 |
Main Page | |
| MELITZamerica | ||
| Groups Visiting Israel | ||
| Israel Programs | ||
| Ta Shma | ||
| Ezo Medina | ||
|
 |
  |
|
        |
|
||||||
| Paradise, Paradigms
& Paradox: Towards a New Israel Curriculum by Benjamin Segal Benjamin Segal is the President of Melitz, the Centers for Jewish Zionist Education. His books include Returning: the Land of Israel as Focus in Jewish History, and his articles include several historical and practical considerations on the place of Israel. Synopsis: This article proposes a new direction for curricular planning for Israel education in the Diaspora, in light of new interest in the subject. I note first certain myths that were and are central to Israel education, arguing that they are ultimately counter-productive. While reinvigorated "Israel education" necessitates clarification of the "Israel-Diaspora relationship" we wish to teach (what "paradigm" we choose), we face a paradox: we know we must teach Israel, and yet that subject may be inappropriate to conceptual definitions. This is due to both its nature and the needs of the students. I shall therefore propose a new curricular basis as the cornerstone of renewed Israel education: the study of models of how Jews have historically related to Israel. Such a curriculum will include information, models for evaluation and discussion of the place of Israel today. Some staff retraining will be necessary, but can be accomplished. (In an appendix we note the possible inappropriateness of this model for the Orthodox community.) Note - This web site article does not include extensive footnotes. A published version will provide fuller documentation. Comments and suggestions are invited, and will be considered before preparation of a final version for publication. Introduction: This is a period of intense concentration on "teaching Israel" in the Diaspora. With the (hopefully temporary) downturn in Israel tourism generally, and teen programs specifically, many are concerned for the connection to Israel in absence of what was thought to be one of the most effective educating elements - the direct contact. In addition, studies have shown consistently that younger non-Israeli Jews are less connected to Israel than their parents. We here comment on some of the most recent developments, and then suggest a direction for current planning for "teaching Israel". Paradise: Two myths inform the current crisis in Israel education.
Both were promulgated for the best of reasons in their time. Second, early efforts to recruit support for the nascent Jewish homeland relied heavily on a (slightly self-contradictory) myth of heroism and poverty. To a degree, of course, both descriptions were accurate, but both merited significant exaggeration and exclusivity. Both the global village and the meddling media have seriously undermined our ability to maintain myths concerning existing phenomena. Generally speaking, this is an age of relativism, in which all black-and-whites turn gray. In Israel's case, positive myths are even more vulnerable, given antagonistic propaganda which would paint even the whitest white, black. Further, Israel's democratic pride at airing and discussing its own shortcomings highlights and spotlights them. For all these and other reasons, young Jews, taught to expect a perfect or heroic Israel, awake one morning to an understanding that the "Israel" to which they are attached does not exist. They then file it away with King Arthur and other myths, good for the children, but not to be believed. Even if they understand that the image taught is primarily a goal, not a reality, contemporary Israel still might seem a failure. Such false images, then, cannot be the be-all end-all content of Jewish education about Israel. Indeed, promulgation of any myth bears danger of the same sad fate, ultimately providing a counter-education. In that regard, I note with some dismay, an implied recommendation in the new booklet, "Israel in the Age of Eminem: A Creative Brief for Israel Messaging", by Frank Luntz (March 2003 - available as a download via www.myisraelsource.com). Mr. Luntz (speaking not of curriculum, but of advertising, about which he has many positive insights and suggestions), notes that "some of the most effective ads contain pictures of Israelis that look American, engaged in American activities, or contain text emphasizing similar likes, tastes, and desires as Americans." This implies the desirability of a false image (false, since Israelis as a whole are not in fact the same as Americans) in order to achieve the ends of the advertisements. This myth approximates the heroism-poverty myth that was good for fundraising, in that neither is good ultimately for Israel education, which must communicate truths about Israel. Paradigms: Some of the newest explorations of future directions in Israel education dwell on "paradigms". Thus, in a preliminary introduction to research being done at the Jewish Agency's Department of Education, Dr. Ezra Kopelowitz dwells on 3 consecutive paradigms that have dominated Zionist