Is being pro-Israel the same as being Zionist? Is the call of the hour advocacy training or education?

As Israel educators with decades of experience between us, October 7^th forced us to take a hard look at what we teach, and how we teach it. We’ve taught American high school students, Masa gap year and Yeshiva/Seminary students, and visiting college students. We certainly weren’t prepared for this traumatic war, but we will argue that an authentic, classic Zionist approach to Israel education makes more sense now than ever.

We would describe approaches to Israel education in three broad categories:

1. Pro-Israel education: The goal here is to make students feel connected to the land and state of Israel. Success in this area should not be taken for granted. Making students feel genuinely connected to a land that is continents away is difficult, and yet clearly the vast majority of educated Jews do feel that way. School events, informal education, and trips to Israel are all part of this system.

2. Activism education: Educational institutions have taken anti-Israel activity on campus seriously long before October 7^th. In addition, many institutions are now scared of being accused of “not having told” their students about the realities of the Palestinian conflict. For those reasons, many educators offer classes that train students how to explain the conflict in non-Jewish environments.

3. Classical Zionist education: Beyond Jewish patriotism, the endeavor here is to enable students to see the modern State of Israel as central to modern Jewish identity. Students learn to see Israel as the homeland and destiny of the Jewish nation. This maximalist approach will include the previous approaches. It is this approach that we would like to endorse as crucial for today’s Jewish students.

The following is an articulation of our argument for maximal, classical Zionist education.

Narratives of Classical Zionist Education

Institutions that take the classical Zionist approach usually employ multiple narratives. For clarity we have identified the following interwoven approaches:

The patriotic narrative: Students are taught that integral to their Jewish identity they are members of our millennia-old nation. Their mission is to participate in and pass forward the national saga of the Jewish story.

Social studies: As potential citizens of a Jewish state, students must be educated as if they live there. This process should parallel the social studies curriculum of the country that they live in.

Diaspora studies: Students study what it means to be a Diaspora people. They examine implications for Jewish identity by studying patterns in Jewish history, and possible consequences for the future.

It should be apparent that the classical Zionist education model is much more expansive than the pro-Israel or activism models, as it treats the existence of the Jewish State as a major paradigm shift in our history and seeks to educate students within that new reality. As such, Zionist education seeks to understand the significance of Israel in a global, historical context. For example, one of the fundamental issues the early Zionist movement debated was the “Jewish Question” and the rise of antisemitism in the late 19^th century. That issue is as relevant today as it was in the late 19^th century, but the lack of awareness of the issue as background for the emergence of Zionism has left many confused in the face of the current attacks on Israel and the subsequent surge of global antisemitism. We believe that engaging in the core questions and approaches of classical Zionism provides a framework to educate and energize students to grapple with contemporary challenges. No Jewish political movement has proved as accurate, or as popular, as the movement that built the Jewish State. That does not mean that students should be expected to automatically agree with Alkali, Pinsker, Herzl, Begin, et al. We should be encouraging our students to engage with each of those critically, and it is in their engagement with the essential questions of Jewish identity, peoplehood, and nationhood that they will build a deep commitment to the Jewish national cause.

To elucidate our point, we share the following classroom experiences that we personally encounter year after year. We find that while almost all of the young Jews who come to Israel for a gap year of study are pro-Israel, most are unacquainted with basic Zionist thought; some are trained to argue on behalf of the state, but precious few understand the roots of that state and the modern movement that created it. In a post-October 7^th world, this seems to be a dangerous omission within a standard Jewish education.

Here are two examples of relatively simple questions, central to Israel and Jewish identity, to which incoming students find frustratingly difficult to respond:

• “Why did David Ben-Gurion make aliyah from Poland in 1906?”
• “Are the Jews a nation or a religion?”

They find the first question difficult, because most young Diaspora Jews associate the Jewish right to Israel with Divine promises or as a safe haven in a post-Holocaust world. But Ben-Gurion wasn’t religious. He made aliyah decades before the holocaust and claimed to have never experienced antisemitic persecution.

The difficulty in answering the second question is related. As a Zionist, Ben-Gurion defined the Jews as a nation that wanted to live free in its homeland (as expressed in the Israeli national anthem). Nations share a land, language, and culture. We Jews share these things and have remarkably preserved our connections to land and language for centuries of diaspora through devotion to our culture. Ben-Gurion made aliyah as a member of a political movement committed to repairing the damage of exile to our nation by recreating self-rule in our ancestral home. Rav Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook and Menachem Begin moved to Palestine for very similar reasons. Although their approaches to Zionism differed from Ben-Gurion’s, and each other’s, all three shared the same core ideas.

