The Challenge of Peoplehood Strengthening the Attachment of Young American Jews to Israel in the Time of the Distancing Discourse

Key Findings:

This paper analyzes the conflicting hypotheses concerning the distancing of young American Jews from Israel, identifies the weak links in the research to date, and surveys the different aims served by the distancing discourse. It reviews the salient features of the changing relationship between the Jewish communities of Israel and North America and proposes guidelines in response to the new relationship pattern between them. 

The distancing hypothesis is the claim that young American Jews aged 18 to 35 are becoming increasingly distant from Israel, with their emotional attachment to the country decreasing and its importance to their Jewish identity eroding. This group, which represents roughly a quarter of the adult Jewish population in America, has little connection to the organized Jewish communities in which they were brought up and have fewer institutional opportunities for Jewish participation. The current generation of young American Jews has no living memory of the formative events that sustained the strong Diaspora-Israel ties in previous generations. 

Recent events in Israel, particularly those related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, have also taken a toll. The claim that distancing is already upon us, however, is controversial and requires further elucidation. To assess distancing, two fundamental questions arise: how to measure erosion in the attachment between US Jewry and Israel, and what precisely the young generation is distancing from. 

Emotional, cognitive, and behavioral distancing are three distinct forms of distancing, each reflecting a different process and requiring different measurement tools and policy approaches. Emotional distancing addresses the question of whether young Jews feel a familial affinity with Israel. Cognitive distancing reflects various reservations about the centrality of the State of Israel for Jewish thriving. Behavioral distancing reflects erosion in actions manifesting connection with Israel.

Four phenomena that are commonly perceived as expressions of distancing among American Jews towards Israel: (1) Criticism, which does not necessarily mean a dwindling sense of identification with Israel; (2) Rejection of Israel's centrality; (3) Negation of particularism — a documented aversion among young American Jews to values that are perceived as particularistic, and a tendency to favor values that are perceived as universal, which does not necessarily disappear even when attempts are made to connect Jewish youngsters with Israel; (4) Lack of enthusiasm for organized Jewish life.

The four main categories of utilization of distancing discourse are: (1) distancing in the service of a political agenda, (2) distancing in the service of organizational causes, (3) distancing in the service of philanthropic causes, and (4) distancing in the service of religious denominational interests. Turning to the distancing narrative to advance the goals of various ideological and institutional actors has tended to obstruct a pragmatic and objective discussion of what needs to be done to promote a healthy partnership between the two communities (minimizing distancing drivers and maximizing attachment drivers).

JPPI recommends: (1) Identifying and emphasizing channels in which Israel serves not just as a national political expression of the Jewish People, but also as a personal and social Jewish form of expression; (2) Israeli governmental bodies improving their familiarity and interaction with organizations that provide a Jewish portal for American youth and strengthen their ties with non-political organizations; (3) Substantially improving Israeli knowledge and planning concerning US Jewry; (4) Enhancing and augmenting ‘Attachment’ research in terms of resource allocation, specialized researchers, and long-term investment; (5) Exercising prudence and restraint when discussing potential distancing occurring within particular American Jewish institutions. Whenever possible, the more positive term ‘Attachment’ should be favored over ‘Distancing.’