Beyond Distancing: Young Adult American Jews and Their Alienation from Israel

This research reports on a mounting body of evidence that has pointed to a growing distancing from Israel of American Jews, most pronounced among younger Jews, and explores critical questions behind their presumably diminished attachment to Israel

The Continuity of Discontinuity: How Young Jews Are Connecting, Creating, and Organizing Their Own Jewish Lives

Based on case studies of four self-initiated ventures in Jewish self-organizing, explores their organizing principles, the limitations of and challenges for conventional institutions, and implications for engaging the new generation

Legwork, Framework, Artwork: Engaging the Next Generation of Jews: A Report on the Rose Community Foundation's Next Generation Initiative

Describes the foundation's Next Generation Initiative, which set out to change the culture of Jewish life of people in their 20s and 30s in Denver and Boulder, CO. Provides an overview of modern Jewish life in America, gives a picture of its target demographic, and shows how the initiative set out to create and sustain a vibrant Jewish community. With bibliographical references

Distancing is Closer than Ever

A concluding word on the exchange on the Distancing Hypothesis

Framing Conflict: Why American Congregations Cannot Not Talk about Israel

Israel has unified American Jewish communal life for much of the 20th century. However, early in the 21st century, Israel may no longer serve as a source for Jewish unity but of division, and American Jews are increasingly having a difficult time talking about Israel inside of their institutions. This phenomenon has become something of a truism, yet there has been no in-depth case study that explores why this is the case. This article seeks to fill this gap. Over the course of 46 interviews with 55 members of a non-Orthodox congregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, we explored why this community found it so difficult to talk about Israel. Contrary to popular perception that would have predicted that Israel would play a central role in this community, it played hardly any role at all. Using Erving Goffman’s theory of frame analysis, we identified three frames that explain the relative absence of Israel talk. Congregants have absorbed the “problem frame,” which holds that talking about Israel would be potentially divisive and toxic, despite the fact that none of the congregants experienced conflict. They mobilized two other frames – the “resource frame” and the “local frame” – which are in conflict with one another. The “resource frame” holds that Israel is an important and beloved resource for identity, community, and practice. Yet, the “local frame” prioritizes more immediate issues or concerns above the more abstract commitment to Israel. The resultant tension between Israel as an abstract resource for Jewish identity and the more immediate ways in which people operationalized their commitments, suggests that beneath the problem frame lies a tension that is less communal than personal