Jewish and Chinese Memory of Trauma

 hey y'all,
At kvutza seminar I mentioned that I was taking a class on Jewish Experience in China and as part of that course we have been discussing in depth the concept of cultural memory from both the Chinese and Jewish sides. In the spirit of bringing this part of my current life into the kvutza fold, I'd like to share with you all this essay my Professor wrote on looking at the holocaust and the Nanjing massacre. I find it super interesting, and it also ties in with what some people in the kvutza have been doing in relation to a Shoah choveret. so here is the link, I'm probably violating a copyright law doing this, that's true love: file:///Users/afriedland/Downloads/eres_0712093344_001_1.pdf  . Hopefully the link works <3 you all, Av'H,
Abigail

Sarai and Hagar - An interpretation.

Hi Chaverim!

So as you may or may not have known, I've been working on a project (with Lior and hopefully others soon!). The project is to reinterpret the texts of the Torah in a feminist light and make art out of it. During the seminar I shared the first installment about Adam and Eve. And I just finished the second one! This relates to the story of Hagar and Sarah, the two women who have Abraham's kids. So basically, what happens is that Sarah can't have kids, so she "gives" Abraham Hagar so they can have a kid. They have Ishmael. Once Hagar has a child Sarai gets pretty pissed off and is harsh, Hagar runs away. To convince Hagar to return God speaks to her and says that he will make a great nation out of her offspring. She returns and then Sarah is able to have a child: Isaac. So what we have here is two women with a rocky history both as the mothers of two great nations.

The way I chose to interpret the text was kind of a cautionary tale of what happens when women try to form bonds of solidarity when under the stressors of patriarchy and oppression. I choose to see Sarah and Hagars offspring as nations struggling to build each other. The women are in different positions of power, Sarah is free (not a slave) and legitimate while Hagar is not. Yet, at first Hagar has power because she is able to have children which Sarah is not. It takes a relative switch of power dynamics for Sarah and Hagar to be able to both be the life forces of great nations. But even in the face of great adversity from each other and from larger patriarchal systems, they are able to be the life force of nations. (Nations that don't necessarily have to be in a hierarchical relationship just because one is "chosen")

Aleh v'Hagshem,

Yael

Amos Oz on nationalism and Zionism

Hey chaverim--I used this text (which we read on kaveret) in a J Street peula about the meaning and complications of a Jewish state/any nation-state based on an identity. For me, this really nicely reflects the challenges of understanding Zionism in the context of nationalism.

This is the place to make my first shocking confession -- others will follow. I think that the nation-state is a tool, an instrument, that is necessary for a return to Zion, but I am not enamored of this instrument. The idea of the nation-state is, in my eyes, “goyim naches” - a gentiles’ delight. I would be more than happy to live in a world composed of dozens of civilizations, each developing in accordance with its own internal rhythm, all cross-pollinating one another, without any one emerging as a nation-state: no flag, no emblem, no passport, no anthem. No nothing. Only spiritual civilizations tied somehow to their lands, without the tools of statehood and without the instruments of war.

But the Jewish people has already staged a long-running one-man show of that sort. The international audience sometimes applauded, sometimes threw stones, and occasionally slaughtered the actor. No one joined us; no one copied the model the Jews were forced to sustain for two thousand years, the model of a civilization without the “tools of statehood.” For me this drama ended with the murder of Europe’s Jews by Hitler. And I am forced to take it upon myself to play the “game of nations,” with all the tools of statehood, even though it causes me to feel (as George Steiner) like an old man in a kindergarten. To play the game with an emblem, and a flag and a passport and an army, and even war, provided that such war is an absolute existential necessity. I accept those rules of the game because existence without the tools of statehood is a matter of mortal danger, but I accept them only up to this point. To take pride in these tools of statehood? To worship these toys? To crow about them? Not I. If we must maintain these tools, including the instruments of death, it must be not only with glee but with wisdom as well. I would say with no glee at all, only with wisdom--and with caution. Nationalism itself is, in my eyes, the curse of mankind.

--Amos Oz, 1982

Links to Debates

Alan Dershowitz vs. Peter Beinart
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ffa6qMUX6U

Alan Dershowitz vs. Jeremy Ben Ami
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHAEKYBm8gc

Alan Dershowitz vs. Noam Chomsky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO2-eZ-1WA8

Alan Dershowitz vs. Meir Kahane
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S_QeauyLgA

Peter Beinart vs. David Suissa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw6QWeiWQLk

Peter Beinart vs. Daniel Gordis
Part 1 http://vimeo.com/41592929
Part 2 http://vimeo.com/41608614

Jeremy Ben Ami vs. Bill Kristol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOeSjAKPxjc

Jeremy Ben Ami/Danny Ayalon/Yehuda Hakohen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV_A2HyJEew

Caroline Glick/Dani Dayan vs. Two lefties- "Is Israel destroying itself with its settlement policy?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rk60vNUJ9Y

Dore Gold/Alan Dershowitz vs. Michael Scheuer/Avram Burg- "Is it time for the US to get tough on Israel?"
http://www.thedohadebates.com/debates/player.asp?d=44

Norman Finkelstein/Andrew Cockburn (lol cockburn) vs Martin Indyk/David Ahranovitch- "Does the Israel lobby stifle debate?" or something along those lines
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qA-MywWpMg

Jeremy Ben-Ami vs. Ian Lustick, Yousef Munayyer and Ahmad Khalid- "Two states or one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXIbI14xEAA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXIbI14xEAA

The Secret of the Movement's Strength - Zivia Lubetkin

                The second question is from where did the pioneer movement derive its strength? The Zionist pioneering youth movements took on the responsibility of all Jewish public life, a bit too late perhaps, during the most difficult days. I believe that one does not have to probe too far to find the answer. It would be wrong, painfully wrong, to assume that the resistance displayed by the youth during the stormy days of destruction was the response of a few individuals, of Yitschak, or Zivia, or Mordechai, or Frumka. We have lived and still live with the conviction that our fate would have been very different had we not been members of the Movement, if we had not absorbed the values that it gave us from childhood.

                This is the real secret of the movement’s strength. The Movement always knew how to demand everything from its members. The Movement’s goal had always been to educate a new kind of man, capable of enduring the most adverse conditions and difficult times while standing up for the emancipation of our people, of the Jew, of mankind. It was our movement education which gave us the strength to endure.

