"Yes We Can! The Obama Age, Israel, and Me" Anna Kislanski, Hanan Cidor and Ivy Cohen

Touchstone Text: As Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, taught (Avot 2:2): All who serve in behalf of the community, they should serve for the sake of Heaven, for then the accumulated merit of our forebears will aid their efforts and their righteous deeds will have eternal effect. The Almighty will reward them abundantly as if they had done it all themselves.

Goals  To educate participants on the Obama administration views on Israel and the Middle East conflict  Show PPs how the recent shift in US-Israel relations touches on deeper questions of Jewish identity, the Jews relationship to Israel and Israel’s future.  to create an understanding within the Kutz population of the current events in the Middle East and what it means for us as Americans  To instill values of political conscience within Kutz participants, educating them to engage in debate with their peers both in secular and NFTY forums

Objectives  Have participants answer questions that reflect their own opinions about American/Israeli Politics  Have participants watch a skit that explains politics in the abstract  Enable participants to gain knowledge about what the current administration is trying to do to alleviate tension in the middle east through videos and texts  Have participants freely roam the floor to explore the areas that they are most interested in regarding America’s view towards Israel

People Needed  2 people to man the table with the questionnaires  2 people to man the table with the Netanyahu article  4 people for the skit, Ben, Jonathan, Corey, Narrator  15 GLs leaders for debrief discussion  PL (Ivy/Hanan or Anna)

Space Needed: Beit am for stations For discussions: 5 groups in beit am, 2 on beit am stage 2 groups in music room (use wall) 2 art rooms 1 group in library rest in main building if necessary groups may be outside if it is nice.

Materials  50 copies of appendix D  200 copies of appendix E  10-12 copies of appendix F  200 pens/pencils  projector  screen  laptop  speaker setup  200 posttests of different colors  30 bright colored pieces of oaktag/thickish paper  10 markers of different colors

Timeline  00:00-05:00 Opening skit  05:00-07:00 Introduction  07:00-40:00 Time line, videos and articles  40:00- 50:00 Questionnaire and dividing to groups  50:00-1:10:00 Discussion in groups  1:10:00-1:15:00 wrap up and summarization

Detailed Procedure:

1. Participants will enter the "Beit - Am" and will be seated in front of the stage.

2. After everyone is seated, a short skit will be played, serving as trigger to get the pp's thinking about U.S – Israel relations. (see skit layout at appendix A)

3. After the skit, the PL will make the following opening: “I will never forget that the only reason I'm standing here today is because somebody, somewhere stood up for me when it was risky. Stood up when it was hard. Stood up when it wasn't popular. And because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And standing up, with courage and clear purpose, they somehow managed to change the world.” Barack Obama’s words in this brief statement can be representative of the many countries that exist on the global stage without the peace and security of the United States. Israel is one of these countries. Since and even before his election, Barack Obama has tirelessly stated his support of Israel and his assurance of its security, but has also specifically stated his views as to what is needed of Israel in order to promote peace in the Middle East. On the one hand Obama has been called a true supporter of Israel and potential bringer of new hope to the Middle East, but on the other he has been blamed as being naïve and being the first President in a long time to have turned his back on one of the U.S most important and oldest allies – Israel. The latest example of this new reality was seen a few weeks ago when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Obama have been found to disagree on a couple of issues, mainly surrounding the issue of the West Bank settlements. Tonight we are going to explore the history of U.S – Israel relations, specifically focusing on the Obama administration views on Israel, giving you a chance to pick them apart, debate them, further understand them and determine for yourselves where you are in all of this.

4. Following the skit and opening statement, pp's will be asked to move around the room (Beit-Am) where a large and detailed time line of the development of U.S – Israel relations over history (up until the recent speeches made by PM Netanyahu, Chairman Abu-Mazen and President Obama) will be showed on the walls. While they are moving on their own pace, pp's will be asked to stamp color-coded posttests on the wall, according to the feeling that the information presented evokes in them (red for anger, blue for agreement/happiness, yellow for surprise). In the background and on the screen, a collection of recent Obama speeches about the Middle East will be played repeatedly. (time line can be found in appendix B, movies in appendix C)

5. On a table at the end of the timeline a number of copies of the Economist article (as it appears on appendix D) will be made available for further reading as the pp's wait for their friends to finish going through the time- line.

