poorer and non-Jewish residents to be able to travel on Shabbat. With only rich car-owning people able to move around in a city of residents who largely do not keep Shabbat, what does this say about the notion of freedom? 4. Is this a case of Israel being as Democratic as Judaism will allow, or as Jewish as Democracy will allow, or neither? 5. Can you imagine a similar debate happening in your hometown or city? Why or why not? How do you think the various voices would react in a public debate? 6. How do you think this issue would be seen by the original State Quo agreement? How do you imagine it would look to change the Status Quo? 7. Lastly, prepare your thoughts for the group presentation. (See item #4 above under “Instructions”)

Case Study 2. Marriage in Israel: Civilly in Cyprus or Religiously with the Rabbinate?

Background Information: Marriages in Israel can be performed under the auspices of the religious community to which couples belong, or for people who have proven to lack any religion, a "couplehood union" with rights and responsibilities akin to marriage, can be performed. Matrimonial law is based on the Millet or confessional community system employed in the Ottoman Empire, which was not modified during the British Mandate and remains in force in the State of Israel.

There are nine officially recognized Christian communities, and Jewish, Muslim and Druze communities. Marriages in each community are under the jurisdiction of their own religious authorities. The religious authority for Jewish marriages performed in Israel is the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Rabbinical courts. The Israeli Interior Ministry registers marriages on presentation of proper documentation. Registration does not in itself validate a marriage, and lack of registration does not invalidate one. However, civil, interfaith and same-sex marriages entered into abroad are recognized by the state.

Article 1: Israel Couples Say 'I Don't' to Orthodox Marriage — Opt for Civil Ceremonies Growing Numbers Shun Rabbinate Monopoly on Rites BY MAAYAN LUBELL Forward.com, Nov 20th, 2013

JERUSALEM — For most Israelis in the Jewish state, there is one legal way to get married - God’s way. Israeli law empowers only Orthodox rabbis to officiate at Jewish weddings, but popular opposition is growing to this restriction and to what some Israelis see as an Orthodox stranglehold on the most precious moments of their lives. Some of Israel’s most popular TV Newlyweds stroll down Tel Aviv's Rothschild Boulevard (photo credit: Mama Photography) stars and models have come out this week in an advertisement supporting a new bill allowing civil marriage. A political storm is likely when it eventually comes up for a vote in parliament.

The Rabbinate, the Orthodox religious authority that issues marriage licenses in Israel, says it is charged with a task vital for the survival of the Jewish people, and a recent poll showed more Israelis oppose civil unions than support them. Nevertheless, many Israelis want either a secular wedding or a religious marriage conducted by a non- Orthodox rabbi. Facebook pages have been popping up, with defiant couples calling on others to boycott the Rabbinate.

In September, Stav Sharon, a 30-year-old Pilates instructor, married her husband in an alternative ceremony performed in Israel by a non-Orthodox rabbi. “We wanted a Jewish wedding despite being secular. We feel connected to our Judaism, even if we are not religious. It is our people, our tradition,” Sharon said.

Weddings such as Sharon’s fall into a legal no man’s land. They are not against the law, but neither are they recognized as valid by the Interior Ministry, which is responsible for registering marital status on the national identity card every Israeli is required to carry. In a twist in the law, the ministry will register as married any Israeli couple that weds abroad - even in a non-religious ceremony - outside the purview of the Israeli rabbinate. Some couples hop on the short flight to Cyprus to marry. The Czech Republic is another 23

popular destination for Israelis wanting a civil wedding. Sharon and her husband decided against that option. “Marrying abroad means giving in. We wanted to marry in our own country,” she said.

No formal records are kept on the officially invalid alternative ceremonies held in Israel. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, nearly 39,000 Jewish couples married via the Rabbinate in 2011. About 9,000 couples registered that year as having married overseas.

Muslims, Druze and Christians in Israel are also required to marry through their own state-recognised religious authorities, making interfaith weddings possible only overseas.

The Rabbinate says it is charged with preventing intermarriage and assimilation with non-Jewish communities, which would endanger their people’s survival. Ziv Maor, the Rabbinate’s spokesman, said strict adherence to Orthodox ritual law and practices had bonded Jews across the globe and set common rules for all. “A Moroccan Jew knew he could marry a Jewish woman from Lithuania,” he said. “Rabbinical law guides us in a very clear way on who is Jewish and who is not, and we do not have permission from past or future generations to stray even a hair’s breadth from those criteria.

GAY MARRIAGE There are other groups to whom marriage is forbidden by rabbinical law. Same-sex marriage, as in other religions, is out of the question as far as the Rabbinate is concerned. Israel’s Interior Ministry recognises gay marriage - but only if it is conducted in a foreign country where it is legal.

At least two parties in the coalition government are promoting a bill to allow civil marriage in Israel, including for same-sex couples. One of them is Yesh Atid, which tapped into anti-religious sentiment in last January’s national election and finished in second place. “It cannot be that people who do not believe or whose lifestyle does not suit the Rabbinate will be forced to get married by people whose way is not their own,” Yesh Atid head Yair Lapid told Israel Radio this month.

But tradition could die hard in Israel. A poll published in November in the Israeli newspaper, Maariv, showed that while 41 percent of Jewish Israelis supported Yesh Atid’s Civil Union bill, 47 percent objected.

Such bills have been floated at Israel’s parliament before. But for the first time in years, ultra-Orthodox parties, which oppose civil marriage, are not in the government. Yesh 24

Atid believes it has enough votes from lawmakers across the board to pass the law in the next few months. The Rabbinate says it will oppose the measure strongly. “Matters of marriage, divorce and conversion are our most important fortress. It must not be touched and we will defend it fiercely,” said Maor.

 Understanding the Article: Using your chart (found on page 38), make a list of the arguments on both sides, found in this article.

Article 2: New bill would legalize civil marriage, extend right to gays Groundbreaking Yesh Atid proposal comes under fire from Jewish Home; sponsors insist it ‘is not an attack on halachic marriage’ Haviv Rettig Gur Times of Israel, October 29th, 2013

Fresh from the dramatic passage on Monday of the Tzohar bill allowing Israelis to choose their marriage registrar and rabbi, the Knesset is set to take up an even more sweeping reform in Israeli marriage law. The Yesh Atid faction presented a bill on Tuesday that seeks to legalize, for the first time, non-religious marriage in Israel. Currently, all Israeli marriages are legally valid only if they are conducted in formal state religious institutions, whether through the Jewish rabbinate, Muslim sharia institutions, Catholic canon courts or a handful of other recognized, state-funded religious denominations. This legal situation, inherited from the Ottoman era, has meant that some 300,000 non-Jewish immigrants who have Jewish relatives and are eligible to immigrate to Israel as Jews under Israeli law cannot marry at all, as the rabbinate does not consider them Jews under Jewish law and will not perform a wedding service for them with either Jews or non-Jews. Similarly, non-Orthodox (and, more recently, some Orthodox) converts to Judaism have been unable to marry under Israeli law. Until today, the only way for many of these Israelis to marry was to do so abroad. The new bill, written primarily by MKs Ruth Calderon and Aliza Lavie, both from Yesh Atid, would create a completely secular, egalitarian marriage track that would grant couples the legal protections of marriage without forcing them to go through the state religious systems.

“We have no interest in challenging the religious establishment or other [political] parties,” Yesh Atid chairman Yair Lapid said Tuesday. “Our own religious MKs, who include two rabbis [Education Minister Shai Piron and MK Dov Lipman], were intimately involved in writing the bill. Our only goal is to give every Israeli citizen – Jewish or non- Jewish, gay or straight – the opportunity to have their country recognize their right to 25

love.” The bill creates “a civil agreement for a shared life between two people,” according to Calderon. Far from being “an attack on halachic marriage,” she said, the bill “does not overstep into the rabbinate’s territory. Its goal is to enable any couple that can’t or doesn’t want to marry in the rabbinate to live meaningful lives without losing their civil rights.” The goal, Calderon concluded, “is to bring a bill that befits a Jewish, sane, welcoming state.”

Before the ink on the new bill had a chance to dry, criticism from more conservative MKs could be heard on Tuesday afternoon. MK Yoni Chetboun of the Jewish Home party, for one, slammed the bill for attempting to introduce “civil marriage and homosexual marriage.” His response? “It’s not right and it won’t happen.” The Jewish people “went through exile and pain, and established a state, because it has always accepted its past, its heritage, and maintained its uniqueness as a people. Initiatives like these are an attempt to divide the Jewish people into two nations. It simply won’t happen!” Chetboun’s concern, shared by many ultra-Orthodox MKs and others, is that allowing non-halachic marriage could lead to marriages proscribed under Jewish law, and thus, in the next generation, to different groups of Jews who cannot marry each other. The bill could face an uphill battle if the Jewish Home party decides to oppose it. The coalition agreement on which the current government was founded grants Jewish Home a veto for any changes to the status quo on religion and state.

But Yesh Atid officials are already insisting that the bill does not change the status quo, since it does not touch any power currently granted to religious authorities. It merely creates a parallel civil track that will be recognized for civil purposes. This argument is no mere rhetoric. The bill painstakingly divides the new civil marriage registrar from the religious system, including excluding from civil marriage those who are already married through religious registrars. Yesh Atid is strongly committed to the bill, say party officials. Instituting civil marriage was a key election promise made by the newly- founded party in January’s legislative elections. The final version submitted to the Knesset Presidency on Tuesday was signed by 13 MKs, all members of Yesh Atid.

Perhaps speaking for many Yesh Atid voters, MK Yoel Razbozov, a former Israeli judo champion, recalled his own overseas marriage on Tuesday. “To serve in the army and represent Israel – that they let me do, but to marry – that the state kept from me,” Razbozov said. “In the end, I took my family to Cyprus, and purchased at great expense the basic right to ratify my love,” he added, referring to his civil marriage in Cyprus to his wife Irena. “The Civil Marriage Bill we proposed today … will solve once and for all the problems encountered by those who want to ratify their relationship in this country without going through the rabbinate,” he said. Yesh Atid hopes to pass the bill into law in the current session, officials said. 26

Haviv Rettig Gur is The Times of Israel's political correspondent. Full article

 Understanding the Article: Using your chart (found on page 38), make a list of the arguments on both sides, found in this article.

After reading both of the articles and filling in the chart, discuss the following with your Chevruta:

1. Using the chart, pick one argument in favor and one argument against to discuss with your chevruta. Even if you prefer one perspective to another, make sure you at least understand both perspectives. 2. Why do Israel’s citizens want the ability to be married civilly and not through the Rabbinate? 3. For those who disagree with this new bill, why do they want to keep the decision-making power regarding marriage in the hands of the Rabbinate? 4. Is this a case of Israel being as Democratic as Judaism will allow, or as Jewish as Democracy will allow, or neither? 5. Can you imagine a similar debate happening in your hometown or city? Why or why not? How do you think the various voices would react in a public debate? 6. How do you think this issue would be seen by the original State Quo agreement? How do you imagine it would look to change the Status Quo? 7. Lastly, prepare your thoughts for the group presentation. (See item #4 above under “Instructions”)

Case Study 3. Pork: The Forbidden White Meat?

Instructions: 1) Decide which person in your group will keep the time. You will be presenting your case study to the group at the end of the session, so it’s important you are ready by the end of this activity. 2) Read the background information as preparation for the case study. Then read the article and fill in the chart. (15 minutes) 3) Have a discussion with your chevruta, using the discussion questions as a guide. (15 minutes) 4) Each of you should pick two different issues from the case study, which you will be presenting to the group. The majority of the group has not read your case study, and you will be presenting this in a style that a lawyer would present to a jury, so make sure to make your presentation is clear and lively! (10 minutes)

Background Information: Pork, and the refusal to eat it, possesses powerful cultural baggage for Jews. Israel has legislated two related laws: the Pork Law in 1962, that bans the rearing and slaughter of pigs across the country, and the Meat Law of 1994, prohibiting all imports of nonkosher meats into Israel. While not abounding, Israeli pork- eaters certainly exist, and a small number of pig-breeding farms operate in the country, mostly in Christian villages. The influx of Russian immigrants in the 1990s helped boost sales of pork, but the force of the taboo remains so powerful that many secular Israelis still eschew pork dishes, while willing to eat less charged non-kosher items such as shellfish. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21542211

Israel’s Pork Problem What a change to one of the most controversial laws in Israeli history could mean for the country’s Christian Arabs. By Jeffrey Yoskowitz, Aug, 8, 2012

On the eve of Israel’s independence in 1948, as the new nation faced the challenge of building a country in the midst of war, early leaders debated many hot-button issues: what to do with Arab refugees; how to settle hundreds of thousands of immigrants; and, perhaps most unexpectedly, should raising pigs be permitted.

Pork was so controversial not just because its tasty incarnations are

forbidden under Jewish law, but because the nature of Israel’s Jewish character was seen as an issue that would define the young state. Politicians and writers all weighed in on the subject. While Orthodox politicians made their case on religious grounds, even Natan Alterman, a secular poet, saw the symbolic importance of a nationwide pork ban. He wrote in a Mapai party newspaper column, “When a Jewish nation makes a pig a sine qua non, its history shudders.” Yet, many socialist Zionists philosophically rejected basing national dietary laws on traditional Judaism. Secular journalist Meir Bareli, who appreciated the gravity of the pork taboo, saw the cheap price of pork during a decade long meat shortage as a primary reason to keep its production unrestricted.

