Resources from Six Ways Teens Respond to Israel

On Wednesday, December 10, Moving Traditions hosted Six Ways Teens Respond to Israel, a webinar for parents of Jewish youth.

Dr. Jonathan Krasner, Chair of Jewish Education Research at Brandeis University, joined a conversation with Shuli Karkowsky, to dig into his research on Jewish identity, antisemitism, and political engagement among young Jews and what it means for our teens today. 

We also featured teen voices reflecting on the research and sharing about what they are facing in high school and as they prepare for college themselves.

Thank you to our featured speakers and moderator:

• Shuli Karkowsky, CEO of Moving Traditions
• Dr. Jonathan Krasner, Chief of Jewish Education Research at Brandeis University
• Gillian S., Kol Koleinu Teen Feminist Fellow
• Jack L., participant from Kulam for Teaching Assistants

Research

Between Home and Homeland: Jewish College Students Confront the Israel-Gaza Conflict and Campus Divides

by Jonathan Krasner, Cheryl Weiner, Meka Greenwald, & Lance Rothchild

This study examines the experiences of Jewish college students in the United States following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and the resulting Israel-Gaza conflict. Using qualitative analysis, it identifies six distinct response categories – “Affirmed,” “Aggrieved,” “Retrenched,” “Conflicted,” “Disengaged,” and “Disillusioned” – based on ratings across seven axes, including connectedness, activism, and emotional well-being. The findings highlight the intersection of global events and polarized campus climates, revealing tensions between Jewish identity, antisemitism, anti-Zionism, and political engagement. This study provides insights into how young Jews navigate vulnerability, community, and solidarity during a time of crisis, revealing responses ranging from pride to alienation.

This research has been featured in an article in the Forward and a report on PBS.

Text Study

For the sake of heaven

Traditional Jewish texts use the terms makhloket l’shem shamayim (מַחֲלֹקֶת לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם), which literally means “an argument or a disagreement for the sake of heaven,” and its opposite, makhloket she’einah l’shem shamayim (מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם), which means, “an argument or a disagreement that is not for the sake of heaven.”

In a makhloket l’shem shamayim, the goal is not to win, but to understand.

Practicing Receptiveness

SAY:

One way that we can engage in a מחלוקת לשם שמים makhloket l’shem shamayim is through a strategy called receptiveness. “Receptive” comes from the word “receive.” It means being open to new ideas.

In the words of Dr. Julia Minson, a researcher at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government who studies the psychology of disagreement:

“A lot of what we see in conflict is really a matter of ignorance…if you lead with curiosity and openness, the other person is going to respond to that. People love feeling heard.

…When people feel like you’re really engaging with their perspective and trying to understand where they’re coming from, it makes a huge difference in how they respond to you in the same exact argument. They think that you are a more reasonable, more thoughtful, more trustworthy, better human being if you made them feel heard.”

— “How to argue with Julia Minson,” produced by The Decision Corner Podcast

ASK:

• Based on this quote, why might it be important to listen to other people’s ideas even if you disagree with them?
• Have you been in an argument where the other person wasn’t actually listening to you? How did it feel?
• Have you ever tried bringing curiosity and openness to a conversation? How did the conversation go? Did you notice any changes in the other person?

The HEAR Strategy

Let’s now look at a specific strategy Dr. Minson recommends using to show your receptiveness when talking to someone you disagree with.

H_{^{edge your claims}}

“I think it’s possible that…”
“This might happen because…”

E^{_{mphasize agreement}}

“I agree with some of what you are saying…”
“We are both concerned with…”

A_{^{cknowledge other perspectives}}

“I see your point…”
“What I think you are saying is…”

R^{_{eframe to the positive}}

“I really appreciate it when…”
“It would be so wonderful if…”

— Dr. Julia Minson, “Why won’t you listen to me?!”, Behavioral Science of Disagreement, Harvard Kennedy School

ASK:

• If you were having a conversation with someone you really disagreed with, which one of these do you think would be easiest to do? Why?
• Which one would be hardest? Why?
• What do you think it would be like to be in a disagreement with someone if you both were using these techniques?

To engage or not?

When you encounter people saying things about Israel that you don’t agree with, you’ll decide for yourself if it’s worth your time and energy to engage.

If you think the other person just has a goal of “winning” or proving their own point, or if your only goal is to prove something, then the dialogue is unlikely to be respectful or productive. You do not have to engage with people just because they are saying or posting something you disagree with.

ASK:

• What are some reasons that you might want to walk away from a disagreement about Israel?