The Second Year: Summer Institute For Israel Studies 2005 Evaluation
Annette Koren, PhD December, 2005
2005 SIIS Report
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges research analyst, Nicole Samuel, and research assistants Masha Sud Lokshin, Laura Rosen, Julie Bailit, and Alexandra Herzog for their assistance in the preparation of this report.
2005 SIIS Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 BACKGROUND...... 4 EVALUATION ...... 5 THE INSTITUTE...... 6 AT BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY...... 6 Presenters ...... 6 Bookshelf and Reading List...... 7 Participants...... 8 Program...... 9 IN ISRAEL ...... 11 ISSUES ...... 12 PEDAGOGY ...... 13 PARTICIPATION...... 13 PACE ...... 14 OUTCOMES...... 15 IMPACT ON PARTICIPANTS...... 15 NEW AND IMPROVED COURSES ...... 17 STUDENTS ...... 18 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 20 APPENDICES ...... 23 APPENDIX A: PRESENTERS AT BRANDEIS ...... 23 APPENDIX B: SPEAKERS IN ISRAEL...... 24 APPENDIX C: PARTICIPANTS 2005...... 26 APPENDIX D: PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS...... 27 APPENDIX E: ONE DAY AT THE SUMMER INSTITUTE FOR ISRAEL STUDIES...... 28 APPENDIX F: ISRAEL ITINERARY JULY 1-7, 20025...... 30 APPENDIX G: SYLLABI DEVELOPED AT THE SEMINAR...... 33 APPENDIX H: ALL PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS, 2004 AND 2005 ...... 34
1 2005 SIIS Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Brandeis University Summer Institute for Israel Studies (SIIS), now in its second year, has grown from a two-week program of intensive seminars on the Brandeis campus, to a three-week program with two weeks at Brandeis and a third in Israel. SIIS was again co-sponsored by the American Jewish Committee.1 Its goal has remained the same: to promote Israel studies in universities and colleges by providing participating faculty with serious academic understanding of Israel as a civilization, a multifaceted modern society, and as part of the larger history of the Jewish people.
The Institute’s immediate objectives are to equip participants with the knowledge and confidence to introduce new courses or to enhance the courses they currently teach. To that end, participants are provided with resources, seminars, consultation on syllabi development, and an experience in Israel. SIIS has also sought to create a community of scholars committed to and capable of promoting the study of Israel on campuses around the world. The Institute strives to enable its participants to help their students develop a deep knowledge and understanding of Israel, its history, its culture, and its society.
This evaluation indicates that SIIS 2005 has been successful in accomplishing its short- term objectives.
• The Institute successfully recruited 21 PhDs from twenty different American, Australian and British institutions. They brought expertise in history, sociology, philosophy, political science and anthropology. • Participants were given access to current and classical scholarship both in resource materials and lectures. Topics covered included Zionist thought, literature, art, Israel as a democratic and Jewish state, Israeli political culture, origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict, religious Zionism, and Israeli music. • The Institute included readings and presentations representing a broad range of points of view and perspectives on Israel and its place in the Middle East. • All participants appreciated the Institute as an opportunity to learn more about Israel
1 SIIS was founded in 2004 with a generous gift from Phyllis and Joseph Gurwin. Additional support has been provided by, among others: Arlene Zimmerman Kaufman and Sanford M. Baklor; Ronald Stephen Baron; Irwin and Roberta Chafetz; Guilford Glazer; Shirley and Milton Gralla; Alan C. Greenberg; Beth Schultz Klarman and Seth Klarman; Edward C. Levy; Judd D. Malkin; Eda and Joseph Pell; Rebecca Amitai and Morty Schaja; Louise and Michael Stein; and grants from The Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation; The Dorothy and Julius Koppelman Institute on American Jewish-Israeli Relations of the American Jewish Committee; The Koret Foundation; San Francisco Federation’s Jewish Community Endowment Fund; Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago; Lowenberg Family Supporting Foundation; Solelim Fund of UJA Federation of New York.
2 2005 SIIS Report
and to build a network of professional relationships. • All participants submitted syllabi for courses they plan to teach about Israel. If all these courses are taught and enrollments are as expected, more than 800 students will be affected in the next two years (2005-6 and 2006-7) by this cohort of the Institute.
The Institute used feedback from the 2004 cohort to improve the program in 2005. Organizers added new subject areas (e.g. on gender and minorities in Israeli society) and the Israel trip component. Participants responded to the trip with enthusiasm, and their overall assessment of the Institute—the learning, the Israel experience, developing a network of colleagues—is positive. They feel empowered to teach about Israel more effectively, and they are creating new courses about Israel based on the resources of the Institute and their experience there. As well, they suggest ways to improve the program and enhance its outcomes. Participants’ and presenters’ thoughts and comments as well as an analysis of the program itself are the basis of this report. The three most salient suggestions that came up in interviews with them are:
• Offer enhanced opportunity for participants to process what they learn. • Deal with the issue of how to present an unbiased approach to the subject of Israel ‘up front’ as a pedagogical concern to help participants learn the skills to address controversial issues in the classroom • Bring presenters together to share their ideas and approaches with each other.
The recommendations section at the conclusion of this report elaborates on these suggestions.
Participants are positive about the program and excited about introducing new and revised courses on their campuses. Some courses planned during the 2004 Institute have already been added to university catalogues, and both cohorts will be adding more courses in the coming academic year. Even those participants who were already knowledgeable about Israel feel that their horizons have expanded. The next step is to follow the development of Israel courses on their campuses. What future courses are introduced? How do the syllabi evolve over time? How many students are drawn to these courses? And what kind of impact does Israel studies have on students and discussions about Israel on campus?
“When I say it was one of the best experiences of my life, I really feel that way. It was wonderful… just superb.”
3 2005 SIIS Report
BACKGROUND
“Under the guidance of distinguished scholars, each seminar in this newly emerging field will explore a significant area with a view to developing a sense for current research on central issues and familiarity with classic scholarship. The seminars include an overview of Zionist thought but primarily focus on the social, political, and economic history of the State of Israel, including settlement, immigration, nation-building, cultural studies including literature available in English translation, ethnic and religious/secular divides, Arab-Jewish relations within Israel and between Israel and states in the region, and international relations. At the conclusion of the Institute each participant will present a syllabus suitable for introduction on the home campus.” (SIIS promotional literature)
The Summer Institute for Israel Studies (SIIS), now in its second year, “is designed to assist faculty in colleges and universities primarily in North America in the design of new courses in Israel Studies they plan to introduce into the curriculum of their home campuses.” SIIS is dedicated to enhancing the skill of faculty from a broad range of institutions and disciplines to teach about Israel. Its organizers approach the subject as a topic worthy of research and exploration. On many campuses, if a course is offered about Israel, it focuses on the political or historical aspects of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. SIIS attempts to take Israel studies beyond this important but limited area. It begins with the premise that Israel offers a complex history, a multi-faceted society, and a rich culture. The organizers of the Institute are clear that the program is about legitimizing Israel as a fruitful area for scholarship and teaching.
In its first year (2004), the Institute offered a two-week intensive course on the Brandeis campus. It was led by a diverse faculty of distinguished American and Israeli scholars. In response to their own observations, an evaluation of the program, and the views of the 2004 participants, SIIS organizers added an experiential component to the program. This year’s cohort spent a week in Israel following the Brandeis seminars. They toured and spoke to scholars, politicians, activists, and cultural leaders of the country. The Israel trip was matched to the topics studied at Brandeis with input from presenters. Organizers realized that getting participants on-site—to see and relate to what they were learning from lectures and reading material at Brandeis—would help them internalize the information as no classroom experience could. The Israel trip represented the opportunity for active learning by participants. It was designed to engage them with Israel and put them in direct contact with some of the country’s important thinkers.
“Theoretically they can teach about Israel without having spent significant time there, but it’s day and night. It’s the most significant difference. Anyone who teaches Israel studies without having been there lacks an important dimension. People teach about Sudan, Lebanon and Syria without having been there, but if the opportunity is there, it should be taken advantage of. It changes perspectives in a very, very significant manner.” (Presenter)
4 2005 SIIS Report
The two components merge cognitive and experiential approaches to learning about Israel. Organizers hope that this educational experience along with quality lectures providing information on a broad range of topics will empower participants to teach about the complexity of Israel and its people. The ultimate goal of the Institute is to reach as many students as possible through these participants—to help them develop courses about Israel.