6. Once everyone has gone through the entire timeline and has sat down in front of the screen showing the Obama videos, pp's will be asked to fill out a short questionnaire (appendix E). On the questionnaire, pp's will be asked to rank how much they agree/disagree with a statement about the relations between the United States and Israel. Additionally, pp's will be asked to circle the question/s that provoked the strongest sentiment with them (whether it be strong agreement or strong disagreement).

7. Once everyone has completed filling out the questionnaire, pp's will be asked to divide into smaller discussion groups according to the questions that they circled as most thought and sentiment provoking. Each group should not exceed more than 20 pp's. In case of over-inflated groups, pp's should be moved to groups surrounding other questions they found as interesting to discuss. It is also possible to create more than one group surrounding a specific question.

8. In the groups, the GL will moderate a discussion surrounding the chosen question and following the rest of the discussion questions as they appear on appendix F.

Appendix A Skit Table (narrator will narrate while actors act out the scenes as they happen): Jonathan is the strongest kid in school and is widely recognized as the social leader of his grade as well as the most accomplished student and a great athlete. His family is one of the pillars of the community, and his mother is on the city council. Corey is Jonathan’s close friend; they have been close friends since grade school and Corey’s family has often been hosted by Jonathan’s family on weekends and holidays. Corey is a small kid, less talented than Jonathan, and his family is marginal in the community. At times the differences between Corey and Jonathan have created tension and distance, but their friendship goes back so long, and is rooted in many shared experiences, that it has survived and is maybe even stronger than it was years ago. Corey is temperamental, and when he is picked on, which happens quite often when Jonathan is not around, he gets angry and tends to react passionately and sometimes even violently. This interaction creates tension in the school and makes many kids like Corey even less. In the past, other kids have come to Jonathan and asked him why he is so close with Corey, given that he can sometimes be obnoxious and nasty. Jonathan has answered simply that Corey is my friend- if you left him alone, you would see how cool he could be. Two days ago, in one of those frequent run ins with Corey, he reacted fiercely and lost control of himself. When a kid named Ben insulted Corey’s family, he punched him in the face and bloodied his nose. The next day Corey followed Ben home and then punctured his bike’s tires and wrecked his chain. This morning, Ben’s friends came to Jonathan and told him that Corey is out of control and that a lot of kids are starting to think that maybe Jonathan is at fault for not stopping him. They ask Jonathan to get involved and distance himself from Corey. Jonathan has a dilemma- he is Corey’s friend from way back and he really likes him and feels a deep connection with him. He also knows that without his protection, Corey is likely to get badly hurt. On the other hand, he isn’t sure if Corey did the right thing and is worried that he can’t control him just through his friendship. Appendix B Timeline facts, one per piece of paper, on wall around room

18 th Century- Hebrew is used as language at some American Universities, Children of Israel theme suggested by Jefferson as United States Government seal.

Early 19 th Century- John Adams and Abraham Lincoln articulate support for Jews return to their ancient homeland

Late 19 th Century: Prominent Americans like Emma Lazarus, Supreme Court Chief Justice and Speaker of the House call for international consideration of the Jewish claim to Palestine.

1910’s-1920’s- President Wilson, the US Congress and State legislatures publically support the Balfour Declaration which calls for Great Britain (who had control of Palestine) to view with favor the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine.

1947- US government supports UN resolution to partition Palestine and establish a Jewish state in part of Palestine.

1948- The United States is the first country to recognize the new State of Israel 1948.9 US President Truman refuses to ship American arms to Israel during the War of Independence

1948-62 US arms embargo to Israel

1962-8 US Presidents, starting with President Kennedy, authorize major arms sale from US to Israel as part of policy of evenhandedness to both the Israeli and Arab sides of the conflict.

1967 An American naval intelligence boat, the USS Liberty, is attacked by Israeli warships in Egyptian waters during the 6 Day War. Israel claims the boat was attacked in error and apologizes.

1968 President Johnson, after the 6 Day War, and as a result of the growing pro-Israeli lobby in America, authorizes major sale of Phantom fighter jets to Israel. America becomes chief arms supplier to Israel and American policy becomes to preserve Israel’s strategic advantage vis a vis the Arab States.

1970- American Secretary of State William Rogers advances the Rogers plan to facilitate Israeli withdrawal from territories Israel gained in the Six Day War. The Israeli Government does not endorse the plan.

1973- US emergency airlift to Israel during the Yom Kippur War enables Israel to drive back early Arab advances. After Israel isolates the Egyptian Third Army and threatens to take Cairo, the US government forces Israel to accept a truce and end the fighting.

