February 07, 2008

As Israelis and Diaspora Jews begin the celebration of the Jewish state’s 60th anniversary, many are seeing the unmistakable signs of a growing distance between the world’s two largest Jewish communities.

In a gloomy annual assessment, the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute noted an alarming erosion in young American Jews’ solidarity with Israel. A 2007 survey by the American Jewish Committee found that only 29 percent of Conservative Jews and 22 percent of Reform Jews said they feel “very close” to Israel. That compares to 69 percent of Orthodox Jews asked the same question. Considering that Orthodox Jews make up no more than 11 percent of the Jewish population, that’s troubling.

The JPPPI, an Israel-based think tank, is proposing the Jewish equivalent of a strategic-planning process to counter this trend. Speaking to NJ Jewish leaders last week, JPPPI staffers suggested the Jewish-Diaspora relationship needs to undergo a dramatic revision.

Jewish organizations must plan to find “creative ways to allow [young people] to connect while we retain the essence of what unites us,” said Chaim Waxman, a senior fellow at JPPPI and professor emeritus of sociology and Jewish studies at Rutgers University. Waxman wasn’t just talking philosophy — he urged Jewish institutions to think about the prohibitive cost of their services.

Others in the delegation suggested a new philanthropic relationship. Avinoam Bar-Yosef, JPPPI’s director general, raised eyebrows among the philanthropists in the audience when he suggested Diaspora Jews redirect their Israel charity. “Poverty is the responsibility of the state,” said Bar-Yosef. “You need to improve your Jewish school system here in order to change the future of the Jewish people. You need to invest in the Jewish future.”

And Bar-Yosef stepped into the touchy debate over the future of Jerusalem, and whether Jews abroad should have a say in political decisions that would affect what many see as their patrimony.

Einat Wilf, a former policy adviser to Shimon Peres, ticked off a series of structural changes. “I don’t like it when emotional connections between the Diaspora and Israel are based on fear and tragedy,” she said. Instead, Diaspora leaders should focus on positive expressions of being Jewish, invest in a cadre of Diaspora and Israeli leaders, and take advantage of a “spontaneous Birthright America” — Israelis living abroad who can help shape insights into their native country.

For those who have invested heavily in current modes of the Israel-Diaspora partnership, from UJA campaigns to Birthright Israel to sister-city programs, pondering a new sort of connection is daunting. And the strategic planning of an Israeli think tank with one too many p’s in its name may seem to drain the blood out of a relationship they see as deeply emotional, even primal.

But unless we begin to strengthen Jewish identity at home and rethink the partnership abroad, the next thing we’ll be planning is the divorce.

Comment: editorial@njjewishnews.com