Evaluation
The Institute has contracted for an independent evaluation of the process and outcomes of the program. The principal data for the study were gathered from telephone interviews with each participant before and after the Institute. Participants were asked about their prior teaching especially concerning Israel. They were asked about other opportunities on campus for students to learn about Israel, and this was checked for accuracy against course catalogues. Other questions focused on their background on Israel and new Israel courses they hoped to introduce on their campuses. Post-Institute interviews discussed reactions to the program—its content, format and pace—what they learned and what they would have liked to have covered that was not part of the curriculum. They were also asked about how they would use what they learned and their future expectations for follow-up from SIIS staff.
Several presenters were interviewed as well—those who presented more than two sessions and those who were involved in developing the Israel component of the program. An analysis of syllabi produced by participants at the end of the Brandeis section of the program has also been incorporated in this overall evaluation.
This report is divided into three sections: a description of the Institute itself, both at Brandeis and in Israel; a section on ways the program could be enhanced; and immediate outcomes as measured by participants’ perceptions of impact on themselves, independent analysis of the number and content of new and revised courses that will be taught in the near future by both the first and second cohorts of SIIS, and the number of students these courses will potentially reach. The last section presents conclusions and recommendations.
5 2005 SIIS Report
THE INSTITUTE
"It was an incredible experience and I'm very thankful for it.”
SIIS provided an intensive program of seminars at Brandeis University from June 15 to June 29, 2006. July 1 through July 7 was spent in Israel in a total immersion experience of learning and meetings with Israelis. This section describes the Brandeis and Israel components of the program.
At Brandeis University
Presenters “Sessions were very serious, very good. Presenters were very good, but at times they encountered very tired people.” SIIS assembled a faculty of 13 presenters from Israeli and American institutions (see Appendix A). They taught between one and three sessions each. Some participated in one of the two panel discussions: “Israel as a Democratic State” and “Presenting Israel in the Public Sphere.”
In keeping with a multidisciplinary approach to Israel, presenters contributed expertise in a range of subject areas. Five were trained as historians and four were in fields related to the culture of Israel—art, literature, film and music. A political scientist, a sociologist, an expert in religious Zionism and an authority on politics in the Middle East also presented.
The range of Institute expertise is evident in the following list of seminars.
Table 1: Seminar Topics (in order presented)
Topics Presenter Early Zionist Thought Eugene Sheppard Zionist Settlement Ilan Troen Later Zionist Thought Eugene Sheppard Early Hebrew Literature Arnold Band Music of Israel Josh Jacobson Messianism and Zionism Aviezer Ravitzky Israeli Film Sharon Pucker Rivo Hebrew Literature Post-Independence Arnold Band War of Independence Ilan Troen Religious and Secular Jews in Israel Aviezer Ravitzky Mizrachim Zvi Ben-Dor Contemporary Hebrew Literature Arnold Band Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Elie Rekhess Gender and Society Shulamit Reinharz
6 2005 SIIS Report
Table 1 (cont’d)
Topics Presenter Ultra-Orthodoxy in Israel Aviezer Ravitzky Arab Minority in a Jewish State Elie Rekhess Translating Ideology into Politics: the Yishuv Gabriel Sheffer Israel in the Middle East (a strategic analysis) Shai Feldman Fundamentalism Elie Rekhess Israeli Political Culture Gabriel Sheffer Israeli Visual Art: Between East and West Gannit Ankori Israel/Arab Negotiations Shai Feldman Briefing on Disengagement Feldman Roundtable: Israel as a Democratic and Jewish State Steven Bayme, Sheffer, and Troen Revisionism: the Holocaust as a Litmus Test in Ilan Troen Interpreting Israeli History Israel and World Jewry Bayme Presenting Israel in the Public Sphere Bayme, Troen
Some participants commented on the preponderance of history, others on what they perceived to be an over-use of certain presenters whose topics they thought might have been covered in fewer sessions. In any Institute such as SIIS in which participants come from different backgrounds, their assessment of presenters reflects their own interests and expertise. Participants with more familiarity with a topic tended to be more critical of that area of discussion. Most participants had favorites whom they described as “outstanding,” “master teachers,” “absolutely interesting, fantastic.” Several participants commented that some of the presenters were lecturing outside of their areas of expertise, and some, of course, were considered more effective than other. But according to most participants, the lectures were highly informative and stimulating. They were “topnotch – almost all were excellent” – and participants felt they learned a lot from them.
Bookshelf and Reading List
“The syllabus was rich, the core and recommended readings were fantastic, and I truly enjoyed the benefit of receiving the texts in advance of the program.”
SIIS continued in providing a generous selection of materials for participants as part of a “bookshelf.” Six books were provided in the pre-program reading package and numerous articles were made available on-line. Although some participants complained that too much reading was required, most found it possible to do as much as they felt was needed to keep up. One said he was continuing to do the reading now that he had returned from Israel.
Much as the list of seminar sessions (Table 1) reveals the breadth of subject coverage, the reading list indicates its depth. In each area, scholars representing different positions are included. For example, the readings in history include Palestinian thinkers such as
7 2005 SIIS Report
Ahmad H. Sa’adi, and Israeli “new historians” sympathetic to the Palestinian narrative such as Avi Shlaim, Benny Morris, Laila Parsons and Ilan Pappe. The Institute’s reading list also includes articles by scholars who have criticized that approach: Efraim Karsh, Yehoshua Porath and Ran Aaronsohn. Just as the reading list shared the richness of Israeli literature and art, it shared sharp critiques of Israeli society. Participants were encouraged to read Susan Sered’s account of how Israel treats women. To help participants understand the position of Arabs in Israel, they read the work of Israeli Arabs and Palestinians as well as Jewish Israelis. All together, over 160 articles and selections were listed as either essential, recommended or important readings for participants, and many of these selections were made available on-line. The website itself, with the bookshelf and the vast array of materials, was described by one participant as a “treasure trove.”
In the two months since Institute participants returned from Israel, the program has sent (through its listserv which includes both the 2004 and the 2005 cohorts) ongoing updates about articles, books, and ideas. A link to a new journal, Ben Gurion University Review (BGU), was sent out, and a 2005 participant has already found its articles useful. The Institute distributed a review of a Aharon Megged novel recently published in English and links to publications and discussions of the Israel Democracy Institute. Organizers are adding to the “bookshelf” and scanning more articles for on-line access. Much as last year, participants appreciate the generosity of SIIS in providing them with resource materials, the program itself, and this follow-up from Institute staff.
Participants
“I think the group had quite a number of very knowledgeable and engaged people with backgrounds and perspectives that complemented each other.”
SIIS attracted more applicants in 2005 than in its first year, and was more selective in deciding whom to accept. Each participant had a doctoral degree, and most had publications. Some are well-known experts in their fields of study. Their degrees come from prestigious institutions: three from Columbia and two from UC Berkeley. Other participants have degrees from Harvard, Stanford and other well-respected universities. Seven of the participants are directors of departments or organizations. At least three are full-professors. Some teach graduate students, others focus on undergraduate instruction. One presenter described the participants as “a pretty impressive group.” Another thought the “new group was better, perhaps much better, than last year’s. They were very experienced in teaching and very curious about the State of Israel.” He described them as more comprehensive, more cohesive as a group, and he thought most had actually read the book he assigned.
Participants represented a wide variety of schools in terms of geography, size, and type of institution. Some of the larger schools from which participants came are UCLA, Michigan State and University of North Texas. Brown was the only Ivy League school represented. Two Catholic universities (Seton Hall and DePaul) and two Jewish institutions (Hebrew College, Boston and Hebrew Union College, New York) sent
8 2005 SIIS Report
participants. Nineteen of the participants were from schools located in the United States, one from Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia and the other from Reading University in Great Britain. The schools ranged in size from fewer than 200 students to over 35,000. The majority of these institutions (15 of 21) already offered at least one course on Israel, but none had an established program in Israel studies.
The majority of participants were affiliated with Jewish Studies Programs or departments (13 of 21) and twelve of them had already taught courses dealing with Israel at least in a limited way, some as part of a Zionism course (History of Zionism and Israel), others focused on specific fields of expertise (Israel through Film). About half of the participants came to the program with significant knowledge and experience of Israel. At least eleven had lived for some period of time in Israel and as many have working knowledge of Hebrew. (One suggested that Hebrew texts be made available for the two- thirds he thought had reading fluency.)