The story of Israel’s contemporary pork industry dates back 50 years, when the Knesset passed a law banning the production of pork in Israel. The law—considered to be one of the most controversial in Israeli history—was designed with a loophole that permitted raising hogs in majority Christian regions in the North as a concession to Israel’s religious minorities and the young democracy. As a result, Christian-Arab towns became hog country. Although ultra-Orthodox politicians over the years have attempted to fully ban pork production, the law has limited the growth of the industry while simultaneously protecting Christian pork interests.

When pigs are the topic of the day, they usually get caught in the middle of a political firestorm… moving Israel’s hogs would most likely disassociate pig farming from Israel’s Christians and could spell the beginning of the end for both Israeli-grown ham and the livelihood of Christian Arabs.

Pork is often considered more verboten than shrimp or crab (also not kosher) because over the course of millennia various peoples have persecuted Jews by singling out the pork taboo to humiliate and punish them. Greeks forced Jews to eat pork against their will during the Jerusalem conquests in 167 B.C.; the Spanish forced Jews to eat pork to prove their newfound allegiance to the Catholic Church during the Inquisition. Pork is therefore more than just a food restriction in Israel; it is symbolic of broader conflict within Israeli society, reflecting not just prosciutto preferences but, more importantly, the delicate balancing of secular and religious interests in a Jewish democracy. Over the years, religious Israelis and their secular counterparts have grown divided and tensions over religious restrictions on society have been a consistent source of political strife. Pork is a particularly thorny issue in this regard: Many secular Israelis enjoy openly, and many ultra-Orthodox Israelis try to fully ban—and have tried for decades—just as they have supported banning buses from riding on the Sabbath and shunning women who dress immodestly. Until the 1990s, the Israeli pork industry was somewhat clandestine, but with an influx of immigrants from the former Soviet Union and a progressive Supreme Court, pork became more common in Israel. As the political tide of the nation 29

has swung to the right under Benjamin Netanyahu, certain pork eaters have reason to fear that the religious interests in government will attempt—as they have done many times prior—to limit pork production in Israel.

The recent government panel’s report recommends that Israel move its pig farms to the South where the creatures can have more space, and that Israel adopt “the European [Union] directive on the matter of animal rights.” Israel could very well enforce stricter standards on its existing farms rather foot the bill to relocate 26 industrial operations, though when asked, the Ministry of Agriculture did not respond to my question on the matter. “There is a problem with ecology," Vered acknowledged, "but in a way, most of them [Christian Arab pig farmers] feel that people are using this issue just to attack them because they are pork raisers, not because of concrete ecological problems.” If the initiative passes, the implications for the fate of Christian Arab local economy would be grave, in a region that has seen its Christian numbers dwindling. Plus, Christian Arabs are unlikely to abandon the villages they’ve populated for generations to relocate to the harsh desert climate.

Ultimately there is a chance that all Israeli pork eaters could be the losers, not just Israel’s Christians. As it stands, the minister of interior must assess the panel’s recommendations and if he accepts them, begin the process of revisiting Israel’s pork laws. Eli Yishai, the minister in question, heads the ultra-Orthodox Shas party whose constituents regularly rally for pork to be banned and who criticize Russian Israelis for eating forbidden flesh. Once the law is revised to no longer stipulate that pig farming is legal within Christian zones, banning hog farms completely may be within reach. The recent report noted that Yishai “not hesitate to deal with the issue, given that pigs are considered the epitome of non-kosher animals,” an indication of the religious biases of the panel.

Jeffrey Yoskowitz is a writer based in New York. He edits the blog Pork Memoirs and is writing a book about the Israeli pork industry. Full article: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2012/08/israel_s_pork_problem_and_w hat_it_means_for_the_country_s_christian_arabs_.2.html

 Understanding the Article: Using your chart (found on page 38), make a list of the arguments on both sides, found in this article.

After reading the article and filling in the chart, discuss the following with your Chevruta: 1. Using the chart, pick one argument in favor and one argument against to discuss with your chevruta. Even if you prefer one perspective to another, make sure you at least understand both perspectives. 2. If Israel’s secular citizens want to freely eat pork in public spaces, do you think they should be able to? 3. If your fellow students wished to eat horse steaks in public spaces, do you think they should be able to? 4. If Israel’s ultra-Orthodox leaders were ever successful in outlawing pork, do you think that would have a significant effect on the Jewish character of the State? 5. If the Arab Christian pig farmers’ farm is moved or even banned, it would likely hurt their livelihood. Do you think that would be an appropriate solution in a country that is striving to be both Jewish and democratic? 6. Is this a case of Israel being as Democratic as Judaism will allow, or as Jewish as Democracy will allow, or neither? 7. Can you imagine a similar debate happening in your hometown or city? Why or why not? What if someone wished to set up a dog farm, for the purposes of breeding dogs for food? How do you think the various voices would react in a public debate? 8. How do you think this issue would be seen by the original State Quo agreement? How do you imagine it would look to change the Status Quo? 9. Lastly, prepare your thoughts for the group presentation. (See item #4 above under “Instructions”)

Case Study 4. Education: What should be the “Core Curriculum?”

Instructions: 1) Decide which person in your group will keep time. You will be presenting your case study to the group at the end of the session, so it’s important that you are ready by the end of this activity. 2) Read the background information as preparation for the case study, then read one article and fill in the chart. Then do the same for the other article. (15 minutes) 3) Have a discussion with your chevruta, using the discussion questions as a guide. (15 minutes) 4) Each of you should pick two different issues from the case study, which you will be presenting to the group. The majority of the group has not read your case study, and you will be presenting this in a style that a lawyer would present to a jury, so make sure to make your presentation is clear and lively! (10 minutes)

Background Information: The state has taken on a "fruit salad" approach to education, meaning they back all religious schools and teachings of religions as long as they follow the mandated structure set by the Ministry of Education. Religion plays a large role in the education of all students in Israel. Israeli state schools all share a Ministry of Education, however Arab and Jewish schools are largely segregated with most Arab students going to Arab schools and most Jewish students going to Jewish schools. Similarly, Arab schools have primarily Arab teachers who teach Hebrew only as a second language. The divide in Israeli schools based on ethnic identification leads to a divide on religious studies taught in schools, with the state backing both methods of teaching. In Israeli Jewish schools, Judaism is seen as a part of the heritage and culture of Israel and so the teaching of Jewish holidays and religious practices is seen as crucial to the understanding of the state. The Torah and other Jewish practices are studied in a critical manner to understand the identity of a majority of the Israeli population. In fact, Bible education is so important in Israel that in 2007 the "Public Committee for Bible Education" was established to further encourage the teachings of the Bible in order to close the growing gap between the secular and religious members of society. In this way, state non-religious schools are still being taught the general guiding principles of the majority of Israel's society.

Article 1: Haredi leaders fight Israeli core curriculum Haredi leaders to meet Monday to discuss threats by gov't that haredi schools teach the state core curriculum By Jeremy Sharon, 04/21/2013

Senior haredi leaders have called a conference for Monday night to discuss challenges facing the ultra-Orthodox education system, including what the community sees as threats by the government to insist that haredi schools teach the state core curriculum. The haredi leadership is increasingly concerned that the independence of its school network is coming under attack, especially in light of recent comments by the education minister, Rabbi Shai Piron, of the Yesh Atid party. Piron said earlier this month that under the reforms he was planning, any school that does not teach the state core curriculum subjects would receive no state funding whatsoever. Sources in the United Torah Judaism haredi party have described Piron as “the most dangerous man in Israel for the haredi community.” Rabbi Aharon Leib Shteinman, spiritual leader of the Ashkenazi haredi world, is set to speak at the conference, which will take place in Bnei Brak. Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky and other prominent haredi rabbis are expected to attend as well.

Under the current arrangement with the Education Ministry, Ashkenazi haredi elementary schools receive from the state between 55 and 75 percent of the budget allotted to non-haredi schools, and are expected to teach a corresponding proportion of the state core curriculum. In practice, however, this is extremely rare – haredi elementary schools teach far less of the state core curriculum than is expected; the overwhelming majority of haredi high schools teach no secular subjects whatsoever.

On Friday, the Council of Torah Sages of the Agudat Yisrael movement, which represents the hassidic strain of Israel’s haredi population, issued a declaration in two hassidic newspapers calling on the government not to interfere in the haredi education system by enforcing the teaching of core curriculum subjects.

“We are commanded to stand firm against the attempts of the authorities to force changes, God forbid, through the temptation of [state] funds or threats to cut off such funding,” the council declared. The notice forbids any changes in the content of studies at haredi elementary and high schools, prohibits the teaching of core curriculum subjects, and forbids students from working towards the state high-school diploma or towards academic degrees not approved by Agudat Yisrael’s Committee of Rabbis for

Education. The council further stated that school administrators should ensure that teachers at their schools do not participate in (secular) academic studies, and that haredi girls should not study in universities or colleges where the state high-school diploma or academic degrees are taught.

The religious-freedom lobbying group Hiddush denounced the council’s declaration, saying it amounted to a decision that the hassidic community would continue to live off the state and taxpayers. “The decision proves once again that the haredi parties are conducting a campaign of resistance and are not prepared to enter into dialogue, Hiddush deputy director Shahar Ilan said. Ilan, in a statement to the press, emphasized “how essential it is to cut off funding for any institution which does not teach core curriculum subjects. “This decision proves what a terrible crisis of leadership the haredi community is suffering from, and the fact that its leaders refuse to stop and consider of [their] failures,” he wrote.

The haredi spiritual leadership views education as the bedrock of its community, its lifestyle and the means through which haredi identity is defined. For this reason, haredim have throughout the history of the state fiercely guarded the independence of their education system.

Before the establishment of the state, David Ben-Gurion, as part of a deal designed to exemplify to the United Nations Jewish unity in Mandatory Palestine, promised Agudat Yisrael that “full autonomy” would be granted to all sectors of society to control their own educational frameworks, Ben-Gurion’s letter promised that “complete freedom will be given to each sector to manage [its] education [system],” but added that “minimum [levels] of Hebrew, history, sciences and similar” would be obligatory, and would be subject to state inspection.

Full article: http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Haredi-leadership-fights-core- curriculum-310609

 Understanding the Article: Using your chart (found on page 38), make a list of the arguments on both sides, found in this article.

Article 2: Intellectuals sign petition for more Bible studies in schools ‘The status of the Book of Books in Israeli society has been steadily eroded’ states petition signed by hundreds of mainly secular teachers and Academics.

By Yarden Skop | Oct. 2, 2013

More than 900 Bible teachers and intellectuals, most of them secular, have signed a petition urging that Bible studies in state secular schools be expanded.

The petition, drafted by the Education Ministry’s advisory committee on Bible studies, charges that Bible has become a marginal subject in secular schools, taught for fewer hours than almost any other subject – only two a week. In contrast, students at state religious schools get five hours a week of Bible.

Ever since the 1970s, when the time allotted to Bible studies began shrinking, “the status of the Book of Books in Israeli society has been steadily eroded,” the petition said. “The Bible’s place as a foundational and formational text of human, Jewish and Zionist identity has been disappearing, and the text, which is rightly considered the cultural common denominator of all the monotheistic religions, as well as of the Jewish people throughout the generations, has become an indecipherable text for the country’s secular public and is being forced out of the revived Hebrew culture.”

The petition was published to coincide with the discussion now taking place in the ministry over far-reaching changes in the format of the bagrut (matriculation) exams, including canceling the bagrut in history and literature. The Bible bagrut was also originally slated for elimination, until Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu objected. The petition’s drafters fear that eliminating the bagrut would sound the death knell for Bible studies. Even in the state religious schools, which have more hours of Bible study, fourth- and fifth-graders earned an average grade of only 57 – barely passing – on nationwide Bible tests from 2006/7 to 2011/12. Moreover, the number of high-school students studying Bible at the highest level (five units) has fallen steadily, from 7,304 in 2005 to 6,505 in 2011. 35

“Teachers have trouble teaching such a complex subject in such a short amount of time,” explained Prof. Yairah Amit of Tel Aviv University’s Bible Department, who drafted the petition. “The Bible offers us a great many issues that can be tied in with current events. In the past, the Bible was used by many Hebrew authors and artists, but today, artists have trouble using it, so it enriches fewer works, and that’s a pity.” Moreover, she said, there’s a practical issue: Teachers don’t want to teach any subject only two hours a week, because that means they must teach numerous different classes to add up to a full-time job. Among the petition’s more noteworthy signatories, who also included many professors, was former Supreme Court Justice Mishael Cheshin. He objected vehemently to the fact that religious students get more hours of Bible study than secular students do. “The Bible belongs to all of us,” insisted Cheshin, who is secular. “The Bible is the history of the Jewish people, and it’s the book of ethics of the Jewish people. I want an explanation of why skullcap-wearers learn more Bible, while my children have to learn less Bible.”

Drora Halevy, who as the ministry’s former national supervisor of Bible studies tried unsuccessfully to get the subject expanded, added that without knowing Bible, it’s hard to understand the canonical texts of modern Hebrew literature.

Full Article: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.550237

 Understanding the Article: Using your chart (found on page 38), make a list of the arguments on both sides, found in this article.

