Language Matters:
Evolving Israel Advocacy to Education Diplomacy in Teen Engagement
Abstract
This article examines the shift from traditional Israel Advocacy to a more nuanced Education Diplomacy approach in teen immersive Israel engagement programs. Drawing on research from diverse educational fields, it proposes a framework that balances particularistic Jewish identity with universalistic global citizenship values to meet the needs of 21st-century Jewish teens. The paper presents theoretical foundations and practical applications for educator-practitioners seeking to foster open dialogue, multicultural understanding, and constructivist learning in Israel education.
Introduction
Contemporary Jewish teens navigate complex intersections of identity in an increasingly globalized world. Research from evaluations of teens and young adults who have experienced Israel advocacy training reveals a need to reinvigorate Israel engagement through a multicultural framework rather than an insular approach. This article explores the theoretical underpinnings and practical implications of transitioning from traditional Israel Advocacy to Education Diplomacy (Ed Dip) in teen immersive Israel engagement programs.
The current state of Israel education often emphasizes advocacy over education, creating a reactive rather than proactive approach. As Sucharov (2011) notes, “Israel Advocates focus on what they term a campaign of ‘delegitimization’ of Israel” (p. 368), resulting in a single-lens perspective that may not resonate with today’s Jewish youth who embrace both particularistic and universalistic identities. This paper argues for evolving Israel experiential learning to incorporate diverse opinions, create spaces for dialogue, and offer shared experiences that advance both universal and particularly Jewish values.
From Israel Education to Advocacy: Historical Context
Origins of Israel Education
Israel Education initially constituted Israel encounters within the “field of Jewish education and experience” (Ezrachi & Stunick, 1997, p. 2). Chazan (2016) frames Israel Education as a semi-new phenomenon within Jewish education, suggesting approaches through both humanist (individual identity) and culturalist (group identity) lenses. This balanced framework supports overlapping group identities and embraces diverse perspectives.
The Shift to Advocacy
The shift from education to advocacy occurred following the second Intifada in the early 2000s, when anti-Israel sentiments on university campuses prompted Jewish communal organizations to develop and fund campus advocacy groups like Stand With Us, The David Project, Hasbara Fellowships, and AIPAC (Koren, Saxe, & Fleisch, 2015). This transition prioritized defensive positioning over educational exploration, leading to what researchers describe as “a loss of context, loss of nuance, and of opportunities for open dialogue welcoming diverse—and at times opposing—opinions” (The David Project, 2012).
Advocacy versus Engagement
Research suggests that “efforts that cast Israel solely in political terms often turn off college students” (Koren et al., p. 26), leading some campus advocacy organizations to replace the term “advocacy” with “engagement.” This shift reflects a move toward “normalization” and “engagement”—attempts to refocus discussion of Israel away from conflict and toward Israel as a normal country with rich culture and society. The emerging consensus indicates that relationship-building based on exchanges of ideas, open dialogue, and points of intersecting values can transform discourse around contentious topics (Persaud & Murphy, 2019; Bartram et al., 2015).
Balancing Values: Particular versus Universal
Social Group Identity
Ben Hagai and Zurbriggen (2017) examine what leads students to choose either advocating for or taking a critical stance toward Israel through the lens of social identity theory and narrative psychology. Their research found that “those who advocated for Israel tended to become immersed in educational activities that focused on Jewish vulnerability upon entering college” (p. 191), while those whose education emphasized tikkun olam and social justice often gravitated toward the Palestinian narrative. This highlights how the conditioning of values and narrative framing significantly influences identity formation and political positioning.
Overcoming Contradictory Narratives
The challenge lies in developing an educational framework that doesn’t force a choice between defending Israel’s existence and recognizing Palestinian narratives. Narrative acknowledgment serves as a foundation for Peace Education among conflicting groups (Cohan & Howlett, 2017; Weissman, 2017). Kumashiro (2000) suggests that “Learning about the Other with the goal of empathy often involves seeing how ‘they’ are like ‘us'” (p. 45), creating space for mutual recognition.
Conflict Resolution Through Diplomacy
Mizrachi and Weiss (2019) propose that facilitating conflict resolution through open dialogue requires transparency and welcomes all opinions. Their research demonstrates that when religious Jewish and Muslim groups were simply asked, “What is the religious language of peace? What would peace be for you?” the conversation transformed. This approach acknowledges that “not all peacemaking efforts, nor diplomatic efforts, are necessarily anchored in liberal ideologies” (Zalzberg, 2019, p. 2), allowing for diverse worldviews to contribute to resolution.