Participants came from a variety of disciplines but the largest contingent (nine) were historians. Three were trained as sociologists, and three others in philosophy or religion. Others had their PhDs in Near Eastern Studies, communications, Jewish education, political science or anthropology. (More details on participant characteristics can be found in Appendix D.)
Given this rich array of knowledge and experience among participants, a second avenue of learning was available at the Institute. Participants were able to learn from each other. When asked to what extent this was the case, most (17) described the participant group as one of the strong points of SIIS. One said she learned as much from her colleagues as from the presenters and that “this was one of the high points” of the program for her. Another felt she learned more from her colleagues than from presenters. It was a “real privilege,” one participant said, to engage with others in the group. The participants’ different backgrounds led to interesting discussions and a "shadow seminar" beyond the courses themselves.
All participants reported that they respected the other members of the group and that they had the potential to learn from them. Half, however, felt the program did not leave adequate time or space for them to connect with each other and really utilize their peers’ expertise. Two observed that participants separated into gender and generational subgroups, although one of them acknowledged that “sometimes these groups did intermingle.”
Program
“I learned a tremendous amount but it was too much. It was absolutely exhausting.”
A sample day at the Institute is included in Appendix B, June 23. The day started with a two and a half hour seminar on the Arab minority in Israel. Approximately 100 pages of reading was assigned for this seminar, and a generous selection of ‘important’ and ‘recommended’ reading was also listed in the syllabus. It was followed immediately by a
9 2005 SIIS Report participant-led luncheon seminar entitled “Perceptions of the Arab-Israeli Conflict on Campus” which lasted from 11:30 to 1:00. An hour break followed, and at 2:00 participants gathered again in the seminar room for another lecture, this one on translating ideology into politics in the Yishuv. Seven chapters of reading in three different books were required for this class. At 4:30 pm participants had a break to eat dinner and prepare for the next day’s classes. A third seminar met after dinner from 7:30 to 9:00 pm. It focused on the strategic position of Israel in the Middle East and it required only three chapters of reading. Altogether the participants spent six and a half hours in lecture seminars and an additional hour and a half in a luncheon discussion. This was a typical day for SIIS for the U.S. portion of the seminar.
The luncheon seminars, designed as an opportunity for participants to learn from their peers, were new in 2005, but participants considered them less successful than the presenter-led sessions. The days were too full for the extra hour and a half session, and the group was too large for a productive conversation.
Participants had access to the syllabus and reading assignments well in advance of the Institute and could have prepared before they arrived in Waltham. This may be unrealistic for academics who are finishing the spring term and grading papers and exams. At least one participant said he thought other participants had not done the readings and came to seminars unprepared. One who thought the reading list was too long suggested that SIIS “go where the student is” in terms of their abilities to absorb information. Most participants were struck by the comprehensiveness of the Institute. For one who was new to teaching Israel, the curriculum was “extraordinary.” He described the syllabus as “rich,” the core and recommended readings as “fantastic,” and he truly enjoyed the benefit of receiving the texts in advance of the program.
Feedback from the 2004 faculty participant cohort suggested that a number of additional topics should be covered. Organizers were assiduous in responding to their suggestions and this year’s seminar included a focus on issues such as gender and mizrachim. In terms of disciplinary coverage, only two 2005 respondents reported concern that anthropological and sociological approaches had been inadequately dealt with. Another participant, perhaps recognizing the efforts to balance the program in that respect, lamented the lack of what he called the “old political narrative” in the program. At least three people felt the Institute should have offered more on the Israeli economy and two suggested that it should have included an “authentic Palestinian voice.” The program this year did include discussion of the Israeli economy in a three-hour session at Tel Aviv University, and substantial representation of Palestinian perspectives. The latter was most evident in the Israel portion of the seminar where participants met with a number of Palestinians (see description below and Appendix B and F), and those views were also strongly represented in readings for the two weeks at Brandeis.
A small group (three) of somewhat younger participants were critical of the Institute faculty for being too pro-Israel. They said several presenters had allowed their political agendas to interfere with their academic perspective. The critics were a small minority and others felt advocacy for Israel was not emphasized strongly enough. Several
10 2005 SIIS Report
participants suggested that SIIS deal with the issue of bias “up front” and discuss it as a topic, perhaps by devoting an early session of the program to how to avoid it or deal with it in the classroom. “The advocacy issue has to be addressed,” one said. “That was not addressed directly. It came up as criticism, but it could have been a focus for an important discussion.”
In Israel
“Israel was the highlight. It made the difference between being an armchair anthropologist and going out into the field. Brandeis made the Israel program even richer. The two parts were wonderfully complementary.”
The Israel portion of the Institute lasted one week. Being in Israel gave participants the opportunity to see and experience what they had discussed in the seminars at Brandeis and to broaden their perspectives by encountering those who live the issues they study and teach. A presenter spoke of adding this element of the program: “This year in Israel—we added an important dimension—a direct touch with reality for good and bad.” For participants, being in Israel was central to the value of the Institute. They often felt overwhelmed by the emotional impact of the experience as well as by the amount of content and activity packed into each day. Yet almost all of them would have liked to have spent even more time in Israel, and they were hard-pressed to say which elements of the Israel trip they would have sacrificed for more sleep.
The itinerary for the Israel portion of the seminar included a diverse set of meetings and visits (see Appendix F). Participants attended Shira Hadasha, an egalitarian mehitzah minyan for religious services in Jerusalem on Shabbat; they traveled to Sderot in the Northern Negev near Gaza and met with its mayor; they experienced a Bedouin city in Rahat (unlike the Bedouin camps most tourists visit); and listened to a panel of Palestinian and Israeli scholars discuss Israel as a democratic and Jewish state at the Van Leer Institute. They visited the Palmach Museum, the Western Wall tunnels, viewed a segment of the security fence, and met with Israeli author, Etgar Keret.
Participants described their favorite encounters although often within the frame of the lack of time for processing. For example, one participant said “the visit to Sderot was great, a fascinating experience, but there was no processing time.” For another, the Van Leer Institute provided “more opportunity for dialogue among the panelists and the group [but] that session could have been another hour longer… it was cut short.” Since the “most radical speaker” was at the Van Leer Institute, this participant felt “we needed more time to process and debate about it.” Another participant described the experience of the Palmach museum. He said members of the group “came out with divergent opinions,”and he felt this was something the group needed more time to discuss and reflect on.
For two participants the visit to SELAH – Israel Crisis Management Center – was extremely important. According to one, it was “the first time there were real people doing real things. They were great. Here was the center I’d been missing. Here was an
11 2005 SIIS Report
opportunity to talk about a culture of volunteerism and philanthropy … and using that as a springboard to talk about Israeli society.”
Most participants felt the two components – Brandeis and Israel – linked well to each other. “Organizers did a great job in connecting specific issues discussed at Brandeis to what we encountered in Israel.” One participant described some of the “synchronicities:” lectures on Israel’s strategic position and talks in the Foreign Ministry, the sessions on Israeli literature and the meetings with Etgar Keret and Gadi Taub, sessions on religious Zionism and the visit to Ofra.—“a discussion that got pretty hot and was very valuable on its own but which also [provided] a tremendous framework to understand [the settlement movement.] Another participant said the Israel experience was a “wonderful complement” to the program at Brandeis and was “necessary, valuable, and enriching.” Some participants reflected on the evening when the program’s director opened his home and garden to them. One said, “We bonded as a group in a way we never had the opportunity to before.”
Overall, reactions to the trip were almost unanimously positive. “I’m Israeli,” one participant said, “but I’ve never had the opportunity to see Israel like this.” Eleven of the participants had lived in Israel, and all but one of the others had been there before, yet they saw aspects of Israel they had never seen. “[Israel] added a tremendous amount. It’s one of these things when you’re just reading articles and talking to academics … you need to get out and test some of these things and test your categories, terms and assumptions. Without the trip it would have felt too bookish instead of a real conversation about a real place.”
“To teach about Israel not as an abstraction but as a living cultural organism constantly being made and remade.... We were given lots of reading and introduced to people who did that. And then when we met with people in the field—it became really palpable."
ISSUES
“Pedagogy, participation, and pace are big issues. Pedagogy—[the Institute] ought to be more open to active learning especially with advanced academics like these. Participation— there ought to be space for that to happen. Pace—there ought to be attentiveness to what a grueling pace means over time.”
