June 22, 2012 / 2 Tammuz 5772

The Global Jewish Forum, held three times annually during The Jewish Agency’s Board of Governors meeting, has become one of the most anticipated gatherings on the Jewish communal calendar. Bringing together a cross-section of Jewish leaders, government officials, clergy, educators and activists of all ages, the Forum forces Jews representing the entire spectrum of world Jewry to challenge one another’s convictions on the toughest issues of our time in order to better understand the sources of passion that drive Jewish thought, study and culture. 

Robbie Gringras, artist-in-residence of Makom, a Jewish Agency-affiliated center for cutting-edge Israel engagement programming and content, believes that the productive discomfort engendered by programs like the Global Jewish Forum, ultimately result in a Jewish leadership writ large that approaches challenges with increased nuance and creativity. In advance of next week’s event, Gringas took an opportunity to discuss the Global Jewish Forum, how it has evolved and where it is going/ 

1.  How did the Global Jewish Forum Begin
   The Board of Governors of the Jewish Agency meets three times a year. That’s three times a year most of the leadership of the Jewish world gathers together, in one of the broadest denominational and political spreads you can imagine. The Jewish Agency decided to take advantage of this gathering to address more than The Jewish Agency’s own specific agenda, and provide a forum for leaders to sit together and think, share ideas, and attempt to grapple with the sticky, complex issues that a straight yes-no vote in a committee cannot address. Makom was given the role of building and designing these fora, and we made sure that for every Forum young people, “emerging leaders”, from Israel and from abroad, would also be invited to participate.
   
   
2. How are the topics determined?
   We at Makom come up with a list of three possible topics that have emerged in the Jewish world with regards to Israel. We tend to look for things that are in the headlines, but that also contain within them deeper questions of Jewish identity – not subjects that are passing trends. Then the leadership of The Jewish Agency and the board of Makom deliberates and together we come to a decision.
   
   Developing the way in which to address the topic chosen starts from with huge amount of research! Meeting people, reading endless articles, talking through stuff within the Makom team. At the same time as trying to get a hold on the topic, we are looking around for wise and brilliant people who can act as our “expert witnesses” to invite to present. Then we begin to build the structure of the day. We’re always keen to make sure there is room for interaction, for small group discussions, and that there aren’t only men presenting from the podium! The Forum is never just a gathering of vaguely connected lectures. It always tries to take people on a journey.
   
   Alongside all this we are developing the source booklet, questions and articles on our website, and thinking ahead as to how all this work and thinking can be translated into educational programs long after the Forum is over.
   
   
3. What is the desired outcome of each program?
   The desired outcome is an educational one, not necessarily an operational one. For example, when we ran the Global Jewish Forum on Haredim in Israel, our desired outcome was not that a particular committee would make a specific policy decision. Rather that all participants, in all of their many different leadership roles inside and outside the Jewish Agency, will address the issue of Haredim in a more informed, sophisticated, and confident way. (We are also happy when other organizations invite us to present the same program for them! For example, the Forum we ran on Delegitimation has been presented at the GA, at Tribefest, ACCESS 20/20, etc.)
   
   
4. The topic for next week’s forum is To Be a Free People in Our Land. Can you explain the title and its relationship to the topic?
   The penultimate line in Hatikvah sums up the liberal nationalist aims of the Jewish state (we call it the Hatikvah Vision). To be free. But not to be free only as an individual – to be free as a collective, as a People. And not just that, but to realize this freedom, this national liberation, in the Land of Israel. Some would maintain that there are in-built tensions between individual freedom and the nature of a collective, and that there are specific tensions between freedom and our choice to live in “Our Land” while others maintain it is theirs! So in one sense the title of the Forum could be a presentation of a problem, while in another sense it is a lyrical expression of one of the Jewish People’s greatest achievement.
   
   
5. Do you personally believe individual freedom and Zionism are on  collision course?
   I personally believe that collision courses between thoughtful friends are always generative, morally essential, and the greatest force for creativity I know.
   
   
6. How much of this topic was driven by the buzz surrounding Peter Beinart
   “Buzz” is an interesting word! The choice of topic was certainly driven by the passionate writing and passionate responses to the writing of Peter Beinart, and similar phenomena throughout the Jewish world. (Think about Yahad in the UK, JCall in Europe, the reception of NIF in Australia…) We perceive three shifts that have emerged: a) Zionism is now defined and judged according to the actions of Israel’s government, and not on theory alone. b) We can no longer assume that most Jews accept that Liberalism and Zionism are two harmonious members of the same moral family. c) Whenever Jewish communities perceive that an issue involves a clash between Liberalism and Zionism, there is an explosion… and reasonable discourse breaks down. Our aim is to begin to explore ways in which reasonable discourse can replace the explosions.
   
   
7. Michael Sandel, author of What Money Can’t Buy will be the keynote speaker. What do you think he’ll add?
   Michael Sandel will add to the discussion in two crucial ways. First, his socratic technique of interacting with an audience (effectively running a seminar for a thousand people at a time!) is a technique we could well learn from. Second, he is an advocate for moral debate. His contention is that too often we shy away from having deep committed moral discussion, and when we can’t avoid dealing with morality, we just tend to shout! His presentations embody this conviction, together with a modeling of what moral debate might/should look like, that is inspiring and empowering.