After reading the articles and filling in the chart, discuss the following with your Chevruta: 1. Using the chart, pick one argument in favor and one argument against to discuss with your chevruta. Even if you prefer one perspective to another, make sure you at least understand both perspectives. 2. If Haredim don’t want to learn secular subjects, why is Israel trying to enforce secular learning? Why is it important to the government that they learn certain secular subjects? Shouldn’t the Haredim be free to study as many Jewish texts as they want in the Jewish State? 3. In contrast, secular intellectuals want more resources to be able to teach Bible in secular schools. Is it important for all Jewish citizens in Israel to have a core understanding of the Jewish canon? 4. Is this a case of Israel being as Democratic as Judaism will allow, or as Jewish as Democracy will allow, or neither? 5. Can you imagine a similar debate happening in your hometown or city? Why or why not? How do you think the various voices would react in a public debate? 6. How do you think this issue would be seen by the original State Quo agreement? How do you imagine it would look to change the Status Quo? 7. Lastly, prepare your thoughts for the group presentation. (See item #4 above under “Instructions”)

Constructive Controversy in Democracy:

Case Study Name:______

1. Put yourself in the shoes of someone you may not at all agree with. Imagining the world through their eyes, what would be some arguments in favor of this issue?

Arguments In Favor:

 ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

2. Put yourself in the shoes of someone you may not at all agree with. Imagining the world through their eyes, what would be some arguments against this issue?

Arguments Against:

 ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

3. Are there any other ways of looking at this whole issue?

 ______ ______ ______

3. If you had to summarize this conflict or tension in one sentence, what is it really about? ______

Transition Back to the Group: 5 minutes before the group needs to come back together, give the students a cue so they can finish up and be prepared to present. Find one person from each topic who will volunteer to objectively summarize the case study.

Part 3: Group Presentations of Case Studies – 20 minutes When the group is back together, go through the case studies in the order they are laid out in the document. In order to add some liveliness and fun to this section, have the students present to the group in a style as if a lawyer was presenting to a jury. Encourage them to have fun with it!

Here are the instructions: 1) Make sure you have the envelope with the “verdict” on hand. 2) Call on the students to objectively summarize the first case study. 3) After the group understands the problem, ask the first volunteer to present their side to the “jury.” Then ask the second volunteer to present the other or another side. After they’ve presented their sides, make sure the core issue in the case study is clear. If it is not clear, make it clear to the group before moving on to the verdict. 4) Ask for another volunteer to open and read the “verdict.” 5) Repeat for the rest of the case studies.

Verdicts/Results

1. Buses on Shabbat in Tel Aviv: Verdict: UNRESOLVED April 23, 2012: The Tel Aviv Municipality formally asked the Transportation Ministry for permission to operate seven new bus lines in the city on Shabbat, beyond the Shabbat lines already requested… Numerous service lines already connect Tel Aviv on Saturdays to Petah Tikva, Ramat Gan, Haifa, Tiberias, Jerusalem and other cities, Tiomkin noted. "We propose to expand the service to further lines and to more neighborhoods, and enable more people who don't own cars to be mobile on their day of rest, and reach the beach, hospital or their families. The present situation is that the rich are happy and the poor suffer." Tiomkin added that "in principle the ministry has recognized the need and approved the operation of public transportation" on Shabbat… For Full article: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/tel-aviv-seeks-permission-to-operate-more- shabbat-buses-1.425906

July 25th, 2013: The Ministry of Transportation was against adding additional lines immediately. Yisrael Katz, head of transportation, said, since beginning his position in 2009 he will ensure the status quo. He refused to deal with the request of the city, so Meretz went to the Supreme Court. Mini vans (sheruts) already run on Shabbat, and additional lines were added as a compromise. Full Article: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4409589,00.html

2. Civil Marriage: Verdict: REJECTED June 11, 2014: Knesset Rejects Civil Marriage Bill: The Knesset rejected Labor MK Stav Shafir's Civil Marriage bill Wednesday, which lost to a landslide vote of 19 for and 52 against.

[Yair] Lapid has stated previously that he would work to counter "the dominance of Orthodox rabbis" over marriage, specifically vowing to "anchor civil marriage into Israeli society." On the other hand, several MKs, including Housing Minister Uri Ariel, vowed several months ago to prevent the bill from passing its preliminary stages. The issue of civil marriage had threatened the critical alliance between Yesh Atid and Jewish Home as well, which analysts say may explain Lapid's sudden turnaround. Full article: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/181608#.U6LI0JSSxxt

3. Israel’s Pork Problem: Verdict: UNRESOLVED From the Ministry of Agriculture website: The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development is currently advancing a reform that will improve the living conditions of pigs in Israel and adapt them to the European Directive. According to the recommendations of the examination team, the buildings of pig farms must be enlarged to reduce the crowding that pigs are subjected to. This led to the primary recommendation of the team to relocate pig farm buildings from the currently defined raising areas to isolated areas in the south in which the odor and water source pollution hazards are lower. The intent is to find sources that are far from population concentrations, which allow for farms to be built without a limitation involving crowding of animals. http://www.moag.gov.il/agri/English/Ministrys+Units/Spokesmanship+and+Publicity+D epartment/publications/pig_reform.htm

4. Education: What should be the “Core Curriculum?” Verdict: IN PROCESS Nov. 3, 2013: Israel's Education Ministry, ultra-Orthodox schools near deal on core curriculum. The Education Ministry is in advanced negotiations with ultra-Orthodox institutions over a compromise that would have the latter introduce core subjects into their classrooms. Should the agreement be finalized, the Haredim will teach part of the core curriculum in exchange for having the state fund 75 percent of their education budget…Currently, “extreme” Haredi schools receive 55 to 75 percent of their funding from the state, and although they are obligated to teach 55 to 75 percent of the core curriculum, many do not. Education Minister Shay Piron recently signed a regulation blocking schools from receiving more than 35 percent funding should they fail to meet core curriculum requirements.

…The Haredi schools are likely to start teaching English, math and modern Hebrew in full. Negotiations are underway regarding the other core subjects – Bible, literature, history, civics and science. At this point, it is not clear whether the negotiations are over the extent to which these subjects will be taught or over whether they will be taught at all. In order to ensure that the Haredim meet the terms of the agreement, schools will be required to subject students to all standardized testing.

…Education Ministry sources admit that the compromise in the works is problematic, but argue that it is a reasonable price to pay in exchange for convincing the Haredi sector to teach core subjects, a matter that draws strong opposition from its community leaders. Full article: http://www.haaretz.com/business/.premium-1.555835

Transition: Once all four case studies have been addressed, move to closing the session…

Conclusion and Wrap Up By a show of hands, how many of you feel like your case study was resolved? How many of you feel like your case study was unresolved? These situations are not simple, and trying to hold multiple values together at once can be very challenging, and can sometimes lead to major issues to be dragged out for many years.

To close, ask participants to share one “question mark” (a lingering issue, challenge, or question) and one exclamation point (something new you learned today, something that surprised you) they are taking away from today’s session. (You can use the ? mark and ! document by putting it on the table or the floor to animate this part of the session.)

Post-Session Reflection for Facilitator Success Checklist  Did participants get into discussing and analyzing current case studies that involve balancing Jewish and Democratic values?  Do you think participants developed a deeper understanding of the challenges that arise when trying to hold democratic and Jewish values together?

How did it go? Reflection on the session: In the "Success Checklist," if you aren't able to answer "yes," to the questions, why do you think these objectives weren't achieved? ______

What was one thing that surprised you during the session? ______

What was something that happened that you weren't prepared for? ______

Was there anything that happened in the group that needs to be addressed in the next session? ______

Is there anything you want to discuss with your mentor or supervisor? 42

Freedom III – What’s with the Western Wall?

Introduction: It should come as no surprise that one of the most contentious issues that has flared in recent times between North American Jewry and Israel, has been the status of women at the Western Wall.

The Western Wall in Jerusalem has for the past century been treated as the Jewish People’s most holy site. For years before the establishment of the State Jews were barely allowed to worship there at all, and its epithet “The Wailing Wall” was both due to its being the only standing reminder of the destruction Second Temple, and also because of Jews’ persecution and lack of rights in pre-State Israel. In 1967 Jerusalem was conquered, and the Western Wall returned to Jewish sovereignty.

This miraculous victory placed the nature of worship at the Western Wall into the hands of State authority rather than individual practice. The Wall is divided into a male prayer section and female prayer section, where the female prayer section is a quarter of the size of the male prayer section.

Since 1988, the organization Women of the Wall has been advocating for the right for women to pray at the Wall (in Hebrew: The Kotel) according to progressive traditions – wearing tallit, and reading from the Torah Scroll. Their activities have been met with vehement and sometimes violent rejection on the part of the ultra-Orthodox authorities at the Kotel. In 2012-2013, the situation intensified and Prime Minister Netanyahu appointed Natan Sharansky, Chairman of the Executive of the Jewish Agency, to propose a solution. The need for such a solution, and the many questions it raises, is the topic we shall be exploring along the fault-line of Jewish Peoplehood, and Freedom.

Goals:  Participants will learn about the meaning of the Kotel to the Jewish People over the centuries  Participants will begin to grapple with the complexities inherent when issues of religious freedom are in tension with democratic government  Participants will both embrace and challenge their own assumptions as to the “right thing to do”, and in so doing experience the invigorating complexity of Israel in modern Jewish life

Big Question: (When) Should Freedom ever be curtailed?

Guiding Questions?  Is there any satisfactory solution to the prayer arrangements at the Kotel?  Is the prayer situation at the Kotel a simple/complex issue with a simple/a complex/no solution?

Preparation for Facilitator: • You should do a quick google search on the topic of Women of the Wall, and Temple Mount. The situation is liquid, and significant changes happen all the time. It is important you are up-to-date with material we can’t foresee at time of writing!

Make it Modular: If time is limited, you should feel free to be selective about which components of this session you cover. As you can see, section 4 is split into two options, according to your time, and the nature of the group.

Pre-Session Assignment Email the Short Background on Temple Mount for them to fill in prior to this session. (At the end of this document)

Session Outline:

Suggested Segment Description Time Briefly review last session, introduce this Introduction 5 minutes session Part 1: Opening 10 minutes Remembering my first visit to the Kotel activity Part 2: Chevruta text The story of Kamza and Bar Kamza, and the 25 minutes study and video Kotel pre-1967 Part 3: Women of 20 minutes Two different video perspectives on WOW the Wall Case Study Either: 50 minutes Role playing counter-arguments to WOW Part 4a: Yes, But… Or: Part 4b: Sharansky’s 30 minutes Exploring the suggestions for a compromise plan Conclusion 15 minutes Wrap up and looking ahead

Introduction – 5 minutes Author and Psychiatrist Victor Frankel pointed out that the partner of Freedom is Responsibility. He even recommended that “the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast of the United States be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast”. His thinking is quite persuasive. When we are not free to act according to our thoughts and beliefs, when we are forced into certain actions, we should not be held responsible for them. But the moment we are free to act, free to make our own choices, with this freedom comes responsibility. And responsibility brings with it its own complications!

Ever since the destruction of the Second Temple at the turn of the first millennium, until 1967, the Jewish People had little freedom in the region of the Temple Mount/Al Aqsa/Western Wall. When Jews were allowed to pray at the Western Wall, they were not allowed to place any objects there, nor could they blow the shofar.

After 1967 all this changed. The Jewish People all of a sudden had the freedom to do what they wanted with these Holy Places. With this freedom came responsibilities: responsibility for non-Jews, responsibility to keep the peace, and responsibility for the religious freedoms of Israeli citizens.

This session aims to explore the yoke of freedom! 3

Part 1 - Opening Activity Have a picture of the Kotel projected on a wall or a computer to help students visualize it. (Here is a link to a nice picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Westernwall2.jpg)

Then, ask them to close their eyes and recall their experience at the Kotel. What did you notice? Picture what/who was around you. What were they doing? What were you feeling? After a few minutes, ask students to open their eyes. Take a few comments.

Ask:  Are there any other places in the world where you’ve felt something similar?  Is there anywhere in North America that you would classify as “sacred”?

Part 2 - What is the big deal about the Kotel?

TRANSITION: The Kotel is the Western Wall of what remains of the courtyard of the Second Temple. The Temple, where the Jews gave sacrifices to the heavens, where the entire people would gather during three times a year, where the High Priest would preside – this beating heart of religious life was destroyed by the Romans in the year 70 CE.

Jewish tradition marks this catastrophe through a fast day of Tisha B’Av, whose traditions include a deep mourning ritual. The Western Wall was known as the Wailing Wall, as Jews were observed throughout the centuries standing at the Wall, weeping at the destruction of the Temple. The Talmud (compiled some 400 years after the Temple’s destruction) tells many teaching tales of the reasons for the destruction. Before digging into the place of the Kotel in modern times, let’s lay down a more ancient framework for examining these issues.

Divide the group into pairs, and hand out copies of the story of Kamza and Bar Kamza.

Instructions: Read through the story together, and first of all make sure you understand everything. Then have a conversation around the questions at the bottom of the text.

This version of the story comes with additional notes for you. Print and hand out the original version at the end of this document, so that participants can work their own way through the texts, and you can act as adviser to their questions. 4

The destruction of Jerusalem came through Kamza and Bar Kamza in this way.

A certain man had a friend Kamza and an enemy Bar Kamza. He once made a party and said to his servant, “Go and bring Kamza.” The man went and brought Bar Kamza.

[The host sends a personal invite to Kamza, his friend. But the host’s servant, “the man” gets mixed up and gives the invitation instead to Bar Kamza – the host’s enemy.]

When the man [who threw the party] found him [Bar Kamza] there [at his party] he said, “See, you tell tales about me; what are you doing here? Get out!”