The Institute conveyed vast amounts of information in lectures and in the Israel trip. In the process of transmitting large quantities of information and providing meaningful experiences in Israel, the Institute can only be regarded as a success. In terms of helping participants to develop or change their approach to the teaching of Israel, however, the Institute may need to think through the issues of pedagogy, participation and pace. The question is not simply whether participants now know more about Israel, but are they ready to be more effective teachers of the topic? Can they integrate what they have learned in other fields into their own disciplines? Do they feel equipped to manage areas of significant controversy? And how can they bring back the experiential piece?
12 2005 SIIS Report
Pedagogy
Some participants felt more secure than others in their abilities to use what they learned during SIIS, One of the participants described how a presenter had tried to help them understand how to use Hebrew literature in their classes. “I learned more about how to be a better teacher from [that] presenter,” he said. But another spoke of the “great” pieces he would not be able to use because he didn’t have the tools. “What can I do,” he asked, “with literature and art? I don’t have the tools to deconstruct and contextualize.” This participant was not alone in feeling he needed more help learning how to integrate materials from other disciplines, but the Institute views this integrative piece as the responsibility of participants. Rather than providing them with a set curriculum for teaching about Israel, SIIS aims to empower participants to use their own creativity in introducing resources and conveying information outside their own areas of expertise.
Participation
“There was not enough dialogue or interaction among the participants and the presenters, and the method of learning was frontal, very formal.”
Participants came to SIIS with different learning styles and different expectations. For some, the mixture of lectures and discussion was balanced, but for almost half there was not enough time to process the seminars. There are two issues to be addressed regarding the amount of time and the effort accorded to discussion in the Institute’s seminars. The first is, can participants process this much material without having more opportunity to reflect on it together during class time or in facilitated but less formal small group conversations? The second is, what can the Institute do to help participants feel confident about teaching a very controversial subject to students who come to class with strongly held views formulated on the basis of very little real knowledge.
The first issue, that of learning style, was posed by one participant who said he was able to learn a lot from other participants, but there was not enough time nor was there a structure for processing the breadth and depth of scholarship presented by the Institute. Another talked about the preponderance of lectures and whether that was appropriate for the level of learners and the subject matter. A third said he “would rather learn how to engage in teaching more than being lectured on various topics.” He thought that presenters may not have had a clear understanding of the program's goals. One of the presenters who sat in on other presenters’ sessions observed that “some people were very quiet and some more active.” He said, “someone should pay attention to that and try to encourage [participants] to participate.” It was clear in interviews with presenters that they had not been able to discuss the program with each other, nor did they have a sense of a desired pedagogical approach to the subject matter. One said “There is the classical dilemma between how much time you allocate for lectureship and how much for discussion. [It] will always be a dilemma,” but he felt the group was very eager to discuss and debate.
13 2005 SIIS Report
About half the group felt the need for more discussion, but others thought the balance between lecturing and discussion was “just about right.” “This is the problem of [SIIS] being a seminar and not a lecture,” a participant said. “People were participating in discussions and asking questions. So many presenters simply didn't have time to present all their material because participants wanted to talk.” But he was not critical of the discussions or questions. He and others recognized and appreciated the Institute’s challenge in fitting so much information into three weeks.
Almost all participants found the syllabus exercise helpful. (“We moaned and griped at the time but... it's incredibly valuable to have a whole stack of ideas from other people.”) But it was not as interactive or collaborative as some participants would have liked. “Everybody [went] into their corner to develop their syllabus” was the way a participant described the process. This was a highly successful endeavor which she and others thought could have been made more effective through more group interaction—people “talking about underlying assumptions and helping to push each other’s thinking.” Presenters other than the organizers were not involved in the syllabi preparation. Most of the presenters who were interviewed expressed interest in seeing the syllabi when told they were on the SIIS Website “bookshelf”, but they had not seen them before, had not known they were available, nor had they been consulted by participants in their preparation.
The second issue is the use of discussion in order to help participants learn the facilitation techniques necessary to manage controversial issues in the classroom. Perhaps most participants have these skills (or think they have them), but others would have appreciated more opportunity to see presenters model or discuss ways to direct the conversation in potentially polarized classrooms. Although the program did include a luncheon discussion entitled “Perceptions of the Arab-Israeli Conflict on Campus,” some participants suggested that the venue and format were not conducive to an exchange of ideas. One suggested that a block of time be built into the program for discussing how to teach the controversy.
Future Israel courses on campus will probably attract students with deeply held convictions about Israel and its policies. The challenge for SIIS participants is to offer their students a dispassionate, unbiased and scholarly presentation of Israel. Opening up the process to a discussion of how best to accomplish that, without letting the ‘conflict’ set the agenda for the Institute, would help them address that challenge.
Pace
Both years’ cohorts were divided about the pace of the Institute. Some described it as “intense” or even “grueling,” but they felt it was appropriate for this kind of endeavor. One said he thought SIIS could benefit from “judicious pruning,” but as was the case last year, few participants could specify areas of learning or specific seminars they would have been willing to do without. Even those few who had negative reactions to particular presenters were unwilling to dispense with their subject areas.
14 2005 SIIS Report
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) summer seminars and institutes for college and university faculty typically run four to six weeks. Those which take place abroad run for at least five weeks. The success of these NEH seminars suggests that attracting participants to SIIS might not be hindered by a longer time commitment. Particularly during its Israel component the Institute fit a vast number of topics, sites and range of opinions into a very limited amount of time. While recognizing the additional expense that expanding the length of the Institute would incur, participants suggested such expansion as a way to enrich the program and create a more comfortable learning environment. Such additional enrichment and comfort, although desirable, may not be necessary, given how successful SIIS has been in achieving its goals. This success is the topic of the following section on outcomes.
OUTCOMES
“I hope in many more universities and colleges they will teach Israel and they will teach it in a better way.” (Presenter)
SIIS is designed to achieve three outcomes, and these are being accomplished. First, it is preparing faculty—giving them the information and resources they need to teach courses on Israel studies. Second, those faculty members are helping to change institutions of higher learning so that they will present such courses and make them part of their established catalogue of offerings. Finally, participants already in the fall term of 2005 are reaching students through both revised and totally new courses. This section explores the impact of the Institute on the participants as scholars and as teachers. It then looks at the courses they are introducing and the students they hope to attract.
Impact on Participants
"[The Institute] gave us a framework of how to present Israel studies—how to teach Israel studies. I can now go to my department chair and offer a class in Religion and Society in Modern Israel. … I can now teach Israel studies. …That's the most important thing. And it worked. That goal has been achieved.”
The Institute had a profound impact on all the participants. Even those who had critiques report that they are recommending the program to colleagues. All participants reported areas of learning and growth. One of the more critical participants speaking about the Arab and Bedouin populations of Israel said she had learned things she had not realized before. “They were in my blind spot and now they are not.” And she acknowledged being enriched by learning about primary source materials and how to use them in her classes. Others were even more enthusiastic about what they had learned and how it has empowered them to teach Israel studies. SIIS was for one “an antidote to hubris. As much as I thought I knew about this subject, I realize now that I was much more ignorant than I usually am [before teaching a new course].”
15 2005 SIIS Report
SIIS did not set out to change participants’ opinions, but they did hope to make participants aware of the complexity of the issues and the different understandings posited in scholarly debate. Indeed, participants across the political spectrum reported that their opinions and ‘beliefs’ were unchanged but they were nonetheless deeply affected and in possession of more information. One said he came away with “increased awareness of certain aspects of Israeli culture. My own ideological beliefs did not change, I remain a scholar of Israel and not a believer in all that is Israeli.” Another spoke of his “life-long involvement in Israel.” He said that had not changed, but he had been exposed to more negative aspects of Israel, and that was useful (and disheartening). “When one is confronted with the full brunt of the demographics, these are not simple things to absorb.” Participants came away with a new understanding of the challenges facing Israeli society. One described it as “terrifyingly complex” and another said he had a new understanding of how difficult it is to establish democratic institutions in such “a very complex situation.”
When asked specifically what they had learned, participants spoke of disciplines: history, politics, and culture. Some felt they had benefited simply from being in the company of so many colleagues from different fields and different kinds of institutions. For one, the most important piece was the “whole list of friends to contact with questions.” He gained a “much better understanding of the place of Israel in the world.” Some participants were very specific about what they learned. One with previous Israel teaching experience said he gained “a better understanding of the collapse of Oslo and the disengagement.” He now feels he is “more in control of those issues.” Another spoke of learning about religious Zionism for the first time. Previously, she said, she had thought about Zionism only in terms of Herzl.