1976-80 Carter Presidency: direct US engagement in securing peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and framework for agreement between Israel and the Palestinians leads to some tension between the US and Israel. Israel now allowed to sell military equipment in US and limited joint US-Israeli military activities take place.

1981 Public dispute and tension between the US and Israel over Israeli objection to President Reagen’s intent to sell AWACS early warning systems to Saudi Arabia. The sale is made despite Israeli protests.

1981 President Reagen, emphasizing Israel’s potential to curb Soviet interests in the Middle East, signs the Memorandum of Understanding with Prime Minister Begin, launching an era of official strategic cooperation. Israel officially labeled US strategic ally.

1985- Jonathan Pollard and his wife arrested for espionage, and charged with selling classified documents to Israel. Israel distances itself officially from Pollard’s actions but subsequent Israeli governments consistently ask for him to be pardoned.

1987- Israel officially labeled a major non-NATO ally. US begins $3 billion annual grant in economic and military assistance.

1987-Present – Military and security cooperation grows deeper and wider between the two countries. Series of trade and economic agreements which have opened up markets, improved Israel’s balance of payments and economic strength and allowed American aid to flow to Israel for a variety of purposes.

1989- First Bush Administration – US Secretary of State James Baker publically calls for Israel to abandon its expansionist policies and calls East Jerusalem occupied territory. During the first Gulf War, Israel displays restraint despite being attacked by Iraq and is praised by the US for doing so.

1992-1999 Clinton Administration- President Clinton’s active involvement and friendship with Prime Minister Rabin leads to a peace treaty with Jordan and the Oslo accords between Israel and the PLO. Near the end of this period, direct attempts to reach a peace agreement between Israel and the PLO fail.

2000-2008 George W. Bush Administration- Good relations between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon, and the US focus on the global war on terror, leads to improvements in US-Israeli relations. The US recognizes for the first time the need for future peace agreements to take into account major population centers already established by Israel over the green line. The Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005 is welcomed by the US government.

2008-9 Obama Administration: President Obama’s desire to open up a new pattern of relations with the Muslim world raises worries in Israel that the US might adopt a new stance regarding Israeli policies. President Obama publically calls for Israel to stop its settlement activity in the West Bank while reaffirming the basic alliance between the two countries

Appendix C Links to clips that will be played on repeat for the duration of the program http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0JQ90soG_0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cOJNC2EuJw http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=8AaL1Se38gg&feature=channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFoj-PKJhck

Appendix D

Grappling with America Jun 18th 2009 | JERUSALEM From The Economist print edition

After the big public speeches come even tougher talks in private AFTER many millions of people, in the Middle East and elsewhere, watched President Barack Obama and Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, setting out their versions of how to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the two leaders may now be quietly beginning to negotiate in earnest. The first issue on their joint agenda is America’s demand that Israel stop building or expanding settlements in occupied Palestinian territory and should alleviate the hardships of daily life for the millions of Palestinians under its control. Mr Netanyahu, who says “normal life” in the settlements must go on, meaning that “natural growth” of the population requires building within the confines of the new towns, still seeks to find common ground. He is soon to meet Mr Obama’s envoy, George Mitchell, a former senator, in Paris. The prime minister’s people say their boss will be more flexible than he sounds. They claim to have had signals from Mr Obama’s team that an acceptable settlement freeze could still allow for some buildings to continue to go up, especially in the three or four biggest settlement blocks near the old pre-1967 border, where most of the 280,000-odd Israeli settlers (excluding those in East Jerusalem) reside.

When Mr Netanyahu addressed Israelis on June 14th and articulated, for the first time, his acceptance of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, it was a big event. His speech was his response to Mr Obama’s ten days earlier in Cairo, which sought to put America’s relations with the Muslim world on a new footing.

Mr Netanyahu hedged his acceptance of Palestinian independence with copious conditions. The new state, he said, must be demilitarised; it must “recognise Israel as the state of the Jewish people”, code for telling Palestinians to renounce a “right of return” for refugees; Israel must have “defensible borders”, code for keeping swathes of the West Bank; Jerusalem must “remain the united capital of Israel”, despite Palestinian demands to share it.

