Community talks at Israel roundtable

Posted

Miriam Ladin makes a point.Miriam Ladin makes a point.

A microcosm of the Jewish community came together the night of June 9 to talk about Israel. Seated at eight tables of six to eight people each, men and women with opinions on Israel that spanned the political spectrum spent two hours listening to one another. The dialogue was directed by moderators who used pre-scripted questions as prompts to get discussions going on a wide range of issues.

In the end, everyone agreed it was an eye-opening experience.

“Can we talk about Israel?” was based on the successful “Israel Talks” program developed in New York by the Jewish Community Relations Council. Here, it was sponsored by the Israel Task Force of the Community Relations Council of the Jewish Alliance of Greater Rhode Island and The Jewish Voice. A pilot program was held here in February.

“While there is a genuine love for Israel, the Jewish community in our country over the years has become divided in regard to Israel’s actions to preserve it as a Jewish State. The result has been a mixed bag of opinions as well as the role we in the diaspora have in regard to Israel and its politics, including the means to bring peace to the region,” said Marty Cooper, community relations director for the Jewish Alliance of Greater Rhode Island.

This program was meant to begin a dialogue between the widely varying factions in the community and to bring people together. It turned out to be more popular than anticipated. Originally, there was to be room at the tables for 36. In the end, there were 50 participants.

Facilitator Betsy Cooper, a professor of Entrepreneurial Management and Law at University of Rhode Island, explained the rules of engagement to the group, including communication and dialogue guidelines. The room was to be a safe place for all opinions. Participants were reminded to listen to one another. Each person had a pad of paper on which to write questions and disputes that would be addressed at the end of the evening. Even reporters from The Voice, who observed the event by wandering from table to table, put away their notepads.

At the end of the discussion, one representative from each table summed up their group’s findings for the room.

Among the points made were:

 • Groups were not homogenous, but the back-and-forth discussions were quite remarkable. Despite important disagreements, there was a lot of respect at the table.

                •             The kind of dialogue fostered by the program is critically important.

                •             The depth and breadth of support for Israel could be seen even though the Jewish community shares mixed ideals and approaches to achieve peace in the region.”

                •             Everyone agreed the program should continue and be expanded.

Ultimately, what united participants was a passion about Israel and Israel-related issues. Whether they spoke about the survival of the country, a two-state solution, the future of Israelis, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the definition of true peace, the takeaway was a renewed ability to listen and respect every opinion in the room. And every speaker acknowledged the wide range of views in the room.

Clearly, support for Israel doesn’t mean uniformity of opinion.

Gilor Meshulam, Israeli shaliach (emissary), said he was happy to hear other people’s thoughts on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, quoting Genesis Rabba, “Just as two knives are both sharpened by being rubbed one against the other, so scholars improve and increase in knowledge when in touch with one another.”

After the event, Russell Raskin said the program “allowed us to share feelings of Jewishness and Israel with people with different approaches.”

Rabbi James Rosenberg, a moderator, expressed similar feelings. “Everyone sitting around the table understands we have differing positions, but we are trying to understand.”

FRAN OSTENDORF is editor of The Jewish Voice. ISRAEL FINEGOLD is the summer intern.