While compiling my thesis prospectus this semester, I have come across some very interesting information on American Jewish attachment to Israel. The most contemporary of this research suggests that American Jews have been consistently attached to Israel over time, with older people being more attached and young people being less attached. While this research fails to provide absolute values for attachment, its discussion of age-cohort differences is very interesting. Unable to explain empirically why these differences exist, they end by mentioning that they have yet to determine how Birthright experiences affect young people’s attachment. Recently, some of these same researchers evaluated the Birthright variable, noting that those who participated in Birthright felt much more attached to Israel than those who did not participate, and that they felt much more attached to Israel after finishing their experience than before starting.
Although statistically sound and valid, I’m not exactly sure what these numbers mean. How do we understand “attachment” really?
Not having gone on Birthright myself but simply evaluating the raw data, attachment to me could mean many different things. Attachment to Israel might mean careful deliberation on its future, on the various ways in which it might eventually be at peace with its neighbors and how we in North America can help catalyze productive, positive change. However, attachment could be much less thoughtful. These participants may simply have “knee-jerk” reactions to events on the ground, defending Israel or condemning Palestinian action using a “right or wrong” paradigm.
I thought a visit to the Birthright NEXT website might help me understand Birthright alumni attachment to Israel. I assumed that looking at the language the alumni network uses to talk about itself and the kinds of programing it coordinates would clarify past participants’ attachment to Israel. Just like the above mentioned data, the website left my question about attachment unanswered. Although Birthright NEXT first mentions that it aims to “inspire all Taglit-Birthright Israel trip participants and their peers to expand their connections to the land and people of Israel,” its programming is geared mostly towards “deepening [past participants’] personal commitments to Jewish life” and to their “finding or forming a community where Jewish responsibility, learning, and celebration thrive.” They host Shabbat, community service projects, Hebrew classes, book clubs, etc., but I found much fewer events in which alumni could think or talk about Israel in a meaningful way. Thus even after analyzing the Birthright alumni network, I’m still not entirely sure what past participants’ attachment to Israel really means.
But assuming that Birthright NEXT coordinates programs according to their perceptions of young Jews’ interests, is Birthright much more successful in breeding meaningful attachment to Jewish identity than to Israel?
Let’s look again at the data. It concludes that those who participated in Birthright attach higher importance to marrying a Jewish person and raising their children Jewish than those who did not participate. It also revealed a strong positive relationship between participation and “inmarriage” (as opposed to intermarriage). Thus multiple sources suggest that American Jews are more attached to their Jewish identity after their Birthright experience.
The network and the data would clearly say that Birthright does do a good job in fostering attachment to Jewish identity. However, even after my contemplation and analysis, I still have little understanding of how young American Jews are attached to Israel.
