COLLABORATION BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE DIASPORA FROM THE ISRAELI POINT OF VIEW The Experience of Partnership 2000 AMNON BOEHM, PH.D. Senior Lecturer, School of Social Work, University of Haifa, Israel This article, based on evaluation research of Partnership 2000, examines factors that facilitate and those that hinder the collaboration between Israel and Diaspora Jewry. It examines those factors from the Israeli point of view and compares these findings to previous studies that addressed the issue of mutuality from the point of view of Diaspora Jewry. here is a growing call to base the relations ond is development of the national priority Tbetween Israel and the Diaspora on mutual regions of Israel—the Negev, the Galilee and collaboration. Rather than the Diaspora's Jerusalem. Project Partnership 2000 aspires to taking a distant philanthropic approach and integrate the two goals with shared objectives. "adopting" communities in Istael, there is a In addition to the partaership between vari­ move toward partaership and mutuality on the ous Diaspora communities and Israel, P2K basis of shared identity (Gurin & Rosen, 1991; integrates an Israeli urban center wita an adja­ Kosmin, 199 l;Rabb, 1999). cent rural area, i.e., atown or local council with Through reciprocal activities, each side, a regional council, including settlements such Israel and the Diaspora, can expect to achieve as kibbutzim, moshavim and community vil­ its goals and meet its challenges. For Diaspora lages. In other words, a partaership connec­ Jewry, this relationship has been found to tion is made among an urban center, a rural consolidate their sense of belonging to the area, and a Diaspora community—all of whom coimnunity, strengthen their connection to work together. their roots, and enhance Jewish identity This article, based on evaluation research (Abrams et al, 1996; Cohen, 1986; Reisman, of Partaership 2000 (P2K), reveals the motives 1993). Indeed, previous studies focusing on and the restraining factors in the collaboration the field of collaboration with regard to per­ between Israel and the Diaspora, with special sonal relations (Galin, 1996), organizational emphasis on the mutuality to which the proj ect relations (Weiss, 1987), andprofessional rela­ aspires. In contrast to previous stadies, which tions (Germain, 1984) emphasize that collabo­ examined the mutaality from the viewpoint of ration is a cooperative process of exchange Diaspota Jewry and especially from that of whereby each side has specific motives in American Jewry, this stady analyzes the col­ regard to its own interests. Collaboration is laboration through Israeli eyes. Knowledge of aimed to fulfill motives and tasks in abetter way the motives and restraining factors can be than each side can achieve by itself used to facilitate more effective collaborative Partnership 2000, created in 1994 by the programs. The assumption is that for success­ Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI), in collabora­ ful implementation, stakeholders must recog­ tion with the United Jewish Appeal and the nize the influential factors that enable mutaal Jewish Foundation Fund ('Keren Hayesod'), benefits. has two central goals. One is the creation of P2K provides an opportanity to examine mumal relations based on a partaership be­ tae development of collaborative relationships. tween the Jews of Israel and the Diaspora to In contrast to the traditional model, in which strengthen Jewish identity, prevent assimila­ one side (the Diaspora community) gives and tion and facilitate Jewish continuity; the sec­ the other side (tae Israeh community) receives, P2K stresses mutaality. 28 Collaboration between Israel and the Diaspora / 29 Table 1. The regions and their characteristics. Diaspora Israeli Type of No. of Residents Year Partners Partners Gov't. in Israel Location Started Project 1 Baltimore Karmiel Municipality 41,000 West Galilee 1994 Pittsburgh Misgav Regional council 14,500 Project 2 Detroit Natherth Municipality 50,000 Central Galilee 1994 Migdal-Emek Municipality 30,000 Yzrael Regional Council 20,000 Project 3 Union of 16 Kiryat Malachi Municipality 22,000 Negev North 1995 Communities Hof Ashkelon Regional council 8,000 METHODOLOGY • Focus group. A focus group was held in Kiryat Malachi, in which ten project work­ A broad-based research evaluation of P2K ers and activists, most of them involved in examined relations between Israel and the program unplementation, participated. The Diaspora, relations among Israeli communi­ discussion continued for seven hours and ties, and implementation of the project. This focused on the reciprocal connection be­ article focuses on the collaboration between tween the community in Israel and the com­ Israel and the Diaspora. munities in