                I don’t know if I succeeded in describing how much we tried to live up to those values. I did mention how we were almost obsessed at times with preserving the unblemished personal morality of each of our members as individuals, and of the movement as a whole….

               What gave us this moral strength? We were able to endure the life in the ghetto because we knew that we were a collective, a movement. Each of us knew that he wasn’t alone. Every other Jew faced his fate alone, one man before the overpowering, invincible enemy. From the very first moment until the bitter end, we stood together as a collective, as a movement. The feeling that there was a movement, a community of people who cared about each other, who shared ideas and values in common, made it possible for each of us to do what we did. The greatest tragedy was that the Jews did not know what to do. From the very first days of demoralisation in the ghetto until the final days of destruction and death, they did not know what to do. We knew. Our movement values showed us our goals and how to achieve them. This was the source of the strength to live. It is the very same source which keeps the survivors alive even today.

Elements of Kvutza

Respect is not fear or awe; it denotes the ability to see a person as he/she is, to be aware of the unique individuality. Respect means the concern that the other person should grow and unfold as they are. Respect, thus, implies the absense of exploitation. I want the loved person to grow and unfold for their own sake, and not for the purpose of serving me. If I love the other person, I feel one with him or her, but with them as they are, not as I need them to be as an object for my use. It is clear that respect is only possible if I have achieved independence, without having to exploit anyone else. Respect exists only on the basis of freedom, for love is the child of freedom, never that of domination.

The most fundamental kind of love, which underlies all types of love, is brotherly love. By this I mean the sense of responsibility, care, respect, knowledge of any other human being, the wish to further his life. This is the kind of love the Bible speaks about when it says: Love your neighbour as yourself. Brotherly love is love for all human beings; it is characterized by its very lack of exlusiveness. If I have developed the capacity for love, then I cannot help loving my brothers. In brotherly love there is the experience of union with the whole of mankind, of human solidarity. Brotherly love is based on the experience that we're all one.

The differences in talents, intelligence, knowledge are negligible in comparison with the identity of the human core common to all men. In order to experience this identity it is necessary to penetrate from the periphery to the core. If I perceive in another person mainly the surface, I perceive mainly differences, that which separates us. If I penetrate to the core, I perceive our identity, the fact of out brotherhood.

Intentionality: The first thing we have to learn is that love is an art, just as living is an art; if we want to learn how to love we must proceed in the same way we have to proceed if we want to learn any other art. Maybe here lies the answer to the question of why people in our culture try so rarely to learn this art, in spite of their obvious failures: in spite of the deep-seated craving for love, almost everything else is considered to be more important than love: success, prestige, money, power - almost all our energy is used for learning of how to achieve these aims, and almost none to learn the art of loving.

For loving relationships energy must be directed towards the creation and perpetuation of love. In other words, love must be intentional. Each member of a kvutza must actively develop and explore their relationships with each other as well as their understanding of themselves. These things cannot happen on their own, they need intentionality.

Love isn't primarily about relating to one specific person, but ''is an attitude, an orientation of character, which determines the relatedness of the person to the world as a whole, not toward one 'object of love.' '' It follows that authentic love isn't remotely connected to the familiar, superficial, and much-misunderstood notion of romantic love, or ''falling in love.'' Rather, it's a demanding and disciplined ''art'' that includes elements of care, effort, respect, courage, responsibility and knowledge. Love, like any other ''art,'' involves mastering both theory and practice.

Consensus
Consensus is a process for group decision-making. The goal of consensus is for the group to work collaboratively to achieve better solutions, and to promote the growth of community and trust among the group members. All the participants are encouraged to give ideas and input. The input and ideas of all participants are gathered and synthesized to arrive at a final decision acceptable to all. Consensus requires members to listen and understand all sides of the issue.

Many of the decisions we face demand that we find ways to listen to opposing points of view, and find ways to accommodate deeply held and differing values. Conventional decision making mechanisms tend to exclude rather than include diverse interests and do not cope well with the complexity that many social issues present. In spite of this, Consensus Decision Making is currently the least used form of conflict resolution, taking a back seat to majority voting, Robert's rules, adversarial processes, and power structures. In spite of this, decision making by consensus can also be the most powerful and durable form of agreement.

Decision making is as much about conflict as it is about agreement. Consensus works better in an atmosphere in which conflict is encouraged, supported, explored and resolved cooperatively with respect and creativity. Conflict is desirable. It is not something to be avoided, dismissed, diminished or denied.
While consensus decision making may not be appropriate in all circumstances, it can be invaluable in reconciling competing interests, forging cooperative partnerships and exploring creative solutions to complex issues. Consensus processes do not avoid conflict or require abdication of leadership - but call upon leaders to forge partnerships that work toward developing solutions. A consensus process provides an opportunity for participants to work together as equals to realize acceptable actions or outcomes without imposing the views or authority of one group over another.


Economics
What does this cooperation look like? The concept of mutual aid dictates the sharing of resources and services to better one another not to benefit the individual over another in terms of greater monetary value and prestige in society.

Mutual aid is arguably as ancient as human culture; an intrinsic part of the small, communal societies, universal to humanity’s ancient past. From the dawn of humanity, until far beyond the invention of agriculture, humans were foragers, exchanging labor and resources for the benefit of group and individual alike.

We have been given the message that it is human nature to compete with one another but that is because our society is based on competition. This does not mean however that society cannot be based on a different set of principles and values, ones that stress cooperation over competition.

Our very concept of human nature, what we believe human beings are even capable of is affected by our economic system. If we create a structure that promotes cooperation over competition our very concept of human nature changes.

KUPA: A communal fund which acts as a tool that kvutzot use to build relationships, shared responsibility, and communal ownership.

A Vacuum does not Exist

               A vacuum does not exist. Wherever we go, whatever we do, the reality around us affects us: our surroundings shape our beliefs, our relationships, our behavior, and every intimate thought we have. There is no vacuum. If we do not think about how we want the world to look, others will do it for us. If we do not take active steps to shape the world in the way we believe is right, someone else will do it instead. As a group we have the power to create a different reality, with different behavioral norms. Our power as human beings stems from our ability to think, to plan, and to decide how we want to be as human beings and how we want our society to look. Our tools are our house, our routine, our culture. By making conscious decisions about our surroundings and our day-to-day activities, we are choosing the specific elements that we want to affect and change us. We must not give in to codes that we think are harmful. The Socialist Zionist movement proved that it is possible to create real change, and as Socialist Zionists we understand that we must be active in shaping reality to reflect our ideals.