Said the other: “Since I am here, let me stay, and I will pay you for whatever I eat and drink.”

[Bar Kamza, realizing there has been a mistake, offers to pay for his own food.]

He [the host] said, “I won't.”

“Then let me give you half the cost of the party[,” said Bar Kamza].

“No,” said the other.

“Then let me pay for the whole party.”

He still said, No, and he took him by the hand and put him out.

[Despite Bar Kamza’s attempts to avoid the humiliation of being kicked out of the party – that stretch to reimbursing the host for the entire costs of the party – he is physically removed.]

Said the other [Bar Kamza], “Since the Rabbis were sitting there and did not stop him, this shows that they agreed with him. I will go and inform against them, to the Government [of the Roman Empire, currently ruling Palestine].” 5

[We now learn that the Rabbis, the spiritual leaders of the community, were witness to the host’s humiliating treatment of Bar Kamza.]

He [Bar Kamza] went and said to the Emperor, “The Jews are rebelling against you.”

He [the Emperor] said, “How can I tell?”

He [Bar Kamza] said to him: “Send them an offering and see whether they will offer it [on the altar of the Temple].”

So he [the Emperor] sent with him a fine calf. While on the way he [Bar Kamza] made a blemish on its upper lip, or as some say on the white of its eye, in a place where we [Jews] count it a blemish but they do not.

[Sacrifice at the Temple was only allowed for blemish-free animals. Minor blemishes, not necessarily noticeable to the common eye, were seen as impure, and not to be sacrificed at the Jewish world’s most holy shrine. Bar Kamza’s plan is for the Rabbis to reject the calf, and for the Romans to misunderstand the reason for the rejection. While the Rabbis would be rejecting the calf for religious/spiritual reasons, the Romans would see this as a sign of the Jews’ intention to rebel against Roman rule over Palestine.]

The Rabbis were inclined to offer it in order not to offend the Government.

Said Rabbi Zechariah ben Abkulas to them: “People will say that blemished animals are offered on the altar.” [And refused to let them sacrifice the gift from the Emperor.]

[R. ben Abkulas fears the sacred status of the Temple will be undermined when people hear that a blemished animal was sacrificed there.]

They then proposed to kill Bar Kamza so that he should not go and inform against them, but Rabbi Zechariah ben Abkulas said to them, “Is one who makes a blemish on consecrated animals to be put to death?”

[The Rabbis, aware that Bar Kamza aims to incite against them to the Romans, suggest murdering him. Again concerned for how actions might be perceived, R. ben Abkulas stops them. He fears that the people will not realize Bar Kamza was killed for plotting against the Jews, and will assume he was killed simply for harming a sacrificial animal. This would be seen to be a very harsh punishment for a relatively minor crime!

Bar Kamza was left alive, and the Rabbis rejected the offering. At Bar Kamza’s encouragement, the Romans understood this to be a sign of a Jewish revolt. In anticipation of such a “revolt”, the Romans sacked Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple, and killed hundreds. Tradition tells that the streets of Jerusalem ran with the blood of slaughtered Jews, and so many Jews were then sold into slavery that the international price of a slave dropped to less than that of a horse, so flooded was the market with Jewish slaves from Roman-occupied Palestine.]

Rabbi Johanan thereupon remarked [many years later]: “Through the scrupulousness of Rabbi Zechariah ben Abkulas our House has been destroyed, our Temple burnt and we ourselves exiled from our land.

Babylonian Talmud: Gittin 55b

Gather responses to the questions from various chevrutot, depending on how much time you have.

TRANSITION: Now that we’ve remembered our individual experiences at the Kotel, and we’ve looked into the way our tradition sees the destruction of the Temple, let’s now take a short look at what a lack of freedom looked like before the establishment of the State.

Screen the following video about the days when blowing the shofar at the Kotel was a crime: http://youtu.be/bIfLbkx4ZIM

Gather responses.

Here we are building a picture of the Kotel’s meaning to the Jewish People – in our traditions, and in our recent history. Now we are ready to delve in to one of the key controversies to shake the Israel/Diaspora connection: Women of the Wall. This is a central case study to help us examine the complexities of the Freedom of the Jewish People. 7

Part 3 - Women of the Wall Here we present the official promotional video of an organization known as Nashot HaKotel – Women of the Wall. As a promotional video, it is of course pushing one particular agenda. We will explore other approaches afterwards.

[We recommend stopping the video at 3:44 – after this point there is no information, just Anat Hoffman selling merchandise! At the end of the session, feel free to point those interested in the direction of the WoW website, and to encourage those who wish to help them to get involved. But these suggestions for action should come at the end of the session, after the participants have gone through a considered examination of the issues.] http://youtu.be/Vaaj8INViDQ

 How does this leave you feeling?  What kind of music would you play, that might represent your feelings about this? What volume?  What freedom would you say is being restricted?

This film was made by an orthodox religious woman who studies at the Maaleh Film School. She explores the phenomenon of Women at the Wall from a different perspective: Neither for nor against…

The film shows many of the Women of the Wall stalwarts, but it also shows ultra- orthodox women who are either curious, dismissive, distraught, or enraged by them. See if you can look at the situation through their eyes as well. http://youtu.be/Zi1-1LtczgE

During the screening, throw in: 2:02 What would be the response of the Ultra-Orthodox women in the film to the blond woman who is encouraging everyone to sing? 2:13 Hebrew writing on the praying woman: We are protesting the sacrilege 2:57 “Israeli Police will secure entrance with shoes to Al-Aqsa Mosque by the counting to Ramadan. Good Luck! The supporters of democracy” [Jewish protesters against being forced to take off their shoes when going up to Temple Mount/El Aqsa]

3:46 Judging by the accent of this young praying woman, she is an ultra-Orthodox woman who is against the Women of the Wall. 3:58 All women wearing a kippa, or a tallith, or tefillin, are by definition Progressive Jews who are identifying themselves with Women of the Wall. 4:58 “Women of Provocation!” 6:00 Notice the orthodox woman crying, surrounded by cameras.

Gather responses.  Encourage participants to look at the film from different perspectives, even if they do not agree with them.  One woman asks angrily: “Why do they come here and disrupt people from praying?” How would you respond to this question?

TRANSITION: So what is at stake here? What kind of freedom is being limited or permitted? What conception of Jewishness is being promoted or prohibited?

Let’s try to make life a little bit more difficult for ourselves, in this final exercise…

Part 4a - “Yes, but…” Role plays Post up on the walls the three “Principles at Stake”, at three extremes of the room. Ask people to position themselves in relation to the three principles. i.e. if I greatly relate to Principle A, I stand right next to it. If I relate to all three equally, I stand in the middle of the room. If you do not relate to any of the principles, stay seated on your chair. If you kind of relate to one principle, but really not to any other principle, so sit close to it on the floor.

Ask the person standing closest to each principle to expand a little more why they stand there. Make sure to also give voice to anyone who rejects all three principles…

Divide everyone into three groups roughly according to where they stand. i.e. those standing closest to Principle C are expected to “represent” this stance.

Each group must decide who will be their actor in the upcoming role play, who will argue for their principle.

Now hand out the “Yes, but” materials to each group. Group A gets the “yes, but” for Group B. Group B gets the “yes, but” for Group C. Group C gets the “yes, but” for Group A.

Give the groups ten minutes to cover their “yes, but” material, and to decide who will be their “Yes, but-actor” in the upcoming role play. Then give them an additional 10 minutes to prep their two actors – the one defending their own principle, and the one questioning another group’s principle.

Set up the role plays… One person sitting on the chair is completely cool. Person standing up is angry.

The two are friends. They were together on a panel about Women of the Wall. Suddenly the sitting friend announced that s/he was against Women of the Wall. Standing friend is shocked, upset, angry. Sitting friend is completely cool.

The role play begins when standing friend says: “I can’t believe you just did that! Don’t you believe that… [reads out his/her group’s Principle] And sitting friend replies: “Yes, but… [and continues according to his/her “yes, but” information]”

All the rest is improvisation….

Principle A: I believe that Jews should be allowed to pray wherever they want, especially in Israel, and especially at Judaism’s most holy place.

Principle B: I believe that people should be given the freedom to worship the way that they choose. That’s what a liberal democracy is all about.

Principle C: I am a Jewish liberal. This means that I am in favor of religious pluralism in Israel, and I am in favor of fair treatment of Palestinians. My support of the Women of the Wall is an extension of my religious and political identity.

Principle A - Freedom of worship - Yes but… I believe that Jews should be allowed to pray wherever they want, especially in Israel, and especially at Judaism’s most holy place.

Yes but…

Even more holy than the remnants of the outer wall of the courtyard that contained the Temple that contained the Holy of Holies… is the exact place where the Temple stood, the Temple Mount. The exact place where Abraham held Isaac ready to sacrifice him… This area is known as the Temple Mount, and Isaac’s sacrificial stone is traditionally understood to be the rock at the center of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, sometimes known as the Dome of the Rock.

[In the above picture, the Kotel is situated at the wall between Barclay's Gate and Robinson's Arch.]

In 1967 Israel did not only conquer the area of the Western Wall. Israel also conquered the Temple Mount.

Jews could do more than pray at an outer wall of the former courtyard of the Temple – we could pray at the remnants of the Temple itself. The holiest place in the Jewish world.

But we don’t. There is a beautiful golden-domed Mosque in what was the center of the Temple Mount.

If you ever went up to the Temple Mount and identified yourself as Jewish, you would be arrested if you so much as mumbled to yourself in a “prayer-like” way. There are Israeli Jews who protest about this. They argue that if women should be allowed to pray by the Kotel, why can’t all Jews pray at the Temple Mount?

One Jewish man who led this protest, was shot by a Palestinian extremist.

How can you align the right of women to pray at the Kotel, with the refusal of Jews’ right to pray at the Temple Mount itself?

Principle B - Yes but, freedom of worship goes both ways? People should be given the freedom to worship the way that they choose. That’s what a liberal democracy is all about.

Yes but…

This is not far from what many opponents of Women of the Wall are contending.

As far as many Haredim are concerned, their worship requires them to be shielded from Jews who – in their eyes – are making a mockery of their religion. When a woman wears a tallith, or reads from the Torah, this is – in their eyes – a terrible thing. It is the last thing they want to see in their most holy place.

A woman reading from the Torah and wearing a tallith is as much a disturbance to some Haredi prayer as some Hell’s Angels bikers riding in to the center of the synagogue on a Friday night would be for a progressive service in New York.

The Rabbi of the Kotel points out that Haredim do make compromises, since the Yom HaZikaron ceremonies, and army ceremonies that take place on the Kotel Plaza, involve both women and men without separation, and - despite the grave offence this causes to many ultra-Orthodox – these ceremonies are accepted and pass without comment.

The argument goes: We should have the freedom to worship the way we choose. That’s what liberal democracy is all about. And since the Women of the Wall deeply disturb our freedom to worship, they should be moved somewhere else.

Why shouldn’t we support the right of Haredim to their form of worship as much as we support the right of the Women of the Wall?

Principle C – Liberal Values – Yes, but… I am a Jewish liberal. This means that I am in favor of religious pluralism in Israel, and I am in favor of fair treatment of Palestinians. My support of the Women of the Wall is an extension of my religious and political identity.

Yes but…

In 1967 Israel crossed over the Green Line into Jerusalem – the city that Palestinians claim as their capital – and reached the Kotel.

At the time in front of the Kotel there was room for a few hundred worshipers at most.

Within a few days of the end of the war, the Kotel Plaza was created. This large open area, that allowed for many thousands of Jews to celebrate and worship at the wall, was made possible through the demolition of hundreds of Palestinians homes.

The entire plaza was once the Arab Maghreb Quarter of the Old City.

Shouldn’t we avoid visiting the site of the destruction of others’ homes?

Part 4b - The Sharansky Plan - Working Groups 1. Read the article North American Federations Back Sharansky’s Plan. Pretend you are the committee who is being presented with his solution and then discuss at least 2 of the following questions: (10 minutes) a. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this solution? b. What are the opportunities? Do you think WOW should accept this plan? c. Is it a compromise that recognizes the needs that WOW is advocating for?

2. Read the article Anat Hoffman Supports Plan for Egalitarian Kotel and discuss at least 2 of the following questions: (15 minutes) a. Since Hoffman’s response and the WOW board voting in favor of accepting Sharansky’s proposal, some members of the group have come out in strong disagreement with this solution. Do you think this is a viable solution that should be accepted? Or should WOW hold out and keep advocating for equal rights at the Kotel itself? b. Do you think the fact that American Jewish Federations have expressed their support for this plan might affect the outcome? 3. In your opinion, do the suggested resolutions effectively integrate the interests of Freedom and of the Jewish nature of the country? Do you envision that liberal Jews might feel free at the Kotel after these solutions are implemented? Do you envision that orthodox Jews might feel free at the Kotel after these solutions are implemented?

Note: to keep the group on task, you should keep an eye on the time and cue them to switch to the second article after 10 minutes of reading and discussing. Links to the articles: http://www.timesofisrael.com/north-american-federations-back-sharanskys-westernwall-plan/ http://forward.com/articles/174538/women-of-the-walls-anat-hoffman-supports-plan- for/

North American federations back Sharansky’s Western Wall plan Compromise on egalitarian prayer would enable holy site to again become a symbol of Jewish unity, resolution says June 4, 2013

An illustration of Natan Sharansky's proposal, which will expand the Western Wall and create a permanent egalitarian space in the Robinson's Arch area. (photo credit: Creative Commons/Graphics by Uri Fintzy/JTA)

JTA— The Jewish Federations of North America’s board of trustees passed a resolution supporting Natan Sharansky’s proposed compromise on egalitarian prayer at the Western Wall. Monday’s resolution, according to a JFNA statement, says the compromise “develops a pathway whereby the Kotel will once again become a spiritual center for all Jews and a symbol of unity for the entire Jewish community world-wide.”