Participants were also asked about the impact of SIIS on their future research. This was not an intended outcome of the program, but some of them came away with new interests, new ideas or new contacts. Potential direct scholarly outcomes from the Institute are:
• an article on “A Jewish Diaspora” with a new perspective on the idea, based on the experience at SIIS; • collaboration between two participants on an undergraduate textbook on Israel studies; • collaboration among three participants on a book of essays; • contact through SIIS providing a “new direction” for research on the politics of museums in Israeli society; • a book on "America and Israel: The Global Transformation of Jewish life in the 20th Century” and perhaps a comparative study of immigration in the two societies • a study of the birthright israel educational program.
This scholarship is perhaps more valuable as a vehicle for improving participants’ teaching of Israel in the future. As they learn more from their research, they will have more to add to their courses.
16 2005 SIIS Report
Yet another outcome of the Institute: two institutions represented in this summer’s Institute are adding chairs in Israel studies. Although the groundwork for promoting and funding these chairs was underway prior to the summer, SIIS organizers and presenters consulted to participants from these institutions and contributed to their ability to define the parameters of the positions and the potential contributions the chairs would make to the universities.
Beyond the academic, a participant is working with Israelis he met through SIIS to forge ties between the Australian Jewish community and Israel through aid work in East Timor, Fiji, and the Pacific. Participants spoke of presenters and other participants whom they have already invited or were planning to invite to speak on their campuses. A member of a Judaic Studies program will start an Israel film festival on campus in the fall and will try to bring in novelists and performers as well. He wants people to get a sense of Israel "as an evolving culture conversation. …We want to make Israel studies alive on campus, and I'll do that in all the ways I can." A co-director of a local state-based organization for Israel helps design programs for the public beyond his academic institution. He will contact some of the presenters and participants to book them for future events. And his own presentations will be much better informed as a result of SIIS. Such work takes the impact of the Institute beyond the individuals involved—to academic institutions and other venues of adult learning.
The most important impact of the Institute on participants was their increased familiarity with the scholarship and issues of Israel studies. “It was invaluable— the bibliography, speakers, and colleagues, the literature in the field,” one said. “Now I’m more comfortable discussing Israel because I have greater knowledge of more aspects of Israeli society,” said another. And a third spoke of the effect of the program as a new understanding of Israel “not as an abstraction nor a pale reflection of a conflict but … as a living, evolving, culture and society worth studying on its own.”
New and Improved Courses
All SIIS participants submitted syllabi at the end of the Brandeis section of the program. These documents are in various states of completion. Some are bare outlines—topic headings indicating the general direction the course will take. Some are fully formed with assignments tied to each class meeting. Some include written assignments and grading criteria while others are not specific about the level or prerequisites for the course. Appendix D shows all the titles for the twenty-one syllabi along with the institutions where the courses will be taught, whether each is a new or revised course, the term it will probably be offered, and the number of students likely to enroll.
Some of the courses are not new. Five are revisions. Another is an expansion of a previous intersession course with much material from the Institute added to the readings. The other 15 are totally new courses. Four of the courses are focused on Zionism and another five are primarily histories of the State. Ten of the courses deal with contemporary Israel and the complexity of its society.
17 2005 SIIS Report
It is not possible in all cases to know whether SIIS resources used in the syllabi were new to participants and their course design, but many said in interviews that they were. And many of the reading assignments in their syllabi were those used in the Institute for the sessions at Brandeis. So, for example, over half the participants used Troen’s book, Imagining Zion in their syllabi. A third used works of Aviezer Ravitzky and at least five used articles or books by Rekhess, Dowty, Sered and Smooha. Participants used stories introduced by Band (Etgar Keret’s “The Bus Driver Who Wanted to Be God” and Savyon Liebricht’s “Apples from the Desert”) and music introduced by Jacobson (Zeh Haya Beiti and the Sticker Song of HaDag Nahash). They included films from Rivo’s filmography such as “The House on Chelouche Street” or “Rain 1949.” All of these materials were discussed during the Brandeis program. Participants also used topics suggested in the Institute’s syllabus such as ‘Israel as a Democratic and Jewish State’ and ‘Competing Narratives.’ Some commented that they were still working on their syllabi and continuing to refer to resources and notes from SIIS.
Participants also spoke of the influence of SIIS on their courses. A participant with considerable experience teaching about Zionism found he had new ways “to look at the available materials” he will use in class: Israeli literature, information on ethnic groups, and films. Although he is still skeptical about his ability to integrate the materials into his course, he said he feels considerably more “sophisticated” about using literature and hopes to work with someone to help process these materials. Another felt his syllabus was affected more by new topics presented at SIIS rather than by new sources. He added films, a short story, and an additional section on Arabs in Israel, and he also came away with a better understanding of “how to incorporate literature into his history course.” Most of the sources presented at SIIS, he said, are not appropriate for his undergraduates but they have affected his teaching because they contributed to his own understanding.
Students
“I will teach students that they can't engage in a single narrative. I will encourage students to research many principles to choose one that makes the most sense to them.”
Appendix D lists all the syllabi designed by SIIS participants in 2005, but it is an incomplete list of the courses SIIS has produced or the students being affected by them. The 2004 cohort taught nine new courses in 2004-05 reaching over 250 students. They have 12 courses planned for the next two years reaching a projected 400 students. And courses offered this past year will be offered again in subsequent years to additional students. In this way, the number of students impacted by the learning experiences of the Institute will increase geometrically as the Institute moves forward.
This year’s cohort is also introducing new courses and revising others. Nine courses will be revised or newly introduced potentially reaching over 400 students this coming academic year. An additional eight courses are planned for the next two years reaching an estimated 400 students. And this list is incomplete since it refers only to the courses
18 2005 SIIS Report
submitted as syllabi during the Institute. Some of the participants reported having more than one Israel studies course in their plans for the future.
Not all the students will be Jewish. Most of the participants, even in Jewish Studies departments, typically attract many non-Jewish students to their courses. New courses, as those previously taught, will be cross-listed often in Middle East Studies departments as well as in traditional disciplines. This provides an even wider base of students potentially impacted by the program.
SIIS participants teach a number of different courses which have been influenced by SIIS. Rather than the one course she offered on Zionism in the past, a participant will now offer two sequential courses to majors, one on the early origins of the State and the second on post-1948 Israel. A participant who revised his Israel history course for this spring anticipates introducing a new course, The Politics of Modern Israel, perhaps as early as 2006-2007. Another participant intends to teach a new course in Fall 2006 and offer a revised course, on which she did her syllabus, in Spring 2007.
Other participants have said that SIIS will influence some of the courses they teach which are not specifically about Israel, for example: Modern Jewish History will have an expanded section on Israel; Modern Jewish Intellectual History will include some Israeli literature; the History of Jerusalem and the Holy Land will include a few lectures on the modern period with lectures informed by SIIS; a section on Yad Vashem and Israeli views of the Holocaust will be added to a course on the Holocaust; and Israel will be a presenting case study for a philosophy course dealing with defining a democratic society.
Students will be asked to absorb new approaches and new ways of thinking abut Israel. “Israel is a very politicized subject, a participant said. “[I want my students] to develop an understanding of what that means in terms of what people know [about Israel] and how they talk about their opinions.” Participants want their students to be able to distinguish between narratives and the historical record. “Students read the newspaper and see on the op-ed page different perspectives. We as educators need to be able to help them make sense of the discussion beyond [those] points of view. This is where the rubber hits the road.” Students of one participant will be hearing more points of view than she was able to share with them in the past, and a participant who has tried to hide his opinions in the past has decided to share them with students up front in courses he will teach on Israel. Students will benefit from teachers such as the historian who wants to take more of a “social science approach” to what was formerly a political history. He hopes to help students understand more about the “mundane” in Israel, for example, how do people make their livings?
Finally, a participant hopes to develop more of an ‘area studies’ perspective and has rethought his syllabus accordingly. What was a course focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict now has a broader scope, and the conflict is less central. Instead, it is part of the larger picture of Israeli culture, society, and history. “Israel studies as a field is not the same thing as the study of that intractable conflict,” he says, and his students will be the recipients of this more comprehensive approach.
19 2005 SIIS Report
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
If colleagues were to ask him about the Institute: “It is an incredible opportunity. For me it was one of the richest and most rewarding academic experiences I’ve ever had.”