On the Difference Between Revolutionary Service and Community Service - Nikitah Okembe Imana

               There are essentially three distinctions to be made in differentiating between revolutionary service and community service. The first is to examine the modus operandi of the organization to see if it is self-replicating or self-eliminating. Community service organizations, for the most part, function with an eye towards maintaining a foothold in the communities they serve, in a sense, to legitimate their own role. This is self-regarding and it results in the creation of a proverbial service or "vanguard" elite that hoards the organizational training and resources over the heads of the "masses." The problem with this model, in addition to the fact that it is undemocratic, is that it can never truly lead to revolution, for the relevant populations remain perpetual subjects of liberation rather than initiators of liberation, and a revolution cannot come from the top and the bottom.
                Revolutionary service, in stark contrast, emphasizes the dissemination of the methods, resources, and techniques of revolutionary organization to the population it desires to liberate from some type of oppression. Consequently,   revolutionary organizations and their leaders are always to be perceived as short-term facilitators for the community's liberation. This requires a sacrifice in terms of ego and individual aspirations to become a member of some revolutionary elite. The motivation behind this temporal nature of a revolutionary organization lies in the corruption inherent in power relationships. This effect can only be minimized by minimizing in turn the amount of time any particular organization or individual has a monopoly on the implements of revolutions. Accordingly, the best revolutionary organizations are those that emphasize tool-building projects like the development of alternative, independent, and non-exploitive economic ventures, literacy and community-regarding education for all, alternative media, etc.
                The second difference between the two forms of interaction is between outreach and in-reach. Outreach results as a consequence of the community service perspective whenever the "vanguard," by virtue of its monopoly of the tools of the revolution, begins to distinguish between itself and the population it is attempting to serve. Whether you agree with their economic theories or not, Marx & Engels hit the nail on the head in "The Communist Manifesto" when they said that the true communist agitator could have no interest apart from the proletariat, the class he/she sought to the tools of revolution. The revolutionary ideology, the physical movement, and the human resources must be constituted and operated by the population itself.
                The third and final distinction between revolutionary service and community service is drawn out of the second. The community servant and the "true" revolutionary inevitably have different views about the outcome of their work. The best case scenario for the former is that he or she be able to perpetually institutionalized a response to the needs of the population being served. Even if systematic change renders this desire meaningless, the community servant takes pride in the act of service. As such, the enthusiasm of community servant is cyclical and their actions tend to lack unity of purpose. There is no dominant goal that integrates them. For the revolutionary, however, the revolution is perceived as inevitable, needing only the sufficient distribution of the tools. As such, revolutionary organizations tend to thrive "underground" despite cyclical fluctuations in popular "liberal" opinion, and have a much higher degree of understanding of purpose between individual actions, in relation to the actions of the whole group, and in relation to the relevant population.
                Given the rising tide of fascism in the United States, I believe that it will be critical for the liberal establishment not to become co-opted as were some French and Austrians in WWII, nor to try to reform the system which will bring only brutal repression. We must strike the beast that is the system where it lives, in the hearts and minds of the masses of people and to do that we must be revolutionaries and not just community servants.

The Rebel - Albert Camus.

What is a rebel? A man who says no: but whose refusal does not imply a renunciation. He is also a man who says yes as soon as he begins to think for himself. A slave who has taken orders all of his life suddenly decides that he cannot obey some new command. What does he mean by saying "no"?

He means, for instance, that "this has been going on too long", "so far but no farther","you are going too far', or again "There are certain limits beyond which you shall not go." In other words, his "no" affirms the existence of a borderline. You find the same conception in the rebel's opinion that the other person is "exaggerating", that he is exerting his authority beyond a limit where he infringes upon the rights of others. He rebels because he categorically refuses to submit to conditions that he considers intolerable and also because he is confusedly convinced that his position is justified. It is in this way that the rebel slave says yes and no at the same time. He affirms that there are limits and also that he suspects-and wishes to preserve-the existence of certain things beyond those limits. He stubbornly insists that there are certain things in him which are "worth while..." and which must be taken into consideration.

In every act of rebellion, the man concerned experiences not only a feeling of revulsion at the infringement of his rights, but also a complete and spontaneous loyalty to certain aspects of himself. Thus, he implicitly brings into play a standard of values so far from being false that he is willing to preserve them at all costs. Up to this point he has, at least, kept quiet and, in despair has accepted a condition to which he submits even though he considers it unjust. To keep quiet is to allow yourself to believe that you have no opinions, that you want nothing, and in certain cases it amounts to really wanting nothing. Despair, like absurdism, prefers to consider everything in general and nothing in particular. Silence expresses this attitude very satisfactorily. But from the moment that the rebel finds his voice-even though he has nothing to say but no-he begins to consider things in particular. In the etymological sense, the rebel is a turncoat. He acted under the lash of his master's whip. Suddenly, he turns and faces him. He chooses what is preferable to what is not. Not every value leads to rebellion, but every rebellion tacitly invokes a value. Or is i really a question of values?

An awakening of consciousness, no matter how confused it may be, develops from any act of rebellion and is represented by the sudden realization that something exists with which the rebel can identify himself-even if only for a moment. Up to now this identification was never fully realized. Previous to his insurrection, the slave accepted all the demands made upon him. He even very often took orders, he baled. He was patient and though, perhaps, he protested inwardly, he was obviously more careful of his own immediate interests-in that he kept quiet-than aware of his own rights. But with loss of patience-with impatience -begins a reaction which can extend to everything that he accepted up to this moment, and which is almost always retroactive. Immediately the slave refuses to obey the humiliating orders of his master, he rejects the conditions of slavery. The act of rebellion carries him beyond the point reached by simply refusing. He exceeds the bounds that he established for his antagonist and demands that he should now be treated as an equal. What was, originally, an obstinate resistance on the part of the rebel, becomes personified. He proceeds to put self-respect above everything else and proclaims that it is preferable to life itself. It becomes, for him, the supreme blessing. Having previously been willing to compromise, the slave suddenly adopts an attitude of all or nothing. Knowledge is born and conscience is awakened.