the Diaspora. Three partnered regions in Israel were ex­ • Questionnaire. A questionnaire was dis­ amined in this study. Two had one or two tributed to 189 participants; 67 question­ partnered communities per region, and the naires were retumed, of which 62 were suit­ third had three communities. Table 1 describes able for analysis. The majority of the ques­ the sample regions. tions were closed, with only a few open- The data were gathered via several modes: ended questions. • Analysis of existing material. Analysis RESULTS AND ANALYSIS was done of protocols (minutes of steering committees and other meetings), strategic Factors Stimulating Collaboration programs, action programs and project Table 2 presents the factors facilitating reports, mutual relations with the Diaspora commimity, • Personal interviews. In-depth interviews according to the mean value (based on a scale were conducted (approximately two hours of 1-6) of each characteristic. in length) based on open-ended questions Non-mediated, personal encounters involv­ with minimal directives. Thirty key people ing a direct connection between participants were interviewed, among them politicians contributed the greatest extent to strengthen­ (including mayors), government employ­ ing collaboration. The exchange of delega­ ees (such as directors of community cen­ tions was also a significant factor. ters, social services departments, and busi­ Another stimulating factor was participa­ ness development centers), project work­ tion in discussion forums on Jewish and pro­ ers, community representatives in Israel fessional issues held in Israel on such topics (American Jewish communities employ an as assimilation, conversion law, and Jewish Israeli resident to represent their interests pluralism. Participants reported that they now in Israel), and volunteers. FALL 2000 Journal of Jewish Communal Service / 30 better understood the differences between the leadership regards the collaboration as a "being a Jew in Israel and being a Jew in the high-priority goal, creates a suitable atmo­ United States." Some even recognized the sphere for working together, consohdates the importance that their newly acquired knowl­ workers and the volunteers, and rewards those edge and awareness played in their personal who take part in the implementation. Some of identity as Jews and as representatives ofthe the interviewees who work in the local authori­ Jewish State. ties sttessed tiiat the extent to which they The exchange of professional knowledge could find time for creating the connection also contributed to sttengthening collabora­ depended largely upon its legitimization tion. In the organizational meetings with col­ through the time allotted and the encourage­ leagues in the fields of education, welfare, and ment given by the heads of the local authori­ community, the interviewees not only acquired ties. new knowledge and information but emiched Interestingly, the economic factor was less the understanding of their American colleagues significantto the collaboration. Inmany com­ as well. munities, P2K acmally replaced the funding Consistent with these findings, the that was already supplied by the Jewish interviewees pointed out the importance of Agency. Interviewees expected that P2K would reserving dialogue time for exploration of the at least serve as a basis fot the development of petsonal and professional issues. In relation new funding systems that would recognize the to this point they mentioned the summer pro­ importanceof developing coUaborativeprojects grams that integrate visiting American coun­ in the region. selors and young Israelis in the English-lan­ Indeed, several projects were funded out­ guage sununer camp in Israel. In addition to the side of P2K: a national conference on educa­ personal benefits—learning English (for the tion, a project to nurture immigrants, a Israelis) and a ttip to Israel (for the American combined Jewish-Bedouin elementary school visitors)—the relatively lengthy program al­ class, and a program for children at lisk. Intei­ lows fot a sttengthening and continuation of estingly, the number of piojects funded by the mutual relations. Diaspota communities beyond the P2K budget Another factor that may motivate collabo­ was greatei in the Kiryat Malachi-Hof Ashkelon ration was the support of the local Israeli region than in othei communities. It may be political and government leadership, espe­ possible that this was due to the large number cially that of the mayors and senior directors. of American communities—16—^partnered Reciprocal relations are sttengthened when with that region. Table 2. Factors stimulating collaboration. The Factors Mean Value 1. Personal encounters among participants 5.4 2. Reciprocal delegations 5.0 3. Leadership that supports connections