Based on the feedback of participants, SIIS is making a difference for individual participants, their institutions, and the students they teach. Participants are offering new courses and changing those they have offered before. Their approach to the subject has changed and most of them are attempting to integrate new learning into the courses they will be teaching. Institutions will be absorbing these new courses and adding them to their catalogue of on-going offerings. Two of the universities affected by this summer’s program will be adding faculty members to concentrate in Israel studies.
Many students are already benefiting from the knowledge and the skills participants have learned through the two years the Institute has been in existence, but as in any innovative academic program seeking to change the way a subject is taught, questions remain. • What is the best mix of participants for the Institute to recruit? Should SIIS focus on any particular faculty segment or should organizers continue to strive for diversity? • Is there a particular group of institutions or type of institution that SIIS should target? Should the Institute aim to “go deep” into particular institutions or should it continue to bring in participants representing a wide range of colleges and Universities? And what recruitment channels will help in achieving the desired mix? • How can the Institute provide more opportunity for participants to discuss the ideas and resources they are exposed to? How can they develop discussion management skills to deal with highly controversial topics especially when students come to class with strongly held views but little knowledge? And how can participants maintain the intellectual rigor of SIIS in their own teaching while providing for an exchange of ideas and a more interactive learning mode? • What can be done to extend the Institute or at least the experiential part of the program and increase the linkages between the Brandeis portion and the Israel trip? • How can the Institute assess the impact of Israel studies on students? What can be done to explore student learning that results from SIIS?
Participants suggested ways to improve the Institute even as they sang its praises.
Participant selection: Most participants were happy with the broad diversity of the group. Some suggested that the Institute might target more participants with less pre-existing knowledge of Israel. One participant, who felt he already knew much of the content that others were learning for the first time suggested a two tiered
20 2005 SIIS Report
learning approach. A junior faculty member suggested that perhaps SIIS should be for faculty members with more of their careers ahead of them, but it is important to keep in mind that more senior people may be better positioned to effect change on campus. Thirteen of the participants are in Judaic Studies departments or programs where until recently courses on contemporary Israel were rarely taught. However, if SIIS wants to reach more non-Jewish students, should it target more participants from traditional disciplines whose courses perhaps attract a wider variety of students? Preparing participants: To help them deal with the challenge of the seminars at Brandeis, SIIS should stress in its early communications with participants the importance of doing as much of the reading as possible before arriving on campus. Preparing presenters: Although it would add another expense to an already very generous program, it would be helpful to have at least one meeting (at least by phone or video conference) of all Brandeis presenters sometime before the Institute meets. This would provide them with an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the content and resources being discussed by other presenters. It might also encourage them to use pieces of others’ presentations to tie into their own for a more integrated overall picture. Organizers and presenters could share their understanding of what participants need to know and what they can reasonably be expected to incorporate into their teaching. They could learn what has proved fun and interesting in the past two years and what has been used by participants in their syllabi. Developing discussion management and interactive learning skills: While realizing that the Institute is not designed to be a program on university level pedagogy, given the unique place of Israel studies in academia, more can be done to prepare faculty for the challenges of teaching in this particular area. The same meeting of presenters suggested above could devise strategies for allowing discussion time and dealing with the controversy surrounding so much of the Institute’s content areas. Dealing with the issue of bias: Organizers need to plan a strategy for introducing the issue of bias in one of the earliest sessions of the program. This would involve describing the sponsors of the program, the theory and intent of both funders and Institute staff, and laying out how the presenters and the Institute as a whole intends to deal with the issue. At the same time, this discussion can be an opportunity to explore the place of Israel studies on campus and issues dealing with both advocacy and anti-Israel polemics in the classroom in general. Extending the experiential aspect of the program: All participants expressed gratitude for the generosity of SIIS. Some of them suggested extending the Israel portion of the Institute—having two weeks in Israel and one at Brandeis, but they recognized the costliness of such a proposal. Some participants suggested other areas they would have liked the program to cover: for example, volunteerism, non-governmental organizations, and the economy. Given how full the SIIS program is already, such additions would require lengthening the Institute.
21 2005 SIIS Report
Perhaps information on NEH seminars could be used to justify the extra time and cost. Measuring the outcomes of SIIS on students: The major challenge facing SIIS evaluation going forward is determining the impact of the program on students across the country. While it is valuable to know how many are being reached, it is perhaps more important to assess what they learn and how their views of Israel are changed. This can only be accomplished through direct contact with students through surveys and interviews. This should be a component of the next step of research on the Institute.
As the evaluation continues to follow participants in both the 2004 and 2005 cohorts over the next few years, it will report on courses offered, their enrollments, and how they differ from courses that have been taught in the past. It will explore the development of the listserv and its use and it will track dissemination of new resources as they become available. Ultimately the question is whether students are changed by courses produced by SIIS and its participants.
The 2005 Institute participants came home exhausted but charged. SIIS has changed the way they are teaching about Israel and, in some cases, has newly created the capacity for such teaching. They are now beginning the process of bringing back their experiences. They look forward to sharing the knowledge and the excitement of the Summer Institute for Israel studies with colleagues and students on their campuses. .
“I’m deeply grateful for the opportunity. It was the experience of a lifetime.”
22 2005 SIIS Report
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Presenters at Brandeis
Gannit Ankori (PhD, Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Associate Professor of Art History and Theory at Hebrew University and Visiting Associate Professor of Women's Studies and Religion and Society and the Harvard Divinity School. Arnold J. Band (PhD, Comparative Literature, Harvard University) Professor Emeritus of Hebrew and Jewish literature primarily at UCLA Steven Bayme (PhD, History, Columbia University) Director of the Contemporary Jewish Life Department of the American Jewish Committee and the Institute on American Jewish-Israeli Relations Zvi Ben-Dor Benite (PhD, UCLA) Assistant Professor of History at New York University Shai Feldman (PhD, UC Berkeley) Director of the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University Joshua Jacobson (PhD, University of Cincinnati) Professor of Music and Director of Choral Activities at Northeastern University and Director of the Zamir Chorale of Boston Aviezer Ravitzky (PhD, Hebrew University) Rosenblum Chair in the Department of Jewish Thought at the Hebrew University Elie Rekhess (PhD, History, Tel Aviv University) Senior Research Fellow of the Moshe Dayan Centre for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel-Aviv University Shulamit Reinharz (PhD, Brandeis University) Director of the Women’s Studies Research Institute and Professor of Sociology at Brandeis University Sharon Pucker Rivo (MA, UC Berkeley) co-founder and Executive Director of the National Center for Jewish Film and Adjunct Associate Professor in the Near Eastern and Judaic Studies Department at Brandeis University Gabriel Sheffer (PhD, Oxford University) Professor of Political Science at Hebrew University Eugene R. Sheppard (PhD, History, UCLA) Assistant Professor of Modern Jewish History and Thought, and Assistant Director of the Tauber Institute for the Study of European Jewry at Brandeis University Ilan Troen (PhD, University of Chicago) Stoll Family Chair in Israel Studies at Brandeis University and Lopin Professor of Modern History at Ben-Gurion University
