It seems that the change in attitudes towards Israel is brought about by several factors unique to American Jewish life:
1) American Jewry’s successes, material and political;
2) American Jewry’s integration in American life, and view of themselves as truly American. This results, in part, from the nature of American nationality where, regardless of ethnicity, one is considered truly American versus merely being a citizen of the U.S. (This differs from what appears to be the European view which distinguishes between nationality and citizenship, so that while one might be a citizen of a particular country, and the EU in general, one’s countrymen’s view of nationality is, generally, closely linked to ethnicity);
3) the U.S.’s lack a history of extreme persecution, hatred of, and violence towards Jews, (again juxtaposed against the European history);and
4) the U.S.’s geographic distance from Israel.

In addition, Israel’s strength and maturity has also caused a change in feelings. This maturation results in a situation whereby the State of Israel is likely loved by most Jews, yet is no longer seen as an endangered infant that must be supported unconditionally in all its endeavors. (Rather Israel is viewed as a beloved family member that has familial responsibilities to uphold, whom it is hoped will subscribe to familial mores, and with whom other family members will voice their support for, and should it come to this, disagreement with, particular actions. And with who Israel is, and should, be free to do the same—agree/disagree—as the dialogue should be two-way.)

Assuming, the above is true, the question remains: How to keep American Jewry, young or otherwise, engaged with Israel and maintain a view of modern Israel’s centrality to Jewish life, and locus of Jewish identity, versus the view of Israel as only a spiritual birthplace and the center of spiritual longing which is the primary focus of much religious instruction. (Understanding that Israel is central to Jewish identity might be somewhat complicated as both American Jewish culture and Israeli culture continue to evolve in their own ways, but ultimately, it is so.)
Regarding the juxtaposition with Europe, it seems the history of European Jews as well as their geographic proximity to Israel creates stronger feelings, as Israel may still be seen by European Jewry as a possible refuge, and given the ability to more frequently visit, European Jews likely have their connection to Israel reinforced. (As you mention, visits engender personalized experiences which enable people to develop their own attitudes and feelings, feelings that are stronger than being merely told that a particular place or event is important.)

Despite past Jewish experience, it is unlikely that American Jews will ever require a refuge, and a relationship with Israel based on personal fear, is not the ideal. More important, as you mention, is how to engage people with Israel so they can learn for themselves why and how Israel is crucial to them as Jews. (To me, the creation of Israel is the culmination of centuries of Jewish longing, and Israel today is the product of a broad range of different Jewish cultures from around the globe—a modern and global Jewish culture.) And more importantly, how American Jews can contribute to Israel’s vitality, and how their being engaged with Israel contributes to themselves as Jews.

Along those lines, I often feel that modern Israeli culture is often overlooked as a means for engaging people, and believe that it is necessary to showcase this culture more, and in better ways perhaps, in colleges and Jewish community centers. In addition, there is a very vibrant youth culture in Israel; in music, film, and likely other areas, and exposing younger American Jews to Israeli youth culture, in addition to the Israelis they may meet along with these activities, will likely make some curious about Israel and its centrality to who they are. Still, I feel that trips to Israel, along with time spent studying in Israel are likely the best methods for people to truly understand Israel’s importance to them.

But I DO think that “cognitive dissonance” between ideals that many young American Jews have and realities that they hear about in Israel has caused a new sort of relationship among many young Jews with Israel. No longer can one assume that for most young Jews, support of Israel is unambivalent. A new study I just heard about that will presumably be coming out soon includes qualitative data to this very point.

And yes, I agree with “progressive zionist” that support for Israel does not need to be unambivalent, as long as it is engaged. ENGAGEMENT, or general care, not full support, should be the goal.

I think “progressive zionist” actually sets up “Jewish organizations like AJC” as absolutist boogymen — I just don’t see a lack of conversation about the difficulties of Israeli policy here. To the contrary, I see a highly informed and informative, and a nuanced discussion going on — the best I have seen anywhere, with a myriad of opinions represented at the table. I invite “progressive zionist” to come and participate.

What the bloggist is perhaps complaining about is AJC’s clear support of Israel in a different context, for example in bilateral or multilateral discussions. But here I believe deeply that the conversation should match the setting and the interlocutors. It would be foolish to have a script — even if that script is a debate — that doesn’t change. There actually ARE contexts in which it is useful, necessary even, to point out that terrorism is a tremendous threat.