education. The first, which he labels "Classical Zionism," is marked by a strong centrality of the State of Israel, living therein and aliyah. Implied is an element of superiority, inheritor of the "paradise" thought noted above. He discerns two recent alternatives, both of which grant greater legitimacy to life in the Diaspora - "Jewish Peoplehood" and the "New Zionism" (the latter still evolving). (Whether or not these properly describe the existing paradigms is not the issue here - we actually have reservations about the description. What is of importance is the very questioning of the content of the subject matter "Israel" which is being communicated. This is certainly a valuable step forward.) The claim is that educators should be aware of what place Israel has in their ideology (i.e., what paradigm they wish to work with), and then assure that there is coordination whereby subject taught, the methodology and evaluation are on the same wavelength. Indeed, a similar claim appears in another important work designed to spur discussion on Israel education ("Mapping Israel Education: An Overview of Trends and Issues in North America", Karen Abrams Gerber and Aliza Mazor - Gilo Family Foundation: Spring, 2003), Of the interviewees in that study (largely leading educators), "over half… identified the lack of an 'ideological and conceptual framework' as one of the primary challenges in Israel education. Institutions and educators have not paid attention to the question of why teaching Israel is essential to Jewish education and what it is essential for students to learn." To use our previous terminology, the problem is that we are lacking an agreed paradigm. In still another initial paper, this an internal document of the Education Department of the Jewish Agency for Israel in anticipation of developing a new "Israel Center" in North America, the term "paradigm" again rises to the fore. "A group of leading Jewish thinkers will be convened to develop key paradigms and conceptual frameworks reflecting the nature of the relationship of world Jewry to Israel. An essay will be prepared explicating each of these paradigms… a core syllabus will be prepared for each specific paradigm… a basic curriculum will be developed for each syllabus…" Each of these documents, in its way, reflects a similar dissatisfaction with the situation to date and the healthy understanding that there is no one uniform place of Israel in our educational efforts. Presumably, the authors are also aware that a subject matter is not taught in a vacuum, and that one cannot move from an ideological position to a curriculum. Rather, there must be a constant interplay of consideration of the subject matter, the students (their needs, abilities, stages of cognitive development, etc.) the staff (their stances, their abilities, their knowledge, etc.) and the community (its desires, the limits of its tolerance, etc.) as one moves toward the curriculum that best fits all considerations. Still, one must applaud the renewed awareness of the need to clarify what "Israel means to us" in terms of our educational goals, and the awareness that too much has been left to the subconscious and assumed consensus in the past. However, as we shall soon detail, there is reason to be wary of this emphasis on paradigms as well. Paradox The educator approaching "Israel education" is faced with a paradox - there seems to be a desideratum, i.e., teaching Israel, which inherently does not lend itself to any definition of what is to be taught. In other words, "Israel," unlike many subject matters, may be inherently inappropriate for capsulation in any "paradigm." We list two primary considerations that lead to that understanding. Historically, there have been many roles played by the Land of Israel in Jewish consciousness. In writing a history of these roles, I felt I had to resort to the general word "focus" (Returning: the Land of Israel as Focus in Jewish History, Jerusalem, World Zionist Organization, 1987) to describe the overview. Indeed, even Zionism, in rebelling against Jewish history toward a new activism vis-à-vis the Land of Israel, politically united a wide variety of ideologies as to the role that Israel would serve. Just as historical accuracy argues for variety, so too does our post-modern student. His or her insistence on adopting an individuated, evolving Jewishness (see Cohen and Eisen, The Jew Within) simply strengthens the long-known resistance of students in their teenage years and beyond to any dictation of how to think. They wish to "try on" ideological outfits, and to be empowered to pick and choose. The student does not wish to be guided towards a specific image of what "Israel" is, but rather seeks to learn enough facts, questions and issues to be empowered to help determine what Israel "is," could be or should be, for him/herself and hopefully for the Jewish people. Still, the other side of the paradox is incredibly strong. If the connection to the land of Israel varied in Jewish history, it was always there - a sine qua non of Jewish