23 2005 SIIS Report
Appendix B: Speakers in Israel
AREF ABU RABIA, Lecturer in anthropology, Ben-Gurion University Middle East studies department RIAD AGBARIAH, Assistant Professor of pharmacology at Ben Gurion University AMOS ASA-EL, Executive Editor of The Jerusalem Post. ELI ATSMON, Negev Bedouin Authority MEIR AVINOAM, Ben Gurion University Professor of Geography and Environmental Development and Negev Center for Regional Development MICHAEL BARIS, Head of Mishpetei-Eretz – Institute for Halacha and Law. RUTH BAR-ON, Executive Director of Selah-Israel Crisis Management Center YEHUDA BAUER, Academic Advisor to Yad- Vashem and Senior Advisor to the 2004 Stockholm Forum on the Prevention of Genocide RIVKA CARMI, Dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Ben-Gurion University DANI BEN-DAVID, Department of Public Policy, Tel-Aviv University MUNTHER S. DAJANI, Chairman and Professor Department of Political Science and Diplomatic Studies at Al Quds University and Director of the Sartawi Center for the Advancement of Peace and Democracy HAIM DIVON, Ambassador At Large for International Cooperation at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ITZHAK GALNOOR, Fellow at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute and the Herbert Samuel Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem AVI GEISSER, Rabbi of the settlement of Ofra ISRAEL HAREL, Ofra, Fellow of the Hartman Institute in Jerusalem TOVA HARTMAN, Lecturer in Education at Hebrew University PETRA HELDT, Director of the Ecumenical Theological Research Fraternity in Israel ELI E HOLZER, Assistant Professor at the School of Education at Bar Ilan University and Senior Research Associate at the Mandel Center for Studies in Jewish Education at Brandeis University MUHAMMED HOURANI, Coordinator of the Center for Peace and Reconciliation at the Shalom Hartman Institute. JEREMY ISSACHAROFF, Deputy Director-General for Strategic Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and member of the United Nations Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters ETGAR KERET, Author, Lecturer, Ben Gurion University of the Negev TALAL AL-KRENAWI, Head of the Rahat municipality
24 2005 SIIS Report
ERAN LERMAN, Director of the American Jewish Committee Israel/Middle East Office NIMROD LUZ, Kreitman Research Fellow at the Department of Geography and Environmental Development at Ben Gurion University ADEL MANNA, Director of the Center for the Study of Arab Society in Israel at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute DAN MICHMAN, Yad Vashem, Professor of Modern Jewish History at Bar-Ilan University ELI MOYAL, Mayor of Sderot ITAMAR RABINOVICH, President of Tel Aviv University and the Yona and Dina Ettinger Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History ELIE REKHESS, Senior Research Fellow of the Moshe Dayan Centre for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel-Aviv University YITZHAK REITER, Lecturer on Islamic and Middle Eastern History at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzylia RABBI DAVID ROSEN, former Chief Rabbi of Ireland, Director of the Department for Inter-religious Affairs and Director of the Heilbrunn Institute for International Inter- religious Understanding of the American Jewish Committee NAFTALI ROTHENBERG, Senior fellow at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, Rabbi of Har Adar and Associate Professor for Judaic Studies at Touro College in Jerusalem AVNER SHALEV, Brig. Gen. (res.) Chairman of the Yad Vashem Directorate and previous Director General of the Culture Authority of the Ministry of Education and Culture GABRIEL SHEFFER, Professor of Political Science at Hebrew University DANIEL TAUB, Director of the General Law Division at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs GADI TAUB, Faculty member of the Department of Communications at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem DANIEL TSIDDON, Professor at the Eitan Bergals School of Economics, Tel Aviv University HAVATZELET YAHAL, District Attorney’s Office, Negev
25 2005 SIIS Report
Appendix C: Participants 2005
Institutions Location Number of Students Undergraduate/Graduate Brooklyn College New York 11,200 / 4213 Broward College Florida 21,000 Brown University Rhode Island 6,000 DePaul University Chicago 14,700 / 7,700 Florida Atlantic University Florida 19,600 / 3,300 Hebrew College Boston 6 / 108 Hebrew Union College New York 403 Michigan State University Michigan 35,100 / 8000 Middlebury College Vermont 2,400 San Francisco State University California 22,000 / 6,500 Seton Hall University New Jersey 5,200 / 3000 Sweet Briar College Virginia 542 / 10 U. of California Santa Cruz - Stevenson California 13,600 / 1300 UCLA California 24,900 University of Denver Colorado 4400 / 4000 University of Massachusetts, Amherst (2) Massachusetts 18,400 / 5,700 University of Miami Florida 9,700 / 3000 University of North Texas Texas 24,300 / 3500 University of Reading Great Britain 12,500 Victoria U. Melbourne Australia 10,000+
26 2005 SIIS Report
Appendix D: Participant Characteristics
Titles Post-doctoral Associate 1 Lecturer2 3 Assistant Professor 7 Associate Professor 4 Professor 3 Professor and/or director 4
Years from PhD Fewer than 5 6 5-10 11 11-20 14 More than 20 5
Other Knowledge of Hebrew 11 Israel living experiences 11 Previous experience teaching about Israel 12
2 The significance of this faculty title varies by country.
27 2005 SIIS Report
Appendix E: One Day at the Summer Institute for Israel Studies
Thursday, June 23
• 9:00 - 11:30: Elie Rekhess: Arab Minority in a Jewish State: Between Integration and Alienation Essential Reading: o Rekhess, Elie, "Initial Israeli Policy Guidelines toward the Arab Minority, 1948-1949", in Laurence Silberstein (ed.), New Perspectives in Israeli History, New York, NYU Press, pp. 103-123. o Neuberger, Binyamin, "The Arab Minority In Israeli Politics, 1948-1992: From Marginality to Influence," Asian and African Studies, 27, 1-2, March-July 1993, pp. 149- 170. o Rouhana, Nadim, "The Political Transformation of the Palestinians in Israel: From Acquiescence to Challenge," Journal of Palestine Studies, 1989, pp. 38-59. o Rekhess, Elie, "The Arabs of Israel After the Oslo: Localization of the National Struggle," Israel Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3, Fall 2002, pp. 1-44. English version is available at: http://iupjournals.org/israel/iss7-3.html Important Reading: o Kafkafi, Eyal, "Segregation or Integration of the Israeli Arabs: Two Concepts in Mapai," International Journal Middle East Studies, 30, 1998, pp. 347-367. o Peres Yochanan, "Modernization and Nationalism in the Identity of the Israeli Arabs," Middle East Journal, 24, no. 4, Autumn 1970, pp. 479-492. o Rekhess, Elie, "Israeli Arabs and the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza: Political Affinity and National Solidarity," Asian and African Studies, 23, no. 2 and 3, November 1989, pp. 119-154. o Rekhess, Elie, "Jews and Arabs in the Israeli Communist Party," in M. Esman and I. Rabinovitch (eds.), Ethnicity, Pluralism and the State in the ME, Itacha: Cornell University Press, 1988, pp. 121-139. o Mana, Adel, "Identity in Crisis: The Arabs in Israel and the Israel-PLO Agreement,"in E. Rekhess (ed.) Arab Politics in Israel at a Crossroads, TAU, 1996, pp. 79-86. Recommended Reading o Landau, Jacob. The Arabs in Israel, 1967-1991: Political Aspects, London, Oxford University Press, 1994. o Klein, C. Israel as a Nation-State and the Problem of the Arab Minority in Search of a Status, Tel Aviv: International Center for Peace in the Middle East, 1987. o Lustick, Ian. Arabs in the Jewish State Israel’s Control of a National Minority, Austin: University of Texas, 1980. o Kretzmer, David. The Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel, Tel Aviv: International Center for Peace in the Middle East, 1987. o Rouhana, Nadim. Palestinian Citizens in an Ethnic Jewish State: Identities in Conflict (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997). o Grossman, David. Sleeping on a Wire: Conversations with Palestinians in Israel, New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1993.
• 11:30am - 1:00pm Luncheon Seminar: Perceptions of the Arab-Israeli Conflict on Campus Moderator: Kaylin Goldstein Location: Levine-Ross at Hassenfeld Conference Center
28 2005 SIIS Report
• 2:00 - 4:30 Gabriel Sheffer: Translating Ideology into Politics: the Yishuv Essential Reading: o Horowitz, D. and M. Lissak, Origins of the Israeli Polity: Palestine Under the Mandate, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978, Ch. 6. o Halpern, B. and J. Reinharz, Zionism and the Creation of a New Society, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, Chs. 5- 9. o Sheffer, G., Moshe Sharett. Biography of Political Moderate. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, Ch. 33. Other essential Reading: o Sachar, H., A History of Israel. From the Rise of Zionism to our Time, New York: Alfred Knoff, 1976, Vol. I, Chs. 7- 8.
• 7:30 - 9:00 Shai Feldman: Israel in the Middle East Essential Reading: Chapter 1, 7, 9 from The Middle East Strategic Balance, 2003-2004 ed. Shai Feldman and Yiftah S. Shapir, 2004.