Education Diplomacy: A Proactive Framework
From Reactive to Proactive Methodology
Education Diplomacy acquires skillsets and internalizes humanistic values that drive influence on local, national, or international levels by fostering cooperation and implementing changes (Bartram et al., 2015). Brown (2014) suggests that Ed Dip is “a proactive approach for engaging and empowering our youth” (p. 161) that fits our times, requiring cooperation between school leaders, educators, and community stakeholders.
Diplomatic Skills for Educators
Education Diplomacy methodology empowers educators to increase collaboration across multi-social sectors (Persaud & Murphy, 2019; Selim, 2021). Key competencies include:
- Communication
- Building trust and mutual respect
- Exploring influence and persuasion
- Managing power dynamics
- Fostering consensus and compromise
- Negotiation techniques
Singleton (2005) offers “Four Agreements of Courageous Conversations” for educators entering challenging dialogue:
- Stay engaged
- Speak your truth
- Experience discomfort
- Expect and accept non-closure
Theoretical Frameworks
Constructivist Theory as Diplomatic Pedagogy
Constructivism posits that learning is active, not passive (Alan, 2016; Bada & Olusegun, 2015). In a constructivist classroom, students are active participants who “construct knowledge in their own minds” (Bada & Olusegun, 2015, p. 66) through experimentation, research projects, field trips, films, and class discussions. This approach “promotes social and communication skills by creating a classroom environment that emphasizes collaboration and exchange of ideas” (p. 68).
Student-Centered Learning
Constructivism shifts focus from teaching to learning, from transmitting knowledge to producing knowledge. Honebein’s (1996) seven pedagogical goals of constructivist learning environments include:
- Providing experience with knowledge construction
- Appreciating multiple perspectives
- Embedding learning in realistic contexts
- Encouraging ownership in the learning process
- Embedding learning in social experience
- Using multiple modes of representation
- Encouraging awareness of the knowledge construction process
Dialogue as Pedagogy
Bruce and Burbules (2001) suggest that social interactions between practitioners and learners function as dialogue, a co-construction of knowledge produced through engagement in the discovery process. The context, activities, relations among participants, subject matter, and participant differences all impact this dialectical process. This approach to dialogue is central to Education Diplomacy’s goal of providing space for transparent conversation, multicultural understanding, and relationship building.
Prosocial Behavior and Modeling Diplomacy
Scholars suggest prosocial behavior occurs when people act to benefit others rather than themselves (Eisenberg et al., 2006). De Matos (2001) offers approaches for communication in a constructive prosocial framework, including:
- Humanizing dialogue
- Avoiding dehumanizing language
- Viewing oneself in a positive light
- Handling differences constructively
- Choosing words based on “Peace Power”
Experiential learning through programs like Model United Nations demonstrates that “diplomatic simulations are effective in facilitating and measuring youth interaction and internalization” (Selim, 2021, p. 56). These programs help students develop communication skills, empathy, problem-solving abilities, and collaboration.
Practical Applications for Israel Education
Creating Education Diplomacy Spaces
Educator-practitioners can redesign Israel engagement programs by:
- Incorporating diverse perspectives and narratives
- Creating safe spaces for honest dialogue
- Using constructivist learning activities
- Focusing on relationship-building rather than political positioning
- Training facilitators in diplomatic skills
Sample Activities
- Experiential simulations that explore multiple perspectives
- Research projects examining diverse narratives
- Field trips that showcase Israel’s cultural, social, and historical contexts
- Film discussions that present varied viewpoints
- Facilitated dialogues using Singleton’s Four Agreements
Conclusion
The evolution from Israel Advocacy to Education Diplomacy represents an opportunity to meet Jewish teens where they are—as members of both global and Jewish communities. By embracing constructivist pedagogy, prosocial communication, and diplomatic skills, educator-practitioners can create Israel engagement programs that honor both particularistic Jewish identity and universalistic global citizenship values. This approach requires intentionality, transparency, and willingness to engage with complexity. The investment in developing a philosophy of Israel Engagement that reflects both particular and universal social values through Education Diplomacy has the potential to transform how we engage Jewish youth today, creating meaningful connections to Israel that resonate with their multifaceted identities and values.
References
Alam, M. (2016). Constructivism and reflectivism as the logical counterparts in TESOL: Learning theory versus teaching methodology. TEFLIN Journal, 27(1), 49-62.
Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70.
Bartram, S., Malhoyt-Lee, S., Sheen-Diaz, D., & Sullivan, M. (2015). Education diplomacy: A collaborative approach to addressing education challenges. Childhood Education, 91(3), 177-182.
Ben Hagai, E., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2017). Between tikkun olam and self-defense: Young Jewish Americans debate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 5(1), 173-199.
Brown, B. (2018). Dare to lead: Brave work. Tough conversations. Whole hearts. Random House.