identity. It was indeed part of the original triangular "given," from Abraham's time, of land, people and God that is so clearly emphasized in Genesis. Christianity relocated the Promised Land into a post-death arena - part of its divorcement from Judaism. While some Jewish groups removed Israel in time from the present (into messianic times exclusively) they did not remove it from this physical world. Modern attempts to remove Israel from the horizon, even as hope (e.g., the early Reform doctrines, the first version of the Conservative prayer book Sim Shalom), quickly dissipated. Israel, then, is part of the central defining core of Jewishness. But even central defining subjects, as they become problematic, also become parts of curricular thinking - so with God, so with peoplehood, and so with the Land of Israel. The scope and variety of the subjects do not excuse one from confronting them. But if the subject is not easily defined or limited to some paradigm, where does one start? [I shall immediately approach the question of how one might curricularize a focus rather than a paradigm. However, I should pause to note that the term paradigm remains particularly appropriate for another vital effort at present - the choice and training of Israeli staff for work with Diaspora Jews. Indeed, that was the subject of Kopelowitz's article. Here indeed, the attention paid paradigm is of paramount importance. Since any individual has an (often subconscious) paradigm of the proper relationship of Land and people, it is vital to raise the subject, clarify assumptions and assure that those working will not be so committed to a given paradigm that they could not effectively work with an audience that has other relationships on its horizon. By discussing paradigms one allows staff choosers and candidates to confront sub-conscious assumptions, otherwise unstated goals, etc, and to configure the bounds of the legitimate.] Towards a New Israel Curriculum: If Israel is such an encompassing subject, and if students seek acquaintance and empowerment as opposed to being led into a specific paradigm, is there any curricular direction that makes sense? We believe there is. The suggested timing of what here follows is the teenage through college years. As such it approaches students at a time that affect is changing and at a time when they are openly questioning and searching in terms of their identity. The timing makes the broad outlines appropriate for both formal and informal settings, ranging from camp to youth movement to day school, to Hebrew high schools and to college campus. We are fully aware that curricula for other ages must be developed. Our suggestion, however, is that the following be seen as the keystone - the central block to which we build up from one side and from which we proceed on the other. (That said, I also hasten to add that this curriculum is not specifically "Zionist" as I understand the term. Rather, I believe it represents a broader consensus concerning the mutual roles of Israel and the Diaspora. It does, however, set the stage appropriately for later, more ideological confrontations. I shall comment on Zionist education in a second article.) We here propose an historical-critical model. For the purposes of this discussion, we presume an audience that is in high school years or beyond, and North American. In this suggestion, the term "focus" would be more appropriate than "paradigm", the term "vision" more appropriate than "myth." Israel has been an assumed central part of Jewish identity always, but rarely in the same way from one generation to the next. Traced in articles and a few books (Buber, On Zion: A History of an Idea, Schweid, The Land of Israel: National Home or Land of Destiny and my more modest attempt, noted above) is the fascinating history of the evolution of an idea. Traces of the conceptualization of Israel can be found in maps, two-dimensional art, plastic arts and in wide variety of literary genres (law, legend, travelogues, philosophy, poetry, debates, etc.). Encountering historical phenomenon (particularly texts) bears its own fascination, but beyond that, each such encounter can lead to personal consideration of stances vis-à-vis Israel. The "meta-message" is that the centrality of Israel to Jewish identity is a given, expressed in a variety of ways. The personal confrontation with modernity is eased and moderated by the historical framework in each instance. First and foremost one is evaluating what was - e.g., trying to understand how Daniel El Kumisi (tenth century Karaite) might be so demanding that other Jews come to Israel; trying to fathom why medieval pilgrims felt their lives were changed by a visit to Israel; evaluating the arguments on aliyah between Ramban (Nachmanides) and his later respondent "Megillat Esther" and then wondering if their reading of halacha is influenced by other external commitments and conceptualizations; judging Herzl's predictions and prescriptions by his biography; trying to understand the emotions of Ibn Gabirol's Israel poetry; etc. In every case the road is smoothed for the participating student to move on to modernity and his/her own feelings. The very variety of texts legitimates a variety of thinking and reactions. The meta-message text is also clear - Israel remains forever in central focus. Let me illustrate briefly how a few sessions might go. Example 1 -