But then he said the words he had resisted saying for so long: “We will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarised Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.” In terms of Israeli politics, especially those of the right-wing-cum- religious block that put Mr Netanyahu in power and keeps him there, it was significant. The next day his approval ratings surged. His spokesmen said he had voiced Israel’s “consensus”. The opposition leader, Tzipi Livni, said it was a step in the right direction. Her party, Kadima, won the general election earlier this year but failed to form a ruling coalition with Mr Netanyahu’s Likud party because of his refusal to accept the two-state idea.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, railed against him. “It’s not a state,” said Mustafa Barghouti, a prominent politician. “It’s a ghetto.” A spokesman for the embattled Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, said Mr Netanyahu had “sabotaged all initiatives, paralysed all efforts being made.” The Israeli leader’s catalogue of conditions had dashed hopes of a resumption of talks. Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak, said that Mr Netanyahu’s demand that Palestinians first recognise Israel as a Jewish state would “scuttle the chances of peace.”

Mr Obama’s response was more measured. He praised Mr Netanyahu for his “positive movement”. “There were a lot of conditions, and obviously working through the conditions…that’s exactly what negotiations are supposed to be about,” said the president. “But what we’re seeing is at least the possibility that we can restart serious talks.”

But Mr Obama again insisted that all settlement-building must stop. For Palestinians and the wider Arab world, and for Israeli public opinion too, this issue will be the first big test of the American president’s determination to seek to make peace in the Middle East.

Two past Democratic presidents, who both failed to curb settlement- building, cheered him on. “Based on my experience with Mr Netanyahu, he did what he thought he had to do to keep the ball rolling,” said Bill Clinton. Jimmy Carter, who brokered peace between Israel and Egypt 30 years ago, assailed Mr Netanyahu for raising new obstacles to peace. Still, he told Israeli members of parliament that the differences between their prime minister and Mr Obama were narrower than those “between me and Prime Minister Menachem Begin when he was first elected, but we gave ground on both sides and we sought common ground.”

An adjustable border, maybe Brushing aside Mr Obama’s boycott of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement that still refuses to recognise Israel, Mr Carter met some of its leaders in the Gaza Strip, which Hamas rules. But he also visited Gush Etzion, a large Israeli settlement complex on Palestinian land just south of Jerusalem, and said he saw it as a part of Israel in a future peace treaty, presumably with the Palestinians being compensated with land swaps. This was a reminder that many of the issues Mr Netanyahu framed assertively in his speech as Israeli demands and conditions have been haggled over and largely resolved in years of negotiation between the two sides. Israeli officials also say they are reviewing the policy that bars building material and many consumer goods from being taken into Gaza. Israel’s main purpose, they say, is to weaken Hamas’s hold there. But the continuing partial siege may, the officials suggested, be counter- productive. In his Cairo speech, Mr Obama had insisted that “the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security” and demanded “concrete steps” to ease life for its Palestinian inhabitants.

Mr Mitchell will urge Mr Netanyahu to loosen the border crossings into Gaza and remove at least some of the 600 or so road blocks that impede Palestinian travel in the West Bank. Over the years, Israel has cited many reasons, mostly security-linked, to ignore or reject such demands. Messrs Obama and Mitchell still think it worth making them. If rebuffed, they may even take measures to show their displeasure.

Appendix E: How do I feel about Israel politically?

1. When the Israeli government pursues a policy that I do not agree with, it adversely effects my feelings towards Israel

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Agree

2. When the American government and Israeli government disagree, my natural tendency is to side with the American position Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Agree

3. Since I don’t live in Israel, I don’t have the right to question Israeli government policy

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Agree

4. I am convinced that American support for Israel is deeply rooted in America’s national interest and therefore I am not worried that it will weaken.

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Agree

5. America supports Israel mainly because of the deep solidarity of American Jews with Israel and their support for Israel’s policies.

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Agree

6. Israel should do what it thinks is right to enhance its security and national interest, regardless of what America thinks

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Agree

7. American support should be the most important policy objective for Israel; the Israeli government should never do anything to put that in jeopardy.

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Agree

8. I believe that the current administration will bring more Americans to believe in Israel and the possibility for both peace and a Jewish State

Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Agree

Circle the question that you find most interesting or raises the strongest feeling in you Appendix F

Groups Discussion:

GLs should be preassigned as to which statement their group most identified with

1. What was it about this question that talked to you and where do you stand on it and why? 2. When looking at the timeline around the room did you recognize any common themes? 3. What do you think is the greatest thing the Obama administration could do for Israel? 4. How do you think Obama’s actions and opinions are making non-Jewish Americans feel towards Israel? 5. On the whole do you believe that US-Israel relations are improving, stable or weakening? 6. What is your vision of a US/Israel relationship? 7. What actions can we take to impact the relationship as we envision it? 8. Do you think that a key component for improving the reality in the Middle East is having the U.S president and the Israeli PM agreeing on everything?