I also take “David’s” point that the pro-Israel community is MORE engaged then it has been — both on the right and on the left, I assume. That is good. It might scare away people who don’t know where to start, or it might inspire them. I’d be interested in his take on that.

“Avigail” questions whether Hebrew lessons would be of interest to people who seeem so uncaring of Israel. My answer is 1) why not give it a shot… maybe people would be interested to boost their resumes? to fill long evening? to have a community? Maybe not, but it is worth a shot and represents a minute investment. And 2) I think that to assume that people for whom the destruction of Israel would not represent one of the greatest personal tragedies do not care about Israel is not correct. It is setting the bar too high.

Finally, to “anonymous” — I actually think he/she is making two different points here. 1) Why do we want American Jews to care about Israel in the first place? Will it make the Jewish community better or increase Jewish identity? and separately 2) Isn’t the ideal relationship with Israel one that takes pleasure in it, rather than a defensive one?

On 1: I don’t think of increasing care about Israel as leading to strengthened Jewish identity, though it may. I think it is a good in and of itself. Because I care about Israel. Because I think it has brought something valuable to my life. Selfish I guess. Of course, if you believe that American Jewish support for Israel is vital politically, then there is another more utilitarian argument in favor.

On 2: What kind of is an image of Israel are we communicating to people who get involved through the political lens? I would argue that it doesn’t need to be a defensive one. The politics are very engaging and very complex and very compelling. They are philosophical. Here I do think “progressive zionist” is on the right track — the politics, if they are not viewed as a zero sum game, are as interesting as politics get — and they need not be “your way or the highway.” Of course there are other wonderful ways to get close to Israel too — but I wouldn’t assume that doing so through politics means getting a one-dimensional pre-packaged identity packet.

Hope this makes some sense. Wonderful to “think/write” it through. Thanks to everyone who wrote. Please keep it up if you like.

However, I do think that we need to ask ourselves, as anonymous does in an even more radical way — what are we aiming for as far as ideal connection to Israel among young people.

That being said, I find the “pro-Israel/unconcerned/anti-Israel” framing of mainstream Jewish institutions (like the AJC) to be alienating. I don’t think of the situation in zero-sum terms, and I understand the reticence of my peers to do so. I support and hope for a two-state solution and a peaceful resolution to the conflict- but I refuse to be pushed into (or push others into) a Manichean binary.

Rather than attempt to change the attitudes of younger Jews, Jewish organizations like the AJC should themselves adapt to the new Jewish people, who are looking for organizations that attempt to promote a diverse and pluralistic Israeli-Society (like the Abraham Fund), or organizations that further dialogue and reconciliation (Abraham’s Vision and Children of Abraham).

Young Jews won’t be easily “re-oriented” with regard to Israel. As Frank Luntz’s study “Israel in the Age of Eminem” indicates, young Jews are very conscious of the “pro-israel” frame that mainstream organizations use, and are aware of efforts to change their opinions. Such efforts are thus expensive and ineffective. They also don’t make sense in basic sense: institutions should reflect and adapt to their constituents’ needs, not try to change them.

Rather

For many American Jews, reading in the newspaper about suicide bombings and peace negotiations constitutes their sole connection to Israel. These moderately affiliated Jews know little about the richness of Israeli culture, and might never have met an Israeli in person. Their symbolic, exclusively political connection to Israeli rests upon the guilty assertion that, as Jews in a non-Jewish world, they are expected to publicly defend the Jewish State, while in private, this connection could not matter less (In Samuel Freedman’s Jew vs. Jew: The Struggle for the Soul of American Jewry, Arnold Eisen, now Chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, has referred to Israel as “the principal symbol and prop of Jewish identity.”)

In this way, their connection is highly variable and situational, flaring up around instances of terrorist activities, and almost disappearing from view in calmer times. By connecting to Israel in this highly disengaged fashion, these moderately affiliated American Jews associate Israel with the most victimized aspects of Jewish identity, a connection which resonates with atonal dissonance with the many Israelis, such as former Justice Minister Yossi Beilin, who fiercely reject this fear-driven support of Israel. One might argue that as long as this connection remains an externalized, fearful entity, what separates it from indifference and in what way does it benefit any party?