Responsibility and Freedom - Elisha Shapira

A person is liberated when he sheds all external restraints. A person becomes free when he sets his own goals and their limitations. Freedom is not a situation where there are no boundaries. Freedom is a situation where you determine your own boundaries. The boundaries that you set for yourself are derived from your choices and from your responsibility for those choices. The Jewish nation was liberated when it left Egypt, and when it shed the chains of slavery, but it became a free people at Mount Sinai, when it chose between the golden calf and the Torah with all its commandments and restraints.

Responsibility – not only does not contradict freedom, it is the essence of freedom. 

Since human beings are social creatures and do not exist in a vacuum, the choice is really only between two options: the first is to be swept away and subjected to rules, regulations, and norms that others created for you, without you, and which serve, whether you are conscious of it or not, goals that you did not choose. The second is to take part in setting the goals, and affecting the rules and norms that result from these goals. Regarding this second option, it is important to mention that this does not mean that, in real life, at any given moment, your responsibility and your will are not going to contradict each other. You might even feel sometimes that your responsibilities are taking away your personal freedom.

I am trying to create a “comfortable” world without contradictions. But this kind of world does not exist, and it is definitely not in my power to create it. But I am trying to develop a system that takes into account the contradictions that exist between man and himself, between man and his environment, and the dynamic processes that we are all part of, and within all of this to strive to be true to a moral conscience.

The Eight Degrees of Tzedakah - Maimonides

There are eight degrees in the giving of tzedakah, one higher than the other:

One who gives grudgingly, reluctantly or with regret.
One who gives less than should be given but gives graciously. One who gives correctly, but only after being asked.
One who gives before being asked.
One who gives without knowing who receives the gift, although the receiver knows who has given.
One who gives without making themselves known.
One who gives without knowing who receives the gift, and the receiver doesn't know who has given.
One who helps another to support themselves by a gift or a loan or by finding them a job, because in this way the receiver is helped to become self-supporting.

What is Consensus?

What is consensus?

Consensus is a process for group decision-making. The goal of consensus is for the group to work collaboratively to achieve better solutions, and to promote the growth of community and trust amoung the group members. All the partipants are encouraged to give ideas and input. The input and ideas of all participants are gathered and synthesized to arrive at a final decision acceptable to all. Consensus requires members to listen and understand all sides of the issue.

Decision-making 

Many of the decisions we face demand that we find ways to listen to opposing points of view, and find ways to accommodate deeply held and differing values. Conventional decision making mechanisms tend to exclude rather than include diverse interests and do not cope well with the complexity that many social issues present. In spite of this, Consensus Decision Making is currently the least used form of conflict resolution, taking a back seat to majority voting, Robert's rules, adversarial processes, and power structures. In spite of this, decision making by consensus can also be the most powerful and durable form of agreement! 

Consensus

Decision making is as much about conflict as it is about agreement. Consensus works better in an atmosphere in which conflict is encouraged, supported, explored and resolved cooperatively with respect and creativity. Conflict is desirable. It is not something to be avoided, dismissed, diminished or denied.

While consensus decision making may not be appropriate in all circumstances, it can be invaluable in reconciling competing interests, forging cooperative partnerships and exploring creative solutions to complex issues. Consensus processes do not avoid conflict or require abdication of leadership - but call upon leaders to forge partnerships that work toward developing solutions. A consensus process provides an opportunity for participants to work together as equals to realize acceptable actions or outcomes without imposing the views or authority of one group over another.

A consensus process is one where all those who have a stake in the outcome work together to reach an agreement acceptable to all parties. Consensus is sometimes spoken of as "more or less unanimous", or "virtual unanimity", or "consensus minus one..or two". But true consensus brooks no such dilution. Every party thus has a veto power, and unanimity may seem an unattainable goal - but consensus when achieved, creates commitment to the agreement, and that is a powerful motivating force. Either all parties support a settlement or there is no consensus. Although they may not regard all aspects of the agreement as ideal, consensus is reached if all participants are willing to live with "the total package."

Consensus vs. voting

 
Voting is a means to choose one alternative from several. Consensus is a process of synthesizing many diverse elements together. Voting is almost always faster than consensus, but it may deter full discussions of ideas and may leave subgroups that do not support a decision, and in the worse case, disaffected members may work to undermine the decision they do not support. Consensus tries to create solutions that all the group members will support.

Advantages of consensus

·         The process builds trust and a sense of community among the members

·         All ideas and viewpoints are heard and considered giving the widest range of ideas to work from

·         Solutions are supported by the whole group

Consensus may be difficult if:

·         The group is new and not used to working with each other.

·         The group does not understand consensus process or has some members who do not.

·         The group is larger than 20

·         People are upset about something but not willing to address the issue directly.

·         The issue is complicated and there are a lot of options.

·         There aren't any good options available.

·         The correct question hasn't been posed.

Consensus should probably not be used when:

·         Members of the group attack each other over their positions, causing people to not state their real opinions or truths for fear of being attacked.

·         There is no agreed upon mission, purpose or principals for the group.

·         There is not an agreed upon consensus process for the group to use.

·         There is a clear hierarchy in the system where one persons opinions dominate, eg the boss speaks and countering the bosses ideas will cause negative consequences.

·         Individuals use blocking as a means to get their way or threaten to do so in order to influence the outcome.

·         There really is not a best answer for the group as a whole. For   example, colour choices as a design issue are entirely opinion based, and whether green or blue is best is a matter of opinion. There is no best answer.

Disadvantages of Consensus Decision Making

·         Takes time in a group meeting to hear everyone's ideas and opinions; the larger the group, the more time needed

·         The group has to consider all viewpoints and sort them out

·         Trust is needed among members to encourage idea and opinion sharing

·         Group leaders must use facilitation rather than control

·         Blocking allows one individual to hold up the whole group

Sample Steps for a basic consensus process

1.        Describe and define the problem, situation, or issue

2.        Write the exact item so all can see and refer to it

3.        Encourage people to offer ideas, opinions, and comments relevant to the item

4.        Brainstorm a list of alternatives without judging, discussing, or   rejecting any ideas

5.        Evaluate the list of alternatives and create a draft proposal that combines the best of all the ideas

6.        Review, revise the proposal until it meets the best interests of the group

7.        Write down the final proposal

8.        Ask if any one has any issues regarding adopting the proposal, if there are none left, you have achieved consensus

9.        Evaluate the results later; revise if needed

Special consensus problems

·         Facilitator is lacking or poorly trained so group does not function effectively

·         The group is poorly trained in consensus, or has numerous new members that lack training or experience with consensus

·         People do not really share their ideas or objections in order to end the meeting quickly.