Example #2 -
Example #3 -
While these three sample texts are almost canonical - accepted by all as standard texts of the past - the "historical" emphasis can continue with texts written well into modern times. Certainly the varieties of Zionism and anti-Zionism provide rich opportunity for exciting reading, analysis, evaluation as proposals for their time, and as a proposed analysis for our own time. Indeed, they would eventually be set one against the other as lessons progress - religious Zionism, political Zionism, cultural Zionism, anti-Zionism, etc. Even reactions to the Holocaust that connect or refuse to connect it to the rise of the State are already legitimate as historical study. Once open discussion and disagreement have been legitimized, by the end of the course, one might even feel that recently debated issues become safe ground for citation and debate: e.g., Avineri's claims that American Jewish reaction to Pollard reflected lack of self confidence, as opposed to those who blasted him for misunderstanding the American Jewish community; or one of the open debates on whether members of the Jewish community can criticize Israel from afar. These last suggestions depart from the course model (historical texts), and are cited only to illustrate that a successful course of this type opens up the subject in a most positive fashion, granting legitimacy to many approaches to Israel, while reasserting the centrality of Israel to Jewish identity. I further suggest that a course of this type opens up students in a much better fashion to the next stage of education - encounter with a real Israel which differs in a significant number of aspects from the lives Jews pursue elsewhere. One should take notice of weaknesses in the proposal above. We suggest that they can be overcome, but that effort must be included in curricular planning to do so. These weaknesses involve the staff. Most who will conduct these sessions are not familiar with the range of sources to be covered. Factual background, perhaps through teachers' manuals, would be necessary. Attention must also be paid to the differing nature of these lessons. While knowledge is imparted (which can be tested easily), many of the goals (and therefore the questions) have to do with evaluation, affect, comparisons, etc. These are different types of questions, and require different types of instruction. Teachers will have to be reminded in one format or another of the taxonomy of questions and of the leading principles in conducting an open discussion, in which students are encouraged to express varying opinions. In summary - there is a wonderful window of opportunity being opened now, as many seem aware of the necessity for new concentration on the place of the Land and State of Israel in Jewish education. We must avoid myths. Yes, we must isolate "paradigms" of the relationship of the people to the land, but more in relationship to the selection and training of staff than to writing curricula. In consideration both of the inherent variety of approaches that have marked Israel in Jewish history and of the desire of the student to be free to learn, choose and develop within a broad framework, I have suggested that a series of concentrations on historical models, accompanied by a curricularized openness to pursue modern implications of texts, is the best model we have available. Hopefully, new curricula will evolve in this direction. Appendix on this Proposal and Orthodoxy For several reasons, the proposed curriculum is somewhat inappropriate for institutions defined as Orthodox. Among these reasons are: that Orthodoxy ideologically has greater reservations concerning personal autonomy of choice of affect, that certain phenomena are considered a-historical in Orthodoxy (not considered to have changed or been manipulated), and that certain texts must be considered as Divinely written as opposed to reflections of national ethos. It should be noted (with a great sense of admiration) that most fortunately Orthodoxy is in much less of a crisis vis-à-vis Israel than other portions of the community, as reflected in several developments, including numbers of young Jews still coming to Israel on programs and aliyah statistics. Portions of the proposed curriculum as written, nevertheless, would be appropriate, as would others with slight revision. For mixed environments (particularly day schools), the curriculum would have to be developed with particular care and sensitivity to the needs of the Orthodox community. * * * Please help Melitz continue to provide programs
and dynamic opinions that deal with issues facing the Jewish world today.
Contributions may be sent to: |
||||||
| © Melitz. Site credits. Contact Us. | ||||||