How can our students understand their relationship to Israel and its place in their identity if they don’t understand Jewish nationalism? When studying Tanakh, how can they understand God’s promises to make Avraham’s descendants a great nation, or that the Covenant at Sinai was to make us a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy nation? Our national narrative must again be central to Jewish education in the era of the Jewish State. This only enhances relevance for students within religious education.

This has been true for ages, long before October 7^th. How much more crucial is this, in an era when Israel’s legitimacy is under attack, to teach students Israel’s self-understanding and legal right to exist? Religions are not to be given power or statehood in the modern world; nations are. This is why both the League of Nations and the United Nations recognized the Jewish right to statehood among the rest of the world’s nation-states.

Challenges to Instituting a Maximalist Zionist Approach

It is important to consider some of the challenges that a school in the Diaspora may encounter in implementing the maximalist Zionist approach as a key element in their school curriculum.

First, it is clear that a significant amount of time would need to be devoted to this approach. Jewish schools which are already devoted to a dual curriculum, and important extracurricular programs, may believe that too much would have to be sacrificed to add a maximalist Zionist educational program.

Additionally, there is an inherent tension between the necessity for strong Jewish communities outside of Israel and the importance of aliyah. Navigating this tension within the school may be uncomfortable for a diverse community with varying approaches to Israel, especially as it potentially impacts on the lives of the students, teachers, and their families.

Practically speaking, Diaspora Jewish educators are rarely trained to understand modern Israel’s history, philosophy, and civics. Although schools may have Israeli shelihim, they are not necessarily trained to teach these subjects, especially as they differ from American approaches. Quite frankly, teaching subjects without proper training and education may do more harm than good.

Advantages to Instituting a Maximalist Zionist Approach

October 7^th was a watershed moment in Jewish history, the ramifications of which we are just beginning to grapple with. As difficult as the situation is for Israelis and Jews around the world, Zionists find it to be explicable. Zionism emerged in a disruptive world of dynamic change and evolution. Its ideas and practical solutions inspired and revolutionized the Jewish world, particularly the youth. It brought about the paradigm shift that we know today as the State of Israel. Because many of Zionism’s claims have proven true in the past, and may very well continue to do so, it is imperative today to teach students its perspectives on the Jewish past and future.

The Zionist ideal, returning the Jewish People from exile to rebuild our nation in our historic homeland, is as relevant today as it has ever been. In an era of apathy, anxiety, and ennui, giving students a “tribal” sense of mission, purpose, and identity will be a powerful asset for today’s Jewish youth. It fits our current culture and provides them with positive framing.

Mitigating the Challenges to Instituting a Maximalist Zionist Approach

As mentioned above, Zionism is not just about Israel education. Rather, it is a holistic approach to understanding Jewish civilization throughout the ages, both in the land of Israel and abroad. In order for Jewish texts, laws, and philosophy to be relevant to today’s students, educational framing must be expected to evolve in a post-1947 world, let alone the current atmosphere. Therefore, integrating Jewish History and Tanakh courses into the Zionist perspective may address some of the time-constraint challenges.

While aliyah is a Zionist ideal, it is likely true that the masses will not make aliyah in the near future. Strong vibrant Jewish communities outside of Israel are critical for the Jewish future and have been part of Jewish history for millennia. Addressing this tension, as uncomfortable as it may be, and discussing the importance of aliyah and Jews living in Israel, as well as investing in Diaspora communities, is communally healthy and sustainable.

Finally, the issue of staffing is potentially the most difficult challenge to address. Changes in Israel education should not be limited to curricular content, but also to how we educate educators. Relying on visits to Israel and Zoom meetings won’t suffice. But these changes are not insurmountable and can begin to have results before educator expertise is the norm. Professional development opportunities in Zionist education would be necessary across the Jewish world; Conferences, cohorts, and courses would go far in addressing the call of the hour.

Conclusion

We believe that re-embracing classic Zionism is the way to understand the Jewish world we now live in, for both teachers and students. For that reason, we advocate for a maximal paradigm shift in Israel education from a pro-Israel or activist orientation to an explicitly, classical Zionist one. Our experience has shown that this is a powerful approach to empowering young Jews to make sense of the world we live in. This approach has worked for us, and we believe it will help others understand our ever-changing world.