·         People agree to things they really don't want in order to get along or because they are afraid to speak up.

·         The group is deadlocked between two alternative proposals

·         Two or more group members dominate the issue, participation is not equal.

·         One or more group members withdraw from the process

·         Group avoids consideration of unpopular alternative ideas

·         Group climate is hostile, members attack each others ideas creating a negative atmosphere

·         Two or more group members have an unresolved conflict which affects the issue.

·         Behaviors, attitudes, or personality problems keep the group from working effectively

·         One member blocks, or threatens to block, for personal gain or to exercise power.

·         Issues do not get resolved, keep getting sent back to subgroup for more refinement, subgroup loses interest or becomes demoralized after continued efforts do not achieve a solution.

·         Group members who were not present at the discusssion bring up the same issues again.

·         Group members are not willing to compromise or work for the best interest of the group.

Nationality as Individuality - Moses Hess

Nationality is the individuality of a people. It is this individuality, however, which is the activating element: just as humanity cannot be actual without distinct individuals, so it cannot be actual without distinct, specific nations and peoples. Like any other being, humanity cannot actualize itself without mediation, it needs the medium of individuality.

On Zionist Youth Movements - Tzvi Lamm

The motif of 'the rebellion of the son,' the kind that leads not to detachment from the parents, but to accepting responsibility over them, is at the core of all Zionist youth always came from the same motive - for the youth to break through the existence of the Jewish exile while leading the nation... The Zionist youth movements were in their essence an act of escape from the anomie (chaos of values in a changing world) because they rebelled against the society around them. The youth's self-awareness and the intellectualizing of the rebellion were what allowed the Zionist youth movements to take responsibility over the nation's future despite the fact that they rejected its present.

The Chalutz Movement - Berl Katznelson

The pioneering is not just an idea on paper, but actually a way of life and a personal vision. Our belief is that this vision is the true emissary of history and the watchdog of the nation. Our hope is that this vision will be the foundation of the future. Our understanding is that this vision will not come to pass unless its bearers feel a deep sense for the life of the people. Despite this need, the vision never ceases to be a personal vision in all of its intensity and its essence. In this lies the value, the content, and the magnitude of the chalutz movement. Because of this, each individual is so important in this movement, which does not understand in its origin or in its purpose any other way other than complete self control. And this perhaps is the difference between this movement and others in our time, it strives to create the national future based on the creation of each individual life. For this reason, there are not real leaders and followers, but people who live and work, and whose life and work need to create a collective consensus. Perhaps this movement is the only practical one in our time in which the leadership and the program are not the center, however the lives and the work of people. The member himself is the goal. His life, experience, failures, victories, weaknesses, and bravery are themselves the core of the movement.

Regeneration of the Nation - Martin Buber

The Heart of the Matter

The internal overturning of the community, which settled The Land of Israel, can be called a regeneration or renewal of life.

This term raises in our hearts two different pictures. The first picture is a psychological one and the other biological. A person who experienced religious influence in a process of renewal of the soul, which changes his path in life, is said to have undergone regeneration. The idea I want to express here, following the religious writings of Judaism and Christianity, is that one who had been on the wrong path in life is allowed a clean slate after undergoing a total internal revolution. He feels that he is born again. This process all takes place within the limits of the soul of a person. This process does not need to remain within the limits of the soul, it can influence all external aspects of their life, but the basis of the regeneration is spiritual.

As opposed to this first picture [the biological one] the second picture is rooted in changes to organic forms. This regeneration takes place when organic cells disintegrate and are replaced by new healthy tissue. In the place of dead organs new ones come to life and take over their roles. The underpinning process takes place here in the material world and not in the consciousness as in the first picture. There (in the first picture) we refer to a spiritual act and here it is nature, which recreates the body. A living thing faces its annihilation, and regeneration takes place, in which what was lost develops anew. In this case regeneration is a process that works against degeneration. If we use the term regeneration to describe an important chapter in the life of a nation or a part of it, the first of the two pictures takes precedence in our minds. What this means is that in the soul of the nation or part of it, something essential changes.The national consciousness that declined as a result of historical processes rose again. The nation believes in itself again, and is not hopeless about its future; it believes in itself again as a force which can make things happen. The nation dares to start in a new path. This self-confidence strengthens the people and excites them toward acts of emancipation and victory, and prepares them to create structures that reinforce society and culture...

According to these assumptions we could expect a regeneration of the entire people, not only on the level of consciousness and will, but also on an objective level rooted in the creation of new tissues and organs, which mean structures. We bare witness to a rare event in the history of man. The aforementioned describes the overturning that is taking place in the hard core of the community which has settled in The Land of Israel.

The Principal of Choice

Of course those who went on brief tours of the country or encountered the people of Israel through buying memorabilia from them in shops in Tel Aviv will doubt this point. They will say that the people in Israel with whom they did business did not appear at all renewed (or regenerated). Maybe they didn't see properly. I intentionally emphasized that I am speaking of the hard core. Only one who infiltrated deeply and had direct contact with the hard core will be able to attest to this complete regeneration. What is the nature of the hard core? Where can it be found? What is its connection to the rest of society? How was it formed? What can be expected of it?

Therefore, generally they must be olim, especially the earliest, the founders, not a horde of poor exiles and fortunate seekers who are self-interested, but healthy, good, honest people, lovers of labor who live in peace according to good social norms. Because from those we can hope that while they are asking the question of what will we eat in Eretz Yisrael, they will silently and patiently do any work. Despite all of the difficulties, they will continue on their chosen path until they find a fair answer to their question with meaningful labor, which will make them into an example for the entire nation...