Announced in April, the proposal would expand and raise the area adjacent to the current Western Wall Plaza known as Robinson’s Arch and create a unified entrance for both sections. Robinson’s Arch has been used as a prayer space by non-Orthodox groups for about a decade.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked Sharansky, chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel, to formulate a plan in December that would satisfy haredi Orthodox leaders who wanted to maintain exclusive control of the site and religious pluralism activists who wanted it opened to egalitarian prayer.

“By issuing this resolution, the Jewish Federations are giving voice to the strong desire across our community to resolve this critical issue and ensure that all Jews can experience the most spiritually powerful place in Judaism,” JFNA President and CEO Jerry Silverman said in the statement.

Sharansky’s plan, which was greeted at first with some enthusiasm by both sides of the debate, has lost support recently from both sides.

Women of the Wall's Anat Hoffman Supports Plan for Egalitarian Kotel Worries About What Will Happen Before it Is Implemented By Jane Eisner, Published April 09, 2013

Anat Hoffman the chair of the Women of the Wall was arrested for wearing a tallis while praying at the Kotel.

The proposal to create an expanded section for egalitarian prayer at the Western Wall in Jerusalem has picked up a crucial supporter: Anat Hoffman, director of the Israel Religious Action Center and chair of Women of the Wall, the group of women that has for decades sought to pray and read Torah at Judaism’s holiest site.

“It’s very ambitious, a dramatic change, and it will make history,” Hoffman said in a phone interview today. “It’s not everything we were hoping for, but we will compromise. You don’t always have to be right, you have to be smart, and compromise is a sign of maturity and understanding what’s at stake here.”

Hoffman’s remarks came after Natan Sharansky, chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel, presented a plan to American Jewish religious leaders that would expand the southern end of the Wall at Robinson’s Arch to create a plaza equal in size and presentation to the existing sections where prayer is segregated by gender.

As the Forward reported earlier today, Sharansky’s plan attempts to resolve the growing dispute between women who wish to pray at the Kotel wearing prayer shawls and tefillin, and the Orthodox authorities who have insisted on ever-stringent codes of conduct at a site they control.

While voicing her unequivocal support for Sharansky’s work, Hoffman, who has been arrested with other women at WOW’s monthly services, said she is worried about what will happen before the ambitious, expensive plan is approved and implemented… But she praised Sharansky’s proposal for creating a space “where all different Jewish expressions will be welcome… I was very impressed at the courage and support that Mr. Sharansky was able to muster. He listened a lot. It was a bit out of character. It takes courage and vision. [The plan] is a wonderful message for Israelis, for Jews from abroad, for everyone.”

Sharansky could not be reached for comment. While Hoffman herself was not at today’s meeting, she said she was told the outcome was positive and that Sharansky will now present his plan to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Conclusion Allow for a summary discussion. In particular look for people to comment on:

 What does all this mean to you?  Does it make you want to know more? Or less?

If you don’t want to know any more about this fascinating place, then we’ve failed. But if you are now provoked into finding out more, learning more, and clarifying your own stance on these issues, then we’re doing okay…

You might invite the next person due to give the Israel Update to focus on the Kotel and Temple Mount. The situation is fluid, and changes happen all the time. Ask them to see whether they can present each side’s approach according to 4HQ.

Post-Session Reflection for the Facilitator Success Checklist:  Did participants will learn about the meaning of the Kotel to the Jewish People over the centuries?  Did participants enjoy grappling with the complexities inherent when issues of religious freedom are in tension with democratic government?  Did participants both embrace and challenge their own assumptions as to the “right thing to do”?

How did it go? Reflection on the session:

In the "Success Checklist," if you aren't able to answer "yes," to the questions, why do you think these objectives weren't achieved? ______

What was one thing that surprised you during the session? ______

What was something that happened that you weren't prepared for? ______

Was there anything that happened in the group that needs to be addressed in the next session? ______

Is there anything you want to discuss with your supervisor?

The Story of Kamza and Bar Kamza The destruction of Jerusalem came through Kamza and Bar Kamza in this way.

A certain man had a friend Kamza and an enemy Bar Kamza. He once made a party and said to his servant, “Go and bring Kamza.” The man went and brought Bar Kamza.

When the man [who gave the party] found him [Bar Kamza] there [at his party] he said, “See, you tell tales about me; what are you doing here? Get out!”

Said the other: “Since I am here, let me stay, and I will pay you for whatever I eat and drink.”

He [the host] said, “I won't.”

“Then let me give you half the cost of the party[,” said Bar Kamza].

“No,” said the other.

“Then let me pay for the whole party.”

He still said, No, and he took him by the hand and put him out.

He [Bar Kamza] went and said to the Emperor, “The Jews are rebelling against you.”

He [the Emperor] said, “How can I tell?”

He [Bar Kamza] said to him: “Send them an offering and see whether they will offer it [on the altar of the Temple].”

The Rabbis were inclined to offer it in order not to offend the Government.

Said Rabbi Zechariah ben Abkulas to them: “People will say that blemished animals are offered on the altar.” [And refused to let them sacrifice the gift from the Emperor.]

Rabbi Johanan thereupon remarked [many years later]: “Through the scrupulousness of Rabbi Zechariah ben Abkulas our House has been destroyed, our Temple burnt and we ourselves exiled from our land.

Babylonian Talmud: Gittin 55b

For your conversation Read through the story together, and first of all make sure you understand everything. Ask the facilitator if you need help, or additional information.

How would you summarize the reason for the destruction of the Temple?

Of the following people or groups of people, how would you describe their responsibility for the catastrophe at the end of the story?  The host of the party  The guests at the party  Bar Kamza  Kamza  The Romans  Rabbi Zechariah ben Abkulas

A. What principle is at stake? I believe that Jews should be allowed to pray wherever they want, especially in Israel, and especially at one of Judaism’s most holy place.

B. What principle is at stake? I believe that people should be given the freedom to worship the way that they choose. That’s what a liberal democracy is all about.

C. What principle is at stake? I am a Jewish liberal. This means that I am in favor of religious pluralism in Israel, and I am in favor of fair treatment of Palestinians. My support of the Women of the Wall is an extension of my religious and political identity.

In Our Land #1 – Is land important to me?

Introduction This is the start of the third section of our work: In Our Land. After having explored aspects of Jewish Peoplehood and of Freedom, we are now moving into the heart of the conflict: The Land. This first session asks a question that is prior to the Israel-Palestine conflict. What is the significance of land? Why get all worked up over a bit of earth?

Goals • Participants will explore their own understandings and emotions about land in their lives • Participants will build an empathy for Jewish longings for Israel, through song, and through the creation of a traditional Jewish object of geographical longing • Participants will gain key knowledge about the historical, geographical, and existential conflicts over the Land of Israel today

Big Question Is a particular piece of land important?

Guiding Questions  Are there any places in the world that are dear to you?  Can you empathize with or understand people who miss places that they don’t live in?  Is it possible to miss a place you’ve never lived in?

Preparation for the Facilitator 1. Make sure you have watched the videos and the images yourself. 2. Make sure the internet connection is broad enough to screen the videos, or download them beforehand. www.keepvid.com 3. Check that you have a computer, projector, screen, and EXCELLENT speakers connected to your computer 4. Print out the maps – enough for each person to have one of the maps, and the Mizrach chart – one for each person 5. Print out the sheet with Mizrach written in Hebrew – preferably enlarge it to double the size – and attach it to the wall

Make it Modular Ideally, the session is done in its entirety. However, if time is limited, you should feel free to be selective about which components of this session you cover. You could, for example, skip making the Mizrach, if you feel you have a group that does not enjoy artistic kinds of activities.

Session Outline

Suggested Segment Description Time Briefly review last session. Israel update Introduction 15 minutes through the prism of 4HQ. Introduce this session Part 1: What is your Building an understanding of more sensate 15 minutes homeland like? approaches to land Part 2: Yearning for Creating our own Mizrach of longing and 30 minutes Mizrach memory Exploring where land meets identity, through Part 3: Bottom Line 15 minutes the cartoonist Shay Charka Part 4: Maps 45 minutes Learning about Israel’s ever-changing borders Conclusion  Wrap Up Close this session and briefly look to next 15 minutes  Looking session Ahead

Session Implementation/Description: Note: At the beginning of each session you will give an introduction. This section is important as it functions as a bridge between sessions – reminding students about the material that was covered in the prior session and framing the material for the current session. Below are some suggested points to help you create that bridge between sessions. Note that you don’t need to read the points below word for word!

Remember, what we are trying to do is transform the participants into 4HQ people – for these four questions to become instinctive, natural to them. Keep helping them learn.

Part 1 - What is your homeland like?

Hand out copies of the following piece of writing. Have everyone read it to themselves.

I was in the Philippines interviewing members of remote hill tribes about their land and livelihood. On a sweltering day in the forested terrain of a Banwa’on people, a gap-toothed chief showed me the trees, streams and farm plots that his tribe had tended for centuries. It was territory, he insisted, they would defend with their lives. As the sun finally slipped lower in the sky, he introduced me to a frail old woman who was revered by the others as a traditional priestess. We sat under a sacred tree near her farm and looked out over the Ma’asam River.

She asked through an interpreter, “What is your homeland like?”

She looked at me with an expectant smile, but I was speechless. My eyes dropped. Should I tell her about my neighborhood on the edge of Washington, D.C., the one where I then lived with my wife, Amy, and our son, Gary? The one where we could not let Gary play outside because of the traffic? 3

She repeated the question, thinking I had not heard. “Tell me about your place.” Again, I could not answer. Should I tell her about the neighborhood we had previously fled, the one where the dead bodies of young men kept turning up in the alleyways? The one where police helicopters were always shining their spotlights through our windows? The one that had since erupted in riots and suffered the psychotic nonchalance of a serial killer? I said nothing.

The truth was I lacked any connection to my base in Washington, D.C., and for some reason, for the first time, it shamed me. I had breakfasted with senators and shaken hands with presidents, but I was tongue-tied before this barefoot old woman.

“In America,” I finally admitted, “we have careers, not places.” Looking up, I recognized pity in her eyes.

Alan Thein Durning, This Place on Earth

Open up to participants’ responses to this piece. Does it resonate? Does it challenge? Do they identify and agree with the writer?

“Now I’d like you to write down (or map out) five places that are important to you. (For good reasons or for bad reasons.) At least one of these places must be in your country, and at least one of these places must be in Israel.”

Share them with your partner.

Straw poll: In how many of these five places are you a resident?

Does the fact that at least one of these places is far away from you, make this place more or less precious? More or less important to you?

Transition: The idea of yearning for another land is almost intrinsic to Judaism. It is at the heart of much Jewish prayer and poetry, and continues to be. Achinoam Nini is a living example of a constant two-directional yearning, as was Leah Goldberg.

Leah Goldberg was a highly-regarded poet in the early years of Israel. She was born in Germany, fled to Russia at age three, then to Lithuania, then back to Germany, and finally made Aliya to Israel at the age of 24 in 1935. Her poem “Pine Trees – Ilanot” was adapted by Achinoam Nini. Nini (in American known as “Noa”) was born to Israeli Yemenite parents in the United States. She studied music in Israel, lived and performed in the States, and recently returned to live in Israel.

Part 2 - Yearning for a Place Play the song clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzGpDZBY5qk

Ask the group to respond to the song. Does it speak to them in any way? Do they know someone to whom it speaks?

Instructions: We are now going to make our own Mizrach. Mizrach means “East” in Hebrew.

It was a custom for Jews in the diaspora to hang an embroidery or a paper-cut with the Hebrew word “Mizrach”, on the eastern-facing wall of the house. This was seen as a symbol of the Jew’s yearning for Zion.

I’d like everyone to take two pieces of paper. One sheet is blank, for the actual Mizrach that you’re going to draw/create. The other sheet has a chart on it.

First of all, draw somewhere on the Mizrach sheet, as large or as colorful as you wish, ,Feel free to refer to the different fonted versions on the wall .מזרח the Hebrew word or create your own font.

On the other sheet of paper, I’d like you to fill in anything that reminds you of Israel, in the six senses of smell, sight, sound, taste, touch, and word.

Once you’ve done that, I’d like you to place these ideas and memories onto your Mizrach sheet. You can draw, you can write poems, you can design it how you like, so long as all your longings are presented on your Mizrach.

Stick up all the Mizrach creations on the wall, and encourage people to take them home.

Part 3 -What is the Bottom Line?

Screen this short video about the Israeli cartoonist, Shay Charka. Make it clear to the group that Charka represents a very particular voice in Israeli politics, and his view of Diaspora Jewry does not necessarily represent your views or those of Hillel: http://youtu.be/oCv-kOij-Vg

First off, allow people to let off steam. Charka’s comments about Diaspora Jews are challenging, and do not need to be accepted at face value. At the same time, Charka’s connection to the land does not automatically have to be admired. Some may view it as an unhelpful way to view the self.