29 2005 SIIS Report
Appendix F: Israel Itinerary July 1-7, 20025
Friday, July 1, 2005 – Day 1
9:00 am Arrival at Ben-Gurion International Airport 6:15 pm Innovative Religious Services, Meeting with Dr. Tova Hartman and Dr. Eli Holzer of Shira Hadasha Congregation, at the congregation 6:45 pm Shabbat service at Shira Hadasha Congregation
Saturday, July 2, 2005 – Day 2
Morning options: Shabbat services Museum visits: Israel Museum; Tower of David, or Bible Lands Museum 1:00-3:00 pm Israel and the Region on the Eve of the Disengagement, luncheon meeting with Col.(ret.) Dr. Eran Lerman, Director of the American Jewish Committee’s Israel/Middle East Office, at the hotel 3:30-6:30 pm Old City of Jerusalem, tour of Christian and Jewish sites, accompanied by Dr. Nimrod Luz, Dept. of Geography, Ben-Gurion University 8:00 pm Inter-religious Affairs in Israel, dinner & panel discussion with Rabbi David Rosen, International Director of Inter-religious Affairs, American Jewish Committee, Dr. Mohammed Hourani, Hartman Institute, and Rev. Dr. Petra Heldt, The Ecumenical Theological Research Fraternity Institute
Sunday, July 3, 2005 – Day 3
9:00-10:00 am Visit the Supreme Court of Justice 10:30-12:30pm Visit Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial, and lay a wreath at the Valley of the Destroyed Communities 12.30-1.00 pm Lunch at the cafeteria with Avner Shalev, Chairman of the Yad Vashem Directorate 1:15-2:30 pm Discussion with Prof. Dan Michman, Chief Historian of Yad Vashem 3:15-5:00 pm Israel as a Democratic and Jewish State, panel discussion at the Van Leer Institute, moderated by Prof. Gabriel Sheffer, with fellows of the Van Leer Institute Rabbi Prof. Naftali Rothenberg, Prof. Itzhak Galnoor and Dr. Adel Manna 6:00-7:30 pm The Future of Jerusalem, panel discussion with Dr. Yitzhak Reiter of the the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies and Prof. Munther Dajani, Chair of Political Science and Diplomatic Studies, Al Quds University, at the hotel 9:20 pm Tour the Western Wall Tunnels
30 2005 SIIS Report
Monday, July 4, 2005 – Day 4
8:30-10:00 am Meetings at the Foreign Ministry with Jeremy Issacharoff, Deputy Director- General for Strategic Affairs, Haim Divon, Ambassador At Large for International Cooperation and Daniel Taub, Director of the General Law Division 10:45-12:00 pm Israel and the Media: What's Wrong and Will It Ever Change? meeting with Amotz Asa-El, Editor, Jerusalem Post, at Beit Moses, the American Jewish Committee’s Israel/Middle East Office 1:00-3:00 pm The Future of the Jewish Settlements, visit and lunch at Ofra and meet with Rabbi Avi Geissar Rabbi of Ofra, Yaffa Geisser, founder of Yesodot Institute and Rabbi Michael Baris Rosh Kollel Machon Mishpeti Eretz 4:00-5:00 pm View a segment of the Security Fence at the Nebi Samuel observation point accompanied by Col. (ret.) Dr. Eran Lerman, Director of the American Jewish Committee’s Israel/Middle East Office 7:30 pm Dinner with Israeli author Etgar Keret, and Prof. Yigal Schwartz , Chair of Dept. of Hebrew Literature., Ben Gurion University, at Beit Moses
Tuesday, July 5, 2005 – Day 5 Tour of Northern Negev 9:00-10:30 am Visit the town of Sderot, hosted by Mayor Eli Moyal 11:00-12:30 pm Visit Rahat, a Bedouin city, and meet with Mayor Talal Krinawi and Dr. Araf Abu Rabiya 1:00-3:30 pm Meetings with Prof. Avishai Braverman, President of Ben Gurion University and faculty members, including Dr. Elian Krinawi and Prof. Meir Avinoam, concerning Bedouin issues 3:30 pm Meeting with Havatzelet Yahel, Senior Deputy District Attorney, Southern District, with responsibility for litigation of land issues; followed by tour of unrecognized Bedouin villages 6:30 pm Dinner at the home of Carol and Ilan Troen in Omer, near Beer-Sheva
Wednesday, July 6, 2005 – Day 6 10:00 am Visit the Palmach Museum 12:00 noon Meeting with Mayor of Tel- Aviv, Ron Huldai,, at his office 1:30-3:00 pm Luncheon meeting with Prof. Itamar Rabinovich, President of Tel Aviv University and other faculty members, at the University 4:00-5:00 pm Visit SELAH-The Israel Crisis Management Center, Israel’s only countrywide volunteer network of assistance and support for new immigrants in crisis and victims of terror; meet with Director Ruth Bar-On and with other volunteers 7:45 pm Tour of Habima Theatre and meet with the actors of the musical King Solomon and Shalmai the Cobbler
31 2005 SIIS Report
8:30 pm Israeli musical production: King Solomon and Shalmai the Cobbler (lyrics and score by Natan Alterman and Moshe Argov; musical arrangements by Yoni Rechter)
Thursday, July 7, 2005 – Day 7
10:00-12:30 pm Tour of Jaffa and old Tel-Aviv neighborhood, Neve Tzedek, including the home of artist Nahum Guttman, accompanied by Tzafrir Corcia, a guide specializing in the area 1:00 pm Closing lunch and farewell at Le Relais Jaffa Restaurant with Dr. Gadi Taub, author, and member of the Dept. of Communication and Journalism, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Retrospective on the Israel portion of the Brandeis Summer Institute with Prof. Ilan Troen
32 2005 SIIS Report
Appendix G: Syllabi Developed at the Seminar
During this year and the next two years, the 2005 cohort will offer at least 15 new courses and 6 that are revised. These courses will have a likely enrollment of over 800 students. Some of the courses will likely be repeated and others will be developed. For a more complete discussion, see above, page 18.
New or Number of Syllabus Title Institution Term Revised Students Contemporary Israel: A Society Of Mosaics Brooklyn College New Fall 2006 22 Israel: Return, Messianism, Religion And Political Considerations (In Interdisciplinary Studies Program) Broward College New Spring 2007 "hundreds" Debating Zionism Brown University New Fall 2006? 10-15 Religion and Society in Modern Israel DePaul University New TBD 40 History Of Zionism And The State Of Israel Florida Atlantic Univ Revised Spring 2007 30-40 Zionism And Israel In Historical Perspective Hebrew College New 10-15 Bringing Israel Home: Exploring The Place Of Israel In American Jewish Life Hebrew Union College New Spring 2006 15-20 Jewish Diaspora And The Two Centers Of Contemporary Jewish Life: The United States & Israel Michigan State University New TBD 40 State & Society In Contemporary Israel Middlebury College New/Rev* Fall 2006 20? History Of Zionism And Israel San Francisco State University New TBD TBD The Nonprofit Sector In Israel And The United States: A Comparative Approach (Grad Course) Seton Hall University New Spring 2006 7-10 History Of Modern Israel Sweet Briar College Revised Spring 2006 15-20 A History Of Modern Israel U Cal Santa Cruz - Stevenson New Spring 2006 130 Film And Society In Israel U Mass Amherst New Fall 2005 20 Zionism and the State of Israel U Mass Amherst Revised Spring 2006 15-20 The History Of The State Of Israel: 1948 To The Present UCLA Revised Spring 2006 160-200 Israel Through Film University of Denver Revised Fall 2005 33 Israeli Society University of Miami New Spring 2006 20 History Of The State Of Israel University of North Texas New Spring 2007 36 Seminar: Israeli Society University of Reading New Fall 2006 25 Ideology, Politics And Identity In Israel Victoria U. Melbourne New TBD TBD *Revised from an abbreviated version
33 2005 SIIS Report
Appendix H: All Participating Institutions, 2004 and 2005
Institutions Location Year(s) Arizona State Arizona 2004 Bilkent University Turkey 2004 Binghamton University New York 2004 Boston College Massachusetts 2004 Brooklyn College New York 2005 Broward College Florida 2005 Brown University Rhode Island 2005 Bucknell University Pennsylvania 2004 Claremont Graduate University California 2004 DePaul University Chicago 2005 Florida Atlantic University Florida 2005 Hebrew College Boston 2005 Hebrew Union College New York 2005 Jewish Theological Seminary New York 2004 McMaster University Ontario 2004 Michigan State University Michigan 2005 Middlebury College Vermont 2005 Pennsylvania State University Pennsylvania 2004 San Francisco State University California 2005 Sao Paolo University Brazil 2004 Seton Hall University New Jersey 2005 State University of West Georgia Georgia 2004 Yeshiva University New York 2004 Sweet Briar College Virginia 2005 Temple University Pennsylvania 2004 Touro College New York 2004 U. of California Santa Cruz - Stevenson California 2005 UCLA California 2005 University of Denver Colorado 2005 University of Manchester in the UK Great Britain 2004 University of Massachusetts, Amherst (2) Massachusetts 2005 University of Miami Florida 2004, 2005 University of North Texas Texas 2005 University of Reading Great Britain 2005 Victoria U. Melbourne Australia 2005 York University, Toronto Ontario 2004
34