The Internal Layered Structure

Obviously the hard core in the regenerative sense in any organization, including an organization based on common opinions, cannot be based on profession or any other such thing. Of course one can be a Zionist and even a Socialist Zionist without undergoing an internal revolution of the soul and worldview, without changing one's way of life or perception of life to that which exemplifies true participation in the act of renewal. Enthusiasm is very important but the regeneration is not a matter of enthusiasm, however much it takes place in ones actions. Undoubtedly, the hard core is more likely to be found in villages, both in those organized more individualistically and those organized more collectively. In the difficult conditions of the collective life in the villages, a surplus of spirit is formed between partners at work. This surplus of spirit causes community members to relate to each other more and be there for one another on matters more important that structures or principals. I am not saying that this collective spirit exists in the villages; in fact it does not exist in any of them, however it is present in either a majority or minority of the members of each village and more importantly: this spirit exists in every place and in every person whom I describe as hard core. I identify with the spirit in which they live, and which radiates from them. In every village the hard core is surrounded by a different layer or more correctly a series of layers: A layer of those who are held up by the spirit only in part of their souls, those who are held up only on an intellectual level and not on a fundamental level, and an apathetic layer. They are influenced by the hard core on different levels, which are unintentional (on the part of the hard core), but in the example of the way they live their lives. This group, which I call the hard core, is an education one. The hard core grows as it educates by example. It directly influences the layer which is only partially committed, the younger generation, and the youth aliya which is joining many of the villages. It indirectly influences through the various youth movements the youth from the city who strive for the village, which is important in quality and growing in numbers...

The relationship between the hard core, the layers under its influence, and the layers which refuse its influence, is the measuring stick for the state of the regeneration of Am Yisrael in its land.

Elephants are a Big Threat to Judaism - Samo

Simply put, Capitalism is the elephant of which I speak. Our Jewish community is shouting from the top of the tallest mountain… Money = happiness.

The biggest threats to our community are the values of competition, selfishness, individualism, materialism and consumerism. Meaning with a barcode, which makes us feel good about ourselves. The direction that our community has taken is in direct contradiction with basic Jewish values. Escapism can never be the answer to the lack of fulfillment in our lives.

Money as the center of our community’s ambitions is a really big elephant in the room that we don’t talk about and when the time is right and no one else is around most people will give the elephant a most intimate and affectionate hug.

The Jewish obsession with financial prosperity has limited the potential of our “other” Jewish wealth - our souls - spiritual aspirations, our inner abilities to dream. Our hope and potential to create a world that is built on the humanistic values of Am Yisrael is slowly disappearing. Obsession with Money has limited us to a confined room, and rather than looking for a key, we are decorating.

Money = opportunity = position= power = Money

Money = happiness

This cycle rules our lives. Where has all the fulfillment gone? Why have we supplemented it with sporadic shots of pleasure? Has fulfillment become something limited to certain times of the year or certain stages in our lives? Has fulfillment become a ten day vacation or working for the weekend? Why is it that the list of rights of passage in one’s life now includes a mid life crisis?

What I’m asking is: Would life not have more meaning if we were to have jobs that defined us—our entire spiritual, educational holistic being. A job that gives us meaning -one where we would wake up in the mornings excited for the prospect of it being a new day with new challenges, new ways to affect change in our lives and society. A reality we engage with and not want to run away from. What we do today defines who we will be tomorrow. These ideas are becoming a foreign pipe dream to us and the thought of how this will limit future generations is despairing.

Capitalism leads to immorality because it takes away the fact that human beings are social beings. It makes life a competition where the person with the most power is the winner. Capitalism does not teach us to love thy neighbour it teaches us to beat him. Like the control of consumerism we will never have enough power, one of the roots of capitalism is the continual perpetuation of the system by us because we all believe that one day we will see our names at the top spot of the BRW Rich list.

This culture of competition, of winning “the life game” which has nothing to do with the ability of the human spirit, is leading us down a path of destruction, an individualistic and lonely lifestyle that leaves our souls empty.

Slowly our Jewish identity is being hijacked by consumerist culture. An identity based on objectification does not enhance our freedom but leads us to avoiding what is “real” in life. The consumerist environment is no longer just related to going to Westfield when I feel down. It’s seeing our parents solely as providers, seeing our friends as objects, actively consuming our relationships. In the 21^st century it will be us, generation Y, who are known for giving our loved ones this advice. Feeling socially vulnerable? Go shopping, it makes you feel better! Low self esteem? Tease somebody. Having a hard time dealing with the questions of your life? Weed clears everything up! Our answers of poker and drugs are not genuine answers yet these are the answers of today.

Relationships are only one example, a microcosm of how we engage with our Judaism today. Rather than seeing it as an all-encompassing way of life that enhances human beings and fulfills us, we are all still looking for our quick fix. Aspirations in a vial. Retail therapy, sweeping stuff under the rug, escapism, drugs. These defense mechanisms might make us feel good for a moment in time but after that moment has passed we are still left with a life that leads to isolation and alienation from our loved ones and ourselves. We need a society of freethinking individuals who struggle with the harder complexities of what it means to live as a human being. We need a community of Jews who are more in touch with themselves, their identity, who they are, who they want to be and how to see their choices in the context of determining the destiny of the whole Jewish People.

Capitalism has become so institutionalized that education is now seen as a chore and not a virtue. Today learning is not about enriching life, it is about getting a piece of paper to get a better job with a better salary to enRICH one’s life. Although everything is telling us otherwise escapism is not an answer, it’s a quick fix that brings a smile to your face until you are faced with reality once again. A fix, which we are building a tolerance for.

To be a nation means to have solidarity between people, where has it gone?

Charity has become giving our 10 dollars to someone in need. It has become less about them and more about us. We are trying to give ourselves the legitimacy not to feel guilty for not living up to our Jewish  responsibilities or, at least, for asking why are there poor people in the first place? Our responsibility to the rest of our nation and the world at large is endangered by the way we make decisions not by delving into their complexities of how choices will affect our lives but by choosing efficiency and enjoyment because we “need“ answers NOW!. We are fighting a game of relative poverty where the 20 year old who doesn’t go to uni or have a car is poor and is less of a person than other members of our community by virtue of material possession, which leads to material position. The kid with the coolest game in school--the “trendsetter”--quickly becomes the cool kid. Not because of how they treat people, not because of the values they exude, not their life aspirations but their new Nintendo makes them the measuring stick to how we are living our lives.