Then, when you believe the time is right, move the conversation forward:

Charka will often say, when people ask him whether he would be willing to leave his home in the West Bank/Samaria in the event of a peace deal – [paraphrased] “I don’t know how to answer. Because if I were to leave here, I would become a different person. I would not be me. I cannot tell you how this other person, this Shay Charka not- on-the-Land, would behave. I don’t know him.”

 Are you a different person in a different place?  Would you draw any lines underneath your feet?

Now having talked about the emotional significance of lines of identity, perhaps now the time has come to look at some maps. Lines of Geography. Lines of Politics. Lines of War.

Part 4 – The Lines on a Map  Divide participants up into five groups.  Give each group one map to study, one copy per person.  Each group has 15 minutes to study the map, learn how to explain it to others, and do some googling about various topics related to the information on the map.

As you give the instructions, point out: These maps were created by British historian Martin Gilbert, who is also known for his thorough and ground-breaking work on the Holocaust. He is a Jewish scholar, and a committed Zionist. His research is impeccable and at the same time his perspective is very much a Zionist perspective. You may notice this in his choice of words, and what he chooses to emphasize. 6

 You now have 30 minutes to walk around the room.  The room is now full of experts.  Your job is to learn all you can about the maps you did not study.  The only rule is that if anyone asks you, you must also teach them about your map.

Gathering  Did you learn anything new? What was it?  Do you have any questions about anything? What are they?

Finally: Mark on the map you have in your hand the place in Israel that is most important to you (that you mentioned in the very first exercise this session.) [Some maps do not show all of Israel, so some may have to make do with an arrow….]

Looking Ahead  Next week, we will start to think about the conflict with the Palestinians over the Land. The Land that Jews see as their own, is also the Land that Palestinians see as their own. This, in effect, is at the root of the conflict. We will tackle this challenging issue in the next session.  Homework: Remind them they will receive an email with their homework for the following week the next day. See Pre-Session Assignments in Session #2 for homework.  Israel Update: Make sure to assign the 4HQ update to someone else in the group.

Post-Session Reflection for Facilitator Success Checklist  Did participants begin to think about Land, and their connections to Land, in a different way?  Did participants begin to touch on their own feelings for Israel as a place?  Did participants emerge with greater detailed knowledge about Israel’s ever- changing borders?

How did it go? Reflection on the session: In the "Success Checklist," if you aren't able to answer "yes," to the questions, why do you think these objectives weren't achieved? ______

What was one thing that surprised you during the session? ______

What was something that happened that you weren't prepared for? ______

Was there anything that happened in the group that needs to be addressed in the next session? ______

Is there anything you want to discuss with your mentor or supervisor? 8

מזרח מזרח מזרח מזרח מזרח מזרח מזרח

She asked through an interpreter, “What is your homeland like?”

“In America,” I finally admitted, “we have careers, not places.” Looking up, I recognized pity in her eyes.

Alan Thein Durning, This Place on Earth

Sights

Smells

Tastes

Touches

Sounds

Thoughts

The jewish national home 33

36 The Routledge atlas of the arab-israeli conflict 42

45 The Routledge atlas of the arab-israeli conflict 64

68 The Routledge atlas of the arab-israeli conflict 104

110 The Routledge atlas of the arab-israeli conflict 160

170

To Be A People, Free in Our Land I – The Conflict

Introduction: We have taken a very particular approach to the Zionist project. We have characterized Zionism as the Jewish version of the aspiration To Be a People, Free in Our Land. In this iteration, we are talking about the People of Israel being Free in the Land of Israel. This can also be one way – one way among many – to look at the Conflict. One may also present the Palestinian aspiration through the same prism. To be a Palestinian People, Free in the Land of Palestine. In this iteration, we can see that the root of what has come to be known as The Conflict is that the Land of Palestine and the Land of Israel are one and the same. The land to the West of the Jordan river, from the Golan to Sinai, is claimed by both Peoples, and so two national liberation movements find themselves existing in the same space.

It is important to remember that this is (necessarily) a partial understanding of the conflict. Others will point out that both the historical Mandatory Palestine, and the biblical land of Israel, spread far over the Eastern bank of the Jordan river. Still others will point out that the clash is between the Jewish People and the Arab world - and that the clash of nationalisms is only the most recent incarnation of a much more ingrained conflict. Some will say that Zionism is not a national liberation movement at all, and is simply the last example of Western white colonialism. Lately the possibility that Israel is at the heart of a clash of civilizations, between democratic moderation and religious extremism, has also arisen.

In this sense we must always take care to stress to ourselves and to participants in the course that it is impossible to touch the entire elephant in one visit. As long as we remain conscious of the fact that we are only examining a particular aspect of the elephant, and that there are many more lurking in the darkness, we may maintain our integrity.

Goals:  For participants to practice using 4HQ as a cognitive tool for understanding.  For participants to emerge with an understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the prism of clashing national liberation movements.  For participants to leave with a broader picture of the Conflict’s many facets and frames of meaning.

Big Question: What is the Conflict really about?

Guiding Questions?  Is this a clash of two national liberation movements?  If the solution is so logical, why hasn’t it happened yet?

Preparation for Facilitator: Go into this session as prepared as you can be. Make sure you have read through all the materials and watched the videos. We would also recommend you work your way through this extremely useful interactive site called “Is Peace Possible”? The session is designed as more of an information-gathering activity than a debating exercise. In this sense, you are far more of a “teacher” in the old-fashioned sense – the more knowledge you yourself have, the more comfortable you will feel.

Materials Needed: 1. Computer, screen, speakers, and all videos ready off-line 2. Writing materials 3. Tables and chairs 4. Print-outs of reading materials, and 4HQ chart 5. Excellent wi-fi connection 6. Participants should bring their laptops/tablets 7. A joint Google Drive Folder called “Frames for the Conflict”

Pre-Session Assignment Split the group into three research groups. Ask each group to research three different proposed analyses/solutions to the Conflict, and be ready to advocate for these approaches to the group.

1. What is the “Two States solution”, and how might it differ from the solution of “Two States for Two Peoples”? 2. What is the vision for a State of Israel that annexes the West Bank and creates a Jewish State on all its territory? Who advocates for this outcome in Israel? 3. Is there a difference between the vision of a Palestinian democratic state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river, and the vision of a democratic state for all its citizens from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river? Who advocates for such an approach among Israelis and among Palestinians? 2

Session Outline:

Suggested Segment Description Time Israel Update. Introduction Introduction 10 minutes

1. General picture of Presenting Homework: different state 15 minutes “solutions” solutions. Sketch them out 2. 4HQ on the Fill in the chart – for Israelis and for 15 minutes Conflict Palestinians Getting to know additional frames for understanding the conflict:  Arab-Jew  Two States is over 3. Study groups 60 minutes  Two States in One Space  Zionism is Colonialism  Lieberman – integrity of populations  Muslim-Jewish  Distorted refugee situation 4. Presentations of 20 minutes learnings Summing up what we now know, what we Conclusion 15 minutes don’t yet know, and what we will never know…

Introduction We have characterized Zionism as the Jewish version of the aspiration To Be a People, Free in Our Land - the People of Israel being Free in the Land of Israel. This can also be one way – one way among many – to look at the Conflict. One may also present the Palestinian aspiration through the same prism. To be a Palestinian People, Free in the Land of Palestine. In this iteration, we can see that the root of what has come to be known as The Conflict is that the Land of Palestine and the Land of Israel are one and the same. The land to the West of the Jordan river, from the Golan to Sinai, is claimed by both Peoples, and so two national liberation movements find themselves existing in the same space.

But to look at this clash ONLY as a clash between two liberation movements is not the whole story. Others will point out that the clash is between the Jewish People and the 3

Arab world - and that the clash of nationalisms is only the most recent incarnation of a much more ingrained conflict. Some will say that Zionism is not a national liberation movement at all, and is simply the last example of Western white colonialism. Lately the possibility that Israel is at the heart of a clash of civilizations, between democratic moderation and religious extremism, has also arisen.

Today we’re going to focus on learning, studying, and teaching each other. The plan is for us all to leave this room with an awareness of the many contradictory and complementary perspectives that make up “The Conflict”.

Part 1 – Mutual presentations of the “solutions” Ask each group to present its findings from the pre-session assignment to everyone. Allow for questions and clarifications.

Part 2 – Applying 4HQ Re-distribute three groups, with each group containing at least one member from each of the three research groups. Thus these new groups will be entirely heterogeneous in terms of in-depth knowledge.

Screen these four clarifications on the wall, or print them in large letters on a clip board.

 To Be – to avoid existential military threat  People – the customs, language, and values of the People command the public space  Free – one person one vote, individual rights preserved for all  Our Land – sovereignty over the maximum amount of what is traditionally known as “our land”.

Ask each group to fill out the chart for the People of Israel (ie Jews) living in the land of Israel.

Next, ask the group to fill out the chart for the Palestinian People, living in the land of Palestine…

Compare results.

Part 3 – Study groups – additional frames TRANSITION: What often happens when one begins to analyze the conflict through a very specific lens, is that one emerges with the question: So why the hell don’t they just go ahead and solve it, already? We’d suggest that if one has this thought, it is because it might be a mistake to understand the conflict only in one particular context.

We certainly can look at the conflict through the frame of clashing National Liberation movements. But we must always keep in mind the fact that this is only one plausible frame of many. Nor does one frame necessarily negate another. It may well be that the Conflict is an example of many different kinds of clashes – hence its intractability…

We are now going to study seven alternative frames for looking at the conflict. They are by no means a comprehensive list of frames - but they are enough to be getting on with!

Divide everyone into seven study groups. You may wish to choose the groups ahead of time, putting together more “text” people into the Hamas Charter group, and those less “text-friendly” into the two video source groups.

Every groups’ task is to come up with a way to put the information they have gained into a succinct form on a shared google drive folder. They can build a document or a slideshow.

After having uploaded their work onto the drive, each group should present their key findings to the rest of the participants.

Thus each group must 1. Make sure they understand the source material 2. Sum up their understandings for the group’s google drive 3. Prepare and then present their understandings for everyone else

Bringing it home Finally, we recommend screening this short speech by Yossi Klein Halevi. In our opinion he offers a careful and honest assessment of where most Israelis stand on the Palestinian issue following the 2014 Gaza conflict. His main points are covered in the article that we suggest you hand out at the end of the session.

Conclusion Take a marker pen to a clip board and – with everyone’s input – write up the headlines of all the information that has been covered. Go down each headline and tally up the number of people who feel their knowledge of this topic has been significantly improved.

The Parking Lot: Gather questions and concerns and thoughts that participants are left with. Where the questions are informational only, homework should be to find answers. Other issues are there to be “parked”, ready to be addressed at the final post-course gathering.

Post-Session Reflection for the Facilitator Success Checklist:  Did participants practice using 4HQ as a cognitive tool for understanding?  Do participants now have a broader picture of the Conflict’s many facets and frames of meaning.  Does the group now have their own shared file, summing up the different frames of the conflict?

How did it go? Reflection on the session:

In the "Success Checklist," if you aren't able to answer "yes," to the questions, why do you think these objectives weren't achieved? ______

What was one thing that surprised you during the session? ______

What was something that happened that you weren't prepared for? ______

Was there anything that happened in the group that needs to be addressed in the next session? ______

Is there anything you want to discuss with your mentor or supervisor?

Frame 1# - The Arab-Jewish Frame The Israel story is framed in the same terms that have been in use since the early 1990s—the quest for a “two-state solution.” It is accepted that the conflict is “Israeli- Palestinian,” meaning that it is a conflict taking place on land that Israel controls—0.2 percent of the Arab world—in which Jews are a majority and Arabs a minority. The conflict is more accurately described as “Israel-Arab,” or “Jewish-Arab”—that is, a conflict between the 6 million Jews of Israel and 300 million Arabs in surrounding countries. (Perhaps “Israel-Muslim” would be more accurate, to take into account the enmity of non-Arab states like Iran and Turkey, and, more broadly, 1 billion Muslims worldwide.) This is the conflict that has been playing out in different forms for a century, before Israel existed, before Israel captured the Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank, and before the term “Palestinian” was in use.

The “Israeli-Palestinian” framing allows the Jews, a tiny minority in the Middle East, to be depicted as the stronger party. It also includes the implicit assumption that if the Palestinian problem is somehow solved the conflict will be over, though no informed person today believes this to be true. This definition also allows the Israeli settlement project, which I believe is a serious moral and strategic error on Israel’s part, to be described not as what it is—one more destructive symptom of the conflict—but rather as its cause.

A knowledgeable observer of the Middle East cannot avoid the impression that the region is a volcano and that the lava is radical Islam, an ideology whose various incarnations are now shaping this part of the world. Israel is a tiny village on the slopes of the volcano. Hamas is the local representative of radical Islam and is openly dedicated to the eradication of the Jewish minority enclave in Israel, just as Hezbollah is the dominant representative of radical Islam in Lebanon, the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and so forth.

Hamas is not, as it freely admits, party to the effort to create a Palestinian state alongside Israel. It has different goals about which it is quite open and that are similar to those of the groups listed above. Since the mid 1990s, more than any other player, Hamas has destroyed the Israeli left, swayed moderate Israelis against territorial withdrawals, and buried the chances of a two-state compromise. That’s one accurate way to frame the story.

An observer might also legitimately frame the story through the lens of minorities in the Middle East, all of which are under intense pressure from Islam: When minorities are helpless, their fate is that of the Yazidis or Christians of northern Iraq, as we have just

seen, and when they are armed and organized they can fight back and survive, as in the case of the Jews and (we must hope) the Kurds.