Brown, N. (2014). The global education diplomacy of the United Nations Academic Impact. Childhood Education, 90(2), 161-163.
Bruce, B. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2001). Theory and research on teaching as dialogue. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 1-32). American Educational Research Association.
Chazan, B. (2016). A philosophy of Israel education: A relational approach. Palgrave Macmillan.
Cohan, A., & Howlett, C. F. (2017). Teaching peace through children’s literature. Information Age Publishing.
de Matos, F. G. (2001). Applying the pedagogy of positiveness to diplomatic communication. In J. Kurbalija & H. Slavik (Eds.), Language and diplomacy (pp. 281-287). DiploFoundation.
Dessel, A., Mishkin, A., Alice, P., & Ali, N. (2014). Intergroup dialogue: A critical-dialogic approach to learning about difference, inequality, and social justice. Dialogue: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Popular Culture and Pedagogy, 1(1).
Dewey, J. (2008). The school and society. Cosimo Classics.
Draper, R. J. (2002). School mathematics reform, constructivism, and literacy: A case for literacy instruction in the reform-oriented math classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(6), 520-529.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 646-718). Wiley.
Ezrachi, E., & Sutnick, B. (1997). Israel education and the search for Jewish identity. Israel Affairs, 3(3-4), 1-7.
Garrison, J., Neubert, S., & Reich, K. (2016). Democracy and education reconsidered: Dewey after one hundred years. Routledge.
Grant, L. (2008). How Jewish youth think about Israel. Contemporary Jewry, 28(1), 152-178.
Hess, D. E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. Routledge.
Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 11-24). Educational Technology Publications.
Koren, A., Saxe, L., & Fleisch, E. (2015). Jewish life on campus: From backwater to battleground. In A. Dashefsky & I. Sheskin (Eds.), American Jewish year book 2015 (pp. 45-88). Springer.
Kumashiro, K. K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 25-53.
Lapayese, Y. V. (2003). Toward a critical global citizenship education. Comparative Education Review, 47(4), 493-501.
Marecek, J., Fine, M., & Kidder, L. (2001). Working between two worlds: Qualitative methods and psychology. In D. L. Tolman & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds.), From subjects to subjectivities: A handbook of interpretive and participatory methods (pp. 29-41). New York University Press.
Mizrachi, N., & Weiss, E. (2019). Transcending the secular-religious divide? Transterritorial reorientations in the Israeli peace movement. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 32(4), 563-579.
Neumann, I. B. (2002). Returning practice to the linguistic turn: The case of diplomacy. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31(3), 627-651.
Noddings, N. (2006). Critical lessons: What our schools should teach. Cambridge University Press.
Nye, J. S. (2005). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs.
Persaud, C. H., & Murphy, D. C. (2019). Education diplomacy: A new framework for education development and international cooperation. Childhood Education, 95(6), 24-33.
Peterson, A. (2014). The promise of justice education. Childhood Education, 90(2), 148-151.
Pomson, A., & Held, D. (2012). Jewish education and the meaning of the state of Israel. In L. Grant, A. Pomson, & S. Israel (Eds.), Israel education matters: A 21st century challenge (pp. 102-115). The Samis Foundation.
Poole, C. M., & Russell, W. B. (2015). Educating for global perspectives: A study of teacher preparation programs. Journal of Education, 195(3), 41-52.
Saha, L. J. (2001). The sociology of comparative education. In J. Demaine (Ed.), Sociology of education today (pp. 18-36). Palgrave.
Saxe, L., Sasson, T., & Aronson, J. K. (2014).
Pew’s portrait of American Jewry: A reassessment of the assimilation narrative. In A. Dashefsky & I. Sheskin (Eds.), American Jewish year book 2014 (pp. 71-81). Springer.
Schatzki, T. R., Cetina, K. K., & von Savigny, E. (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. Routledge.
Selim, N. (2021). Model United Nations as education diplomacy: Promoting socially responsible learning. Childhood Education, 97(1), 54-57.
Singleton, G. E. (2005). Courageous conversations about race: A field guide for achieving equity in schools. Corwin Press.
Sucharov, M. (2011). Values, identity, and Israel advocacy. Foreign Policy Analysis, 7(4), 361-380.
The David Project. (2012). A whitepaper on Israel in the American academy. The David Project.
Vollhardt, J. R. (2009). Altruism born of suffering and prosocial behavior following adverse life events: A review and conceptualization. Social Justice Research, 22(1), 53-97.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.), The invented reality (pp. 17-40). Norton.
Weissman, S. (2017). Teaching controversial issues in Israel education: One educator’s journey. Israel Studies, 22(2), 1-23.
Zalzberg, O. (2019). Religion and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Cause, consequence, and cure. The Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.