Without solidarity within the Jewish people there is no Jewish people. No centre with value. If we carry on with the rat race people will be left to the way side and are being left to the wayside. As long as a person goes hungry to bed at night our Jewish mission is not being fulfilled. We are failing one of our biggest tests of life. Our responsibility is towards life itself and not just looking at our lives alone but the beating heart of the Jewish people. Equality is further away now than it ever has been. We don’t need to focus on the person who dies of hunger, lets focus on why parents will give their child a present, a material object as a sign of affection? The bigger the pooh bear the more my daddy loves me. Since when was a hug not enough? Why when we have conflict, which is natural, rather than working through issues and growing as people together we run to our ipods, go for a fast walk, hit punching bags or buy a Ferrari? To let off steam is a need but to see that as the solution to our problems of life is to choose to objectify our own lives.

I ask of you what is in the center of our Jewish community?

Is it God and the laws of Moses? Is it Zionism and Israel? Is it a Jewish culture and the nostalgic feeling of being a part of something bigger? Is that enough?

Or is it materialism? The rat race? Consumerism? Capitalism? A mixture of all of these?

We are in a downward spiral towards the abyss where we will lose the real meaning of living a Jewish life. This is not the view of a self hating Jew. This is the view of a worried member of our community saying our Jewish moral compass is leading us towards the best seat in synagogue or the newest Ipod on the market. We are much more worried about our image than the content of who we really are.

If I am beautiful, meaning I have a flat stomach, good social abilities and make enough money to ensure that there is somebody below me on the monetary ladder then I am “happy”, or at least happier than my  neighbour. A society that defines its members by how many zeros at the end of their bank account statement is a society that has lost its way.

As individualism reigns supreme, communication deteriorates. When you have social class, hierarchy, and the perfect image to keep up with, who has time for real communication? I am looking for a society where people give of themselves to other human beings--sharing of themselves insights into their inner thoughts and feelings? We are educated towards being carbon copies of societal expectations. In a society that doesn’t allow us to be unique why would we want to be? Being different is a disease. And yet the truth remains, all human beings are complex! We all feel a bit depressed sometimes, we all feel inadequate, we all feel love, we all have fun. We all should be struggling with the deeper questions of life but I don’t think we are going to find the answer in Westfield Bondi Junction where when I walk in I feel like an idolater praying to a shrine of consumerism.

So what now?

Rather than sitting around next Friday night debating how much your best friends brothers 2^nd wife got for her house in the east of Sydney, lets talk about why we are Jewish. What connects us to our neighbors? What does it mean to be a part of a nation that unifies human beings together?  What place does community have in our skewed moral compass? What demand does that make of us when it comes to thinking of our fellow man?

If only humans could hug humans with the same intimacy as we hug the elephant in the room.

Between Right and Right - Amos Oz

Who are the good guys? That's what every well-meaning European, left-wing European, intellectual European, liberal European always wants to know, first and foremost. Who are the good guys in the film and who are the bad guys. In this respect Vietnam was easy: The Vietnamese people were the victims, and the Americans were the bad guys. The same with apartheid: You could easily see that apartheid was a crime and that the struggle for civil rights, for liberation and equality, and for human dignity was right. The struggle between colonialism and imperialism, on the one hand, and the victims of colonialism and imperialism, on the other, seems relatively simple--you can tell the good guys from the bad. When it comes to the foundations of the Israeli-Arab conflict, in particular the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, things are not so straightforward. And I am afraid I am not going to make things any easier for you by saying simply: These are the angels, these are the devils; you just have to support the angels, and good will prevail over evil. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a Wild West movie. It is not a struggle between good and evil, rather it is a tragedy in the ancient and most precise sense of the word: a clash between right and right, a clash between one very powerful, deep, and convincing claim, and another very different but no less convincing, no less powerful, no less humane claim.

The Palestinians are in Palestine because Palestine is the homeland, and the only homeland, of the Palestinian people. In the same way in which Holland is the homeland of the Dutch, or Sweden the homeland of the Swedes. The Israeli Jews are in Israel because there is no other country in the world that the Jews, as a people, as a nation, could ever call home. As individuals, yes, but not as a people, not as a nation. The Palestinians have tried, unwillingly, to live in other Arab countries. They were rejected, sometimes even humiliated and persecuted by the so-called Arab family. They were made aware in the most painful way of their "Palestinianness"; they were not wanted by Lebanese or Syrians, by Egyptians or Iraqis. They had to learn the hard way that they are Palestinians, and that's the only country that they can hold on to. In a strange way the Jewish people and the Palestinian people have had a somewhat parallel historical experience. The Jews were kicked out of Europe; my parents were kicked out of Europe some seventy years ago. Just like the Palestinians were first kicked out of Palestine and then out of the Arab countries, or almost. When my father was a little boy in Poland, the streets of Europe were covered with graffiti, "Jews, go back to Palestine," or sometimes worse: "Dirty Yids, piss off to Palestine." When my father revisited Europe fifty years later, the walls were covered with new graffiti, "Jews, get out of Palestine."

People in Europe keep sending me wonderful invitations to spend a rosy weekend in a delightful resort with Palestinian partners, Palestinian colleagues, Palestinian counterparts, so that we can learn to know one another, to like one another, to drink a cup of coffee together, so that we realize that no one has horns and tails--and the trouble will go away. This is based on the widespread sentimental European idea that every conflict is essentially no more than a misunderstanding. A little group therapy, a touch of family counseling, and everyone will live happily ever after. Well, first, I have bad news for you: Some conflicts are very real; they are much worse than a mere misunderstanding. And then I have some sensational news for you: There is no essential misunderstanding between Palestinian Arab and Israeli Jew. The Palestinians want the land they call Palestine. They have very strong reasons to want it. The Israeli Jews want exactly the same land for exactly the same reasons, which provides for a perfect understanding between the parties, and for a terrible tragedy. Rivers of coffee drunk together cannot extinguish the tragedy of two peoples claiming, and I think rightly claiming, the same small country as their one and only national homeland in the whole world. So, drinking coffee together is wonderful and I'm all for it, especially if it is Arabic coffee, which is infinitely better than Israeli coffee. But drinking coffee cannot do away with the trouble