There are, in other words, many different ways to see what is happening here. Jerusalem is less than a day’s drive from Aleppo or Baghdad, and it should be clear to everyone that peace is pretty elusive in the Middle East even in places where Jews are absent. But reporters generally cannot see the Israel story in relation to anything else. Instead of describing Israel as one of the villages abutting the volcano, they describe Israel as the volcano.

The Israel story is framed to seem as if it has nothing to do with events nearby because the “Israel” of international journalism does not exist in the same geo-political universe as Iraq, Syria, or Egypt. The Israel story is not a story about current events. It is about something else.

[Matti Friedman, Aug ‘14]

Frame #2 - The issue cannot be resolved with Two States - Reza Aslan http://youtu.be/zhngb7c9j5U Reza Aslan is a scholar of religion, and wrote an excellent book on the history of Islam, called No God but God. He is not someone who would be mistaken for being a great fan of Israel, but nor is his an extremist voice. Here he explains why he feels the ideal solution of the conflict in his eyes – Two States – is no longer viable, and so we must begin imagining how One State for both Jews and Palestinians might pan out.

Frame #3 – The Land cannot be divided – IPCRI http://youtu.be/ODlNGc1zeZw

This is an interesting video that presents an alternative view on the way Palestinians and Jews view the land and their own sovereignty. The book that IPCRI – the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information – wrote in support of the video actually points to a significant number of obstacles to the implementation of “Two States in One Space”, and it would be fair to say their suggestions are far from receiving majority approval among Israelis or Palestinians.

Frame #4 – Zionism is Colonialism Myth: The problem is an age old conflict between religious groups. History: It is a conflict between the indigenous Palestinian people and the Europeans who came with guns to steal their land and resources. Zionism is a racist ideology with the aim of ethnically cleansing Palestine of its native population through systematic methods. The Palestinian people themselves are of multiple religions—all have suffered from Zionist racism and brutality.

Myth: Palestinian resistance fighters are extremist, anti-Semitic, and do not want to live in peace. The myth of “religious conflict” is central in propagating the notion that “dialogue” between “Israelis” and Palestinians can resolve “the conflict” and that people need to develop “an understanding” of one another. It is meant to undercut any discussion about the reality—a racist regime that continues to colonize indigenous land. This myth asks Palestinians to “put the past behind them” and build “a shared future” with the people who continue to murder their families, steal their land and destroy their homes. It implies that Palestinians should concede their basic rights, dignity and homeland.

[The New England Committee to Defend Palestine]

RAMALLAH, WEST BANK — Centuries of European colonialism have provided the world with certain basic lessons about subjugating colonized peoples: The longer any colonial occupation endures, the greater the settlers’ racism and extremism tends to grow. This is especially true if the occupiers encounter resistance; at that point, the occupied population becomes an obstacle that must either be forced to submit or removed through expulsion or murder.

In the eyes of an occupying power, the humanity of those under its thumb depends on the degree of their submission to, or collaboration with, the occupation. If the occupied population chooses to stand in the way of the occupier’s goals, then they are demonized, which allows the occupier the supposed moral excuse of confronting them with all possible means, no matter how harsh.

The Israeli occupation of Palestine is one of the only remaining settler-colonial occupations in the world today.

Ali Jarbawi [Aug, ‘14]

Frame #5 – National integrity over Territorial integrity – Avigdor Lieberman’s plan

Lieberman states pointedly in his Facebook status that "in the dispute over the integrity of the people as opposed to the integrity of the land--the integrity of the people prevails." He means the Israeli Jewish people, and West Bank land. In other words, Israel will have to relinquish West Bank territory to maintain a Jewish state. But not only West Bank territory. For in order to maintain Israeli Jewish integrity, Israel will move the green line westward in the Little Triangle and Wadi Ara regions so as to place several hundred thousand Arab citizens of Israel, with their land and homes, inside the new West Bank- based state of Palestine. This arrangement will also address the need for "land swaps" with the Palestinians to enable Israeli annexation of the settlement blocs.

Other Israeli Arabs who suffer from "split personality" between their Israeli and their Palestinian status but live in places like Jaffa and Acre far from the green line will be offered financial inducements to encourage them to move to the new Palestinian state. To ensure they address this option seriously, Lieberman reiterates his determination that "without loyalty there is no citizenship": once there is a Palestinian state, Israeli Arabs will have to decide which state they are loyal to, and, if they choose Israel, accept the same obligations of loyalty, army service, etc., that he expects from Israeli Jews--a sentiment often voiced, albeit without Lieberman's racist overtones, by HaTnua leader Tzipi Livni as well.

… Lieberman's is not apartheid: presumably the Palestinian state that evolves will have full sovereign rights. But it apparently won't have Jerusalem, which isn't mentioned in this plan, although Lieberman has in the past alluded to the possibility of turning outlying Arab neighborhoods of the city over to a Palestinian state.

[It is worthwhile pulling up a map, to look at the areas the article is referring to]

[Yossi Alpher wrote this for the Peace Now website in December 2014. He is by no means a supporter of Avigdor Lieberman]

Frame #6 – Religious conflict - Extracts from the Hamas Charter

… our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah's victory prevails. Thus we shall perceive them approaching in the horizon, and this will be known before long:

"Allah has decreed: Lo! I very shall conquer, I and my messenger, lo! Allah is strong, almighty.:"

Article One The Islamic Resistance Movement draws its guidelines from Islam; derives from it its thinking, interpretations and views about existence, life and humanity; refers back to it for its conduct; and is inspired by it in whatever step it takes.

Article Three The basic structure of the Islamic Resistance Movement consists of Muslims who are devoted to Allah and worship Him verily [as it is written]: "I have created Man and Devil for the purpose of their worship" [of Allah]. Those Muslims are cognizant of their duty towards themselves, their families and country and they have been relying on Allah for all that. They have raised the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors in order to extricate the country and the people from the [oppressors'] desecration, filth and evil.

Article Six The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinct Palestinian Movement which owes its loyalty to Allah, derives from Islam its way of life and strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine. Only under the shadow of Islam could the members of all regions coexist in safety and security for their lives, properties and rights. In the absence of Islam, conflict arises, oppression reigns, corruption is rampant and struggles and wars prevail. Allah had inspired the Muslim poet, Muhammad Iqbal, when he said:

When the Faith wanes, there is no security. There is no this-worldliness for those who have no faith. Those who wish to live their life without religion Have made annihilation the equivalent of life.

Article Seven …Hamas is one of the links in the Chain of Jihad in the confrontation with the Zionist invasion. It links up with the setting out of the Martyr Izz a-din al-Qassam and his brothers in the Muslim Brotherhood who fought the Holy War in 1936; it further relates to another link of the Palestinian Jihad and the Jihad and efforts of the Muslim Brothers during the 1948 War, and to the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brothers in 1968 and thereafter.

But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said:

The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).

Article Eleven The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection.

Article Twelve Hamas regards Nationalism (Wataniyya) as part and parcel of the religious faith. Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims…

Article Thirteen There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game…

Article Twenty-Two The enemies have been scheming for a long time, and they have consolidated their schemes, in order to achieve what they have achieved. They took advantage of key elements in unfolding events, and accumulated a huge and influential material wealth which they put to the service of implementing their dream. This wealth [permitted them to] take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe in order to fulfill their interests and pick the fruits. They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions and behind most of the revolutions we hear about here and there. They also used the money to establish clandestine organizations which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests. Such organizations are: the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B'nai B'rith and the like. All of them are destructive spying organizations. They also used the money to take over control of the Imperialist states and made them colonize many countries in order to exploit the wealth of those countries and spread their corruption therein.

As regards local and world wars, it has come to pass and no one objects, that they stood behind World War I, so as to wipe out the Islamic Caliphate. They collected material gains and took control of many sources of wealth. They obtained the Balfour Declaration and established the League of Nations in order to rule the world by means of that organization. They also stood behind World War II, where they collected immense benefits from trading with war materials and prepared for the establishment of their state. They inspired the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council to replace the League of Nations, in order to rule the world by their intermediary. There was no war that broke out anywhere without their fingerprints on it:

Article Twenty-Eight …Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.

[These are extracts from the Hamas Charter. There is much more to read, but you have limited time! There is no particular agenda behind the editing of the document. Feel free to read all of it here and here.]

Frame #7 – a conflict maintained by the UN [A major sticking-point in any negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis is the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel. Dr Einat Wilf, former MK, argues that this is a fabricated issue, perpetuated by the unusual way in which Palestinian refugees are defined.]

One of the greatest obstacles to peace, and certainly the least acknowledged, is the perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee problem and the inflation of its scale by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Whereas the actual number of Arabs who could still claim to be refugees as a result of the Arab-Israeli war of 1947-1949 is today no more than several tens of thousands, the number of those registered as refugees is reaching 5 million, with millions more claiming to have that status.

THE UNRWA PROBLEM Since the Second World War the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has been responsible for the welfare of all refugees in the world and has assisted in their resettlement and relocation – so that nearly all of them are no longer refugees – with one exception: the Arabs from Palestine. By contrast, UNRWA, the organisation created specifically to handle the Arab refugees from Palestine from the 1947-1949 Arab-Israel war, has collaborated with the Arab refusal to resettle the refugees in the areas where they reside, or to relocate them to third countries. Worse, UNRWA has ensured that the refugee issue only grows larger by automatically registering descendants of the original refugees from the war as refugees themselves in perpetuity, For Palestinians, uniquely, refugeeness is an hereditary trait.

For several decades UNRWA has been engaging in an act of bureaucratic self- aggrandisement, inflating the numbers of those in its care, ensuring the growth of its budget. If the descendants of the Arab refugees from the Arab-Israeli war were treated like all other refugees, including the Jewish ones, they would not quality for refugee status because almost all of them (upward of 80 per cent) are either citizens of a third country, such as Jordan, or they live in the places where they were born and expect to have a future such as Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinians born in the West Bank and Gaza are not fleeing war and are not seeking refuge. They are considered citizens of Palestine by the Palestinian Authority itself, just like all other Palestinians born in these territories. No other people in the world are registered as refugees while being citizens of another country or territory…

The remaining 20 per cent of the descendants who are not Jordanian citizens or citizens of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza and the West Bank, are inhabitants of Syria and

Lebanon who are by law denied the right to citizenship granted to all other Syrians and Lebanese. Yet, UNRWA does nothing to fight for the right of these Lebanese and Syrian- born Arabs to citizenship, collaborating in their discrimination and the perpetuation of their refugee status.

Why does this matter for peace? Because if millions of Arabs who are citizens of Jordan and the Palestinian Authority, or inhabitants of Syria and Lebanon, claim to be refugees from what is today Israel, even though they were never born there and never lived there, and demand that as a result of this refugee status they be given the right to relocate to Israel (‘the right of return’), then the whole basis for peace by means of two states for two people crumbles. If Israel with its 6 million Jews and more than 1.5 million Arabs has to absorb between 5 and 8 million Palestinians then the Jews will be relegated again to living as a minority among those who do not view them as equals; the only country in which the Jews are a majority and can exercise their right to self- determination would be no more.

WESTERN COMPLICITY Even more absurd is that UNRWA is funded by countries who support two states for two peoples. The United States, the EU, Canada, Japan and Australia fund 99 per cent of UNRWA’s annual budget of over $1 billion, whereas the 56 Islamic countries who supposedly grieve for their Palestinian brethren supply only a few million dollars.

… If Western countries truly want to remove obstacles on the road to peace they cannot condemn the growth of settlements on one hand and condone the manufactured growth of the number of refugees on the other. Either both the growth of settlements and the inflation in the number of refugees should be treated as obstacles to peace, or neither should be...

Click here for the full article.

Yossi Klein Halevi – article on which is based his lecture

As I travelled through North American Jewish communities on a lecture tour about Israeli society in the aftermath of the [2013] elections, I sometimes felt as though I was in a time warp.

Visiting an Orthodox community, I may find myself back in the 1970s and 1980s, before the first intifadah convinced a majority of Israelis that the occupation is a mortal threat to the Jewish state; right-wing North American Jews will insist instead, that Israel must continue building settlements and creating “facts” on the ground. And when I visit a liberal community, I may find myself back in the 1990s, before the second intifadah convinced that same majority of Israelis that a one-way peace process is likewise a mortal threat to the Jewish state; left-wing North American Jews will insist instead, that a peace agreement is always within reach and just a matter of Israeli will.

And so I try to explain that most Israelis have internalized the left-right divide and agree with the left’s anxiety over the occupation and with the right’s anxiety over a delusional peace. For most Israelis, I note, a Palestinian state is an existential necessity that would save us from the demographic threat to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state – and also an existential threat that could turn greater Tel Aviv into the next Sderot, the Israeli town near Gaza that has absorbed thousands of rocket attacks in the last decade.

Most polls confirm the centrist persona of the Israeli majority. Asked whether they support a two-state solution, upward of 70 per cent of Israelis respond affirmatively. Asked whether a two-state solution would bring peace, upward of 80 per cent say no. In other words: Israelis want to be doves, but reality forces them to be hawks.

The rise of Yair Lapid and his Yesh Atid party – appearing from nowhere to become the second-largest party in the Knesset – is only the latest example of the longing of many Israelis for a centrist politics that embodies the realism of the left about the occupation and of the right about the peace process.

What most depresses me is that this insight – by now commonplace in Israeli discourse – comes as a revelation to many North American Jews. The two most important Jewish communities in the world aren’t communicating.

