Theodore Sasson (b. 1965)

From passive fans sitting in the bleachers to active players on the field of contentious Israeli politics.

The debate about American Jewry’s relationship with Israel became both academic and political. Academics debated the “distancing thesis,” the claim that young, liberal, American Jews were abandoning Israel. Scholars also analyzed different attachment models or understandings of nationalism and identity to explain American Jews’ engagement—or disengagement—with a Jewish state six thousand miles away. Yet their arguments were ultimately ideological. The scholarly combatants often favored particular readings of Israeli politics, the American Jewish future, or the Zionist idea.

In 2013 the Brandeis and Middlebury sociologist Theodore Sasson analyzed the “new American Zionism.” Using sociological analysis to move beyond speculation and finger-wagging, he refuted the distancing hypothesis statistically, noting that since the 1980s more than 60 percent of American Jews of all ages have found Israel at least “somewhat” important to them. He also contended that the various platforms for American Jews’ interaction with their homeland reflected a robust multidimensional relationship.

Suggesting a way forward ideologically, Sasson now points to what could be called a doppelganger Zionism. This mirroring emerges most clearly in Birthright-style mifgashim, those popular encounters in which Israeli and Diaspora peers look at their intimate “other” closely and experience an intensity akin to a reunion with a long-lost relative. While that greater intimacy sometimes looks contentious because it generates greater intensity, the two groups appreciate enough similarities in each other’s Jewish selves to feel comfortable enough to explore their differences. Sasson then points to a new, mobilized, Birthright-infused American Zionism that shifts from cheerleader to starring player, from Israel supporter to influencer.

The New American Zionism (2013)

In recent years, many journalists and social scientists have described American Jews as “distancing” from Israel. Yet . . . the evidence suggests something perhaps surprisingly closer to the opposite: Across multiple fields, including advocacy, philanthropy, and tourism, American Jews have stepped up their level of engagement with Israel. Attitudinally, they remain as emotionally attached to Israel as they have been at any point during the past quarter century.

Nonetheless, the relationship of American Jews to Israel has changed in several important ways. . . .

The mobilization model that characterized American Jewish engagement with Israel is in a state of decline. Alongside it, a new “direct engagement” model has emerged, especially among the most active segments of the community. . . . American Jewish engagement with Israel increasingly resembles the pattern established by other contemporary diasporas, a pattern characterized by diverse political and philanthropic projects, contentious politics, frequent homeland travel, high levels of consumption of homeland news and entertainment, and realistic rather than idealistic attitudes toward the homeland state and society. . . .

Today, American Jews are more likely to advocate politically on behalf of their own personal views and target their Israel-bound donations to causes they care about personally. They are also more likely to connect to Israel directly, through travel and consumption of Israeli news and entertainment, often through the Internet. . . . With these changes, American Jews are increasingly behaving like other contemporary diaspora communities—they are becoming a normal diaspora. As a result, Israel may become more personally meaningful for many American Jews even as, paradoxically, their capacity to influence Israeli policies diminishes. . . .

More American Jews care sufficiently about Israel to seek to influence its future. . . . For such individuals and the organizations they establish and support, mere support for Israel no longer reflects and expresses their deepest passions. Rather, they seek to mold, direct, shape, and influence Israel’s future development. Moreover, they also seek to connect to Israel in a personal, direct, and experiential fashion. . . . They have gone from passive fans sitting in the bleachers to active players on the field of contentious Israeli politics.