During the recent elections, a puzzled American Jewish journalist asked me: “Why aren’t Israelis debating the collapse of the peace process?” My response was: “Most of us have already resolved the issue. If there were a credible partner able to contain Hamas and 18

address our red-line issues, like the right of return, we would make the necessary territorial concessions. In the absence of a credible peace partner, we’re moving on with our lives.” North American Jews today are divided over two anxieties relating to Israel’s future. Like Israelis, many North American Jews are keenly aware of the external dangers facing the Jewish state. In a Middle East that is imploding and turning increasingly fundamentalist, and with Iran approaching the nuclear threshold, there is a whiff of May 1967, the anxious weeks before the Six Day War, when threat pressed against Israel’s borders and war seemed imminent.

For many liberal North American Jews, though, the primary focus of their Israel anxiety is on internal issues: the fraying of democracy, the seemingly irreversible occupation and the receding promise of peace.

A healthy people knows how to set its priorities of anxiety. It knows how to focus first on imminent threat. Yet a healthy people also knows that it cannot afford to allow even immediate threat to serve as pretext for denying long-term dangers.

Jewish history speaks to our generation in the voice of two biblical commands to remember. The first voice commands us to remember that we were strangers in the land of Egypt, and the message of that command is: “Don’t be brutal.” The second voice commands us to remember how the tribe of Amalek attacked us without provocation while we were wandering in the desert, and the message of that command is: “Don’t be naive.”

The first command is the voice of Passover, of liberation; the second is the voice of Purim, commemorating our victory over the genocidal threat of Haman, a descendant of Amalek.

“Passover Jews” are motivated by empathy with the oppressed; “Purim Jews” are motivated by alertness to threat.

Both are essential; one without the other creates an unbalanced Jewish personality, a distortion of Jewish history and values.

One reason the Palestinian issue is so wrenching for Jews is that it is the point on which the two commands of our history converge: the stranger in our midst is represented by a national movement that wants to usurp us.

And so a starting point of a healthy North American Jewish conversation on Israel would be acknowledging the agony of our dilemma.

Imagine an Orthodox rabbi, a supporter of the settlers in Hebron, delivering this sermon to his congregation: “My friends, our community has sinned against Israel. For all our devotion to the Jewish state and our concern for its survival, we have failed to acknowledge the consequences to Israel’s soul of occupying another people against its will.”

Now imagine a liberal rabbi, a supporter of J Street, telling his congregation: “My friends, our community has sinned against Israel. For all our devotion to the Jewish state and our concern for its democratic values, we have failed to acknowledge the urgency of existential threat once again facing our people.”

When North American Jews internalize or at least acknowledge each other’s anxieties, the shrillness of much of the North American Jewish debate over Israel will give way to a more nuanced conversation.

The good news is that parts of the Jewish community have begun that process. Jews from left and right are quietly meeting across the country, trying to nurture a civil conversation on Israel.

But civility is only the starting point. The goal is to create multi-dimensional Jews, capable of holding more than one insight about Israeli reality. It is to translate the centrist Israeli ambivalence into American Jewish discourse.

Yossi Klein Halevi is a senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem.

To Be People Free In Our Land Two States

One Jewish State from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river

One Palestinian State from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river

One State for all from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river Two States for two Peoples

To be a People, Free in Our Land II – The Cost

Introduction As we approach the end of the course, the time has come to address the pain in the eyes of every Israeli. The pain that no matter what side of the political fence one may be, no matter what religious persuasion or ethnic background, every Israeli knows that violent death is a possibility for them or for their loved ones. Even if a lasting peace were made with the Palestinians, the Middle East is a region that is ever more unstable, and ever more hostile to a Jewish presence.

Goals • Participants will delve into the Israeli culture of loss through honing in to one specific example of a soldier’s death that was remembered in several different ways. • Participants will begin to think about how Yom HaZikaron might be marked in more meaningful ways in their Hillel and their community.

Big Question How do we remember and honor the fallen?

Guiding Questions  What is the emotional timbre of a place that sings the poems of its fallen?  How can non-Israeli Jews find meaning in Yom HaZikaron?

Preparation for the Facilitator 1. Make sure you have watched the videos yourself. 2. Make sure the internet connection is broad enough to screen the videos, or download them beforehand. www.keepvid.com 3. Check that you have a computer, projector, screen, and EXCELLENT speakers connected to your computer 4. Print out the information for people to read 5. Arrange for at least five computers to be available, with access to the internet and with a mind map program already downloaded.

Make it Modular Ideally, the session is done in its entirety. However, if time is limited, you should feel free to be selective about which components of this session you cover. You could, for example, skip making the mind map, if you feel you have a more appropriate way of summing up this maze of emotions.

Session Outline

Suggested Segment Description Time Briefly review last session. Israel update Introduction 15 minutes through the prism of 4HQ. Introduce this session Part 1: Reading the What do the visuals of the video tell us about 15 minutes Video Israel’s attitude to war? Part 2: Reading the Internalizing the whole gestalt of a dead 15 minutes Lyrics soldier’s poetry being sung on radio Part 3: Remembering Learning about the different monuments 15 minutes Disaster created to remember the Helicopter Disaster Part 4: Mind maps 15 minutes How can we map the pain? Part 5: Yom How might Yom HaZikaron be better marked 30 minutes HaZikaron at Hillel? Conclusion  Wrap Up Close this session and briefly look to final 15 minutes  Looking session Ahead

Session Implementation/Description: Note: At the beginning of each session you will give an introduction. This section is important as it functions as a bridge between sessions – reminding students about the material that was covered in the prior session and framing the material for the current session. Below are some suggested points to help you create that bridge between sessions. Note that you don’t need to read the points below word for word!

In this session we explore the price a people pays in order to be Free in their Own Land. Ever since the battle of Tel Hai in 1920, the Jewish People in the Land of Israel decided they would no longer flee for their lives: they would stay and fight for their land. In this sense, Israel’s existence is inextricably bound to the land, the army, and to its losses. How does a country face its pain? In Israel a collective grief is explored and commemorated through awe-inspiring art and culture that both bows the head and straightens the shoulders.

Introduction There is a price involved in taking full responsibility for one’s independence. There is a cost in one’s time, money, innocence, and in the most extreme circumstances there is a cost of life. Ever since its establishment, Israel has had universal conscription for 18 year olds. Arabs are exempt from conscription, as are the vast majority of Ultra-Orthodox Jews. Nevertheless the majority experience is either of having been in the army, or having a relative in the army. At times of conflict, this weighs heavily on all citizens.

While the official day in the Israeli calendar for marking the loss of soldiers arrives the day before Independence Day on Yom HaZikaron, it would be true to say that the death of soldiers is a constant presence in the country. If a soldier is killed, all radio stations play sad music. In this sense the death of a soldier touches the life of all Israelis, in a deeply public way.

In this session we look at two pieces of public art that touch on the raw nerve of loss in a painfully private way.

Part 1 - Nothing at all – the video Play this video clip of the song by Knisiyat HaSechel without translation. http://youtu.be/IKDWRWqPS3s

What is the video saying?

Here you should allow for a free-ranging conversation. If opinions are not forthcoming, throw out some observations:  The fact that all the actors are children,  That at first the kids are at an army exhibition,  That there are kids from all ethnic and religious backgrounds.  Why/what is the child climbing?  What of the oversized army uniform, stripping off the uniform?  And what of the foetus-shaped gathering of bodies?

There are no wrong answers for this conversation, personal interpretations and individual responses are welcome.

Part 2 – Nothing at all – the lyrics Now play the clip with the subtitles included. http://youtu.be/Quv3vgzyjyI

The words to this song come from a poem written by a young soldier, Erez Shtark. He died in a notorious military helicopter crash in February 1997. The poem was read out at his funeral, and eventually turned into a rock song by Knisiyat HaSechel.

How does the meaning of the words affect your understanding of the video?

This song was created as part of an annual project for Yom HaZikaron called: “Soon we’ll become a poem”, that sets to music the writings of young soldiers who died in battle. This song is played on the radio throughout the year, as just one other rock song.

 What do you think this says about Israeli society and its relationship to the death of its soldiers?  What do you imagine is behind the choice of the parents’ to permit the band to make a song out of their dead sons’ words? And how do you imagine they relate to the video itself?  [Does the video imply a criticism of parents sending their children to war?]

Part 3 – remembering disaster

This section requires some reading out loud of information. Hand out the sheets to a few people you know who read well, and have them take a paragraph each.

On 4 February 1997, two Sikorsky CH-53 helicopters collided over She’ar Yishuv in northern Israel. The helicopters were supposed to have crossed the border into Israel’s “security zone” in Lebanon, but they were hovering while waiting for official clearance to go. Previously Israel had moved troops by ground, but this policy changed as the threat of roadside bombs from Hizbullah increased. 73 IDF soldiers died. Erez Shtark, the lyricist of the song, was among them. There were no survivors.

The crash brought about widespread national grieving. Thursday, 6 February, was declared an official day of mourning, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Ezer Weizman attended funerals and visited the surviving families. In addition, thousands of Israelis went to pray at the Western Wall, and assemblies were held at schools nationwide.

Because it was the worst air disaster in Israeli history, a commission headed by David Ivry was set up to investigate the cause of the collision. The committee finished its investigation in mid-April of the same year. It had been unable to find the definite cause of the mid-air collision, noting that the pilots appeared in good health and that no external causes could be found.

The mid-air crash led to a huge amount of debris, helicopter parts, and body parts falling on the Northern village of She’ar Yishuv. Two main areas were affected: an ancient tree in the center of the village, and the Banias stream adjacent to the graveyard of Kibbutz Dafna. The village created the ‘Forest of the Fallen’, a wooded area with 73 newly- planted trees, one for each soldier.

The soldiers themselves were buried in their own locales, but parents felt the need to create a more public commemoration of the disaster. Their initial and later memorials (a small stone grove, and later the hanging lanterns) are situated exactly where burning fusillages and debris were left hanging in the eucalyptus trees shading the brook. Some ten years later an official monument was created in the adjacent land. The official monument is built in such a way that respects the ‘unofficial’ memorials that the parents placed by the brook.

Here is a short film that ‘walks’ from the official monument, to the brook itself with the parents’ memorials.

[The sound includes the clicking of the camera, which can be a bit distracting, but we’d nevertheless recommend leaving the sound on: the silence, the flowing water, and the birds give the atmosphere of this extraordinary place.]

Play the video http://youtu.be/okriOc08cdg

Allow for a full 60 seconds of silence after the video comes to an end.

Leave room for any comments.  Why do you think it was the parents themselves who insisted on an official memorial, when the unofficial one was already there?  Which do you think would be more powerful for a visitor who does not know any of the background?

Part 4 - ‘emotional mind map’ Feel free to make use of a Mind Map program, such as https://www.mindmup.com for this activity, although one can of course simply make use of pen and paper!

Ask everyone to take ten minutes to map out the responses to the helicopter crash they have experienced: the song, the video clip of the song, the official monument, and the hangings in the trees. You be the judge as to whether they should work on their own, in pairs, or in groups.  What lines of feeling, causality, agreement or dissonance do these different monuments form between each other?  What emotional responses do each of them elicit from you? Allow time to share these maps.

[Mention at some point how each person in Israel has their own map – for each event, for each soldier, for each time a song is played that refers to a death, and for each death reported. Imagine such an interleaving of emotional maps in one country...]

Part 5 - Thinking Yom HaZikaron Bearing in mind these intermeshing emotional mind maps of Israeli loss, it should come as no surprise that Yom HaZikaron is one of the most notoriously difficult of days for Diaspora Jewry to mark. It is full of terribly complex emotions on the part of Israelis and non-Israelis.

Split participants into small groups

 Have you ever been to a Yom HaZikaron ceremony?  Was it inspiring? Moving? Boring? Irritating?  How would you advise your community or your Hillel to mark Yom HaZikaron?  Come up with your set of recommendations.

Have each group share their ideas.

If you feel the group has invested in this activity, you might want to suggest that they indeed run the Hillel Yom HaZikaron ceremony this year.

Post-Session Reflection for Facilitator Success Checklist  Have participants begun to grasp the Israeli culture of loss, in all its complexities?  Did participants come up with original or interesting ideas for marking Yom HaZikaron at Hillel?

How did it go? Reflection on the session: In the "Success Checklist," if you aren't able to answer "yes," to the questions, why do you think these objectives weren't achieved? ______

What was one thing that surprised you during the session? ______

What was something that happened that you weren't prepared for? ______

Was there anything that happened in the group that needs to be addressed in the next session? ______

Is there anything you want to discuss with your mentor or supervisor?

The Helicopter Disaster On 4 February 1997, two Sikorsky CH-53 helicopters collided over She’ar Yishuv in northern Israel. The helicopters were supposed to have crossed the border into Israel’s “security zone” in Lebanon, but they were hovering while waiting for official clearance to go. Previously Israel had moved troops by ground, but this policy changed as the threat of roadside bombs from Hizbullah increased. 73 IDF soldiers died. Erez Shtark, the lyricist of the song, was among them. There were no survivors.

The soldiers themselves were buried in their own locales, but parents felt the need to create a more public commemoration of the disaster. Their initial and later memorials are situated exactly where burning fusillages and debris were left hanging in the eucalyptus trees shading the brook. Some ten years later an official monument was created in the adjacent land. The official monument is built in such a way that respects the ‘unofficial’ commemoration of the parents.