And If Not Now, When? - Martin Buber

        I frequently hear some among us saying: "We too want the  spirit of Judaism to be fulfilled; we too want the Torah to issue  forth from Zion, and we know that to realize this purpose the  Torah must not be mere words, but actual life; we want God's  word on Zion to become a reality. But this cannot happen until  the world again has a Zion, and so first of all we want to  build up Zion, and to build it with every possible means." It may, however, be characteristic of Zion that it cannot be built  with "every possible means," but only bemishpat (Is. 1:27),  only "with justice." It may be that God will refuse to receive his sanctuary from the hands of the devil. Suppose a man  decided to steal and rob for six years, and in the seventh, to  build a temple with the fortune thus amassed; suppose he succeeded would he really be rearing temple walls? Would he not  rather be setting up a den of robbers (Jer. 7:11), or a robber's  palace, on whose portals he dares to engrave the name of God?  It is true that God does not build his own house. He wants us  to build it with our human hands and our human strength,  for "house" in this connection can mean only that at long last  we may begin to live God's word on earth! But after we have  laid the foundations of this house by his means, bemishpat, do you really imagine that God is not strong enough to let it be finished by those same means? If you do imagine that, stop  talking about Judaism, Jewish spirit, and Jewish teachings! For  Judaism is the teaching that there is really only One Power  which, while at times it may permit the sham powers of the  world to accomplish something in opposition to it, never permits such accomplishment to stand. But whatever is done in  the service of that power, and done in such a way that not only the goal but the means to that goal are in accord with the  spirit of justice, will survive, even though it may have to struggle for a time, and may seem in great peril, and weak compared to the effective sham powers.  

I should like to bring a concept of the utmost importance  home even to those who cannot or will not understand the language of religion, and therefore believe that I am discussing theology. I am speaking of the reality of history. In historical reality, we do not set ourselves a righteous goal, choose whatever way to it an auspicious hour offers, and, following that  way, reach the set goal. If the goal to be reached is like the  goal which was set, then the nature of the way must be like  the goal. A wrong way, that is, a way in contradiction to the  goal, must lead to a wrong goal. What is accomplished through  lies can assume the mask of truth; what is accomplished  through violence, can go in the guise of justice, and for a  while the hoax may be successful. But soon people will realize that lies are lies at bottom, that in the final analysis, violence  is violence, and both lies and violence will suffer the destiny history has in store for all that is false. I sometimes hear it said that a generation must sacrifice itself, "take the sin upon itself," so that coming generations may be free to live righteously. But it is self-delusion and folly to think that one can lead a dissolute life and raise one's children to be good and happy; they will usually turn out to be hypocrites or tormented.

On Hitmodedut

Hitmodedut is a Hebrew word that has no precise English definition but the closest equivalent would be “a grappling with”. The Hebrew word comes from the Hebrew root MADAD. MADAD gives us the word for measurement and the word for coping.

It is not by coincidence, though, that the term for measurement and coping are related.

To cope with something, to deal with something, can be a passive act, can be an act of something happening to you and you suffering the consequences.  But coping can be active as well. Coping can be the active sizing of yourself in the face of a difficulty.  To deal with an issue can be to see yourself in that issue and understand how you would respond to it.  And this is where measurement comes in.

Lehitmoded (the infinitive of hitmodedut) in Hebrew means to deal with, cope with, but it also can mean to measure oneself.  When you lehitmoded with someone, you are facing that person.  You are sizing yourself; you are seeing how you measure up to them. And what is important in this process is seeing how you are different from that person. The measurements will never be the same, and yet this is exactly what makes you equal. Understanding yourself in the situation, understanding the person you are facing in the situation, and accepting that person - this is hitmodedut.  Hitmodedut can only come from a place of love. Hitmodedut involves seeing the person for who they are and seeing them for who they can be.  Hitmodedut is harnessing the unique spark inside every human being and making it shine brighter.

Truly, even in a hitmodedut with a person, you face yourself, for when measuring another person, you hold a mirror up to yourself.  This mirror reflects back upon you the demands you place on another person.

When measuring another and measuring yourself, you gain an understanding of exactly where the next step needs to be in order to facilitate growth. This also places a responsibility on you to take that step with the person, to show them the way, to see yourself in the mirror taking the step alongside them.

Right Against Right - Amos Oz

I have tried to describe, perhaps a little too starkly, both the view that regards the dispute as a kind of western with the civilized good guys righting the blood-thirsty natives, and also the romantic conceptions that endow it with the attributes of an ancient epic. As I see it, the confrontation between the Jews returning to Zion and the Arab inhabitants of the country is not like a western or an epic, but more like a Greek tragedy. It is a clash between right and right (although one must not seek a simplistic symmetry in it). And, as in all tragedies, there is no hope of a happy reconciliation based on a clever magical formula. The choice is between a bloodbath and a disappointing compromise, more like enforced acceptance than a sudden break-through of mutual understanding. 

True, the dispute is not 'symmetrical'. There is no symmetry between the constant, eager attempts of Zionism to establish a dialogue with the local Arabs and those of the neighboring states, and the bitter and consistent hostility the Arabs, with all their different political regimes, have for decades shown us in return. 

But it is a gross mistake, a common over-simplification, to believe that the dispute is based on a misunderstanding. It is based on full and complete understanding: we have repeatedly offered the Arabs goodwill, good neighborliness and cooperation, but that was not what they wanted from us. They wanted us, according to the most moderate Arab formulation, to abandon the idea of establishing a free Jewish State in the Land of Israel, and that is a concession we can never make. 

It is the height of naivety to believe that but for the intrigues of outsiders and the backwardness of fanatical regimes, the Arabs would realize the positive side of the Zionist enterprise and straightaway fall on our necks in brotherly love. 

The Arabs did not oppose Zionism because they failed to understand it but because they understood it only too well. And that is the tragedy: the mutual understanding does exist. We want to exist as a nation, as a State of Jews. They do not want that state. This cannot be glossed over with high-sounding phrases, neither the noble aspirations to brotherliness of well-meaning Jews, nor the clever Arab tactics of 'We will be content, at this stage, with the return of all refugees to their previous place of residence.' Any search for a way out must start from a fundamental change of position preceded by the open-eyed realization of the full extent of the struggle: a tragic conflict, tragic anguish. 

We are here because this is the only place where we can exist as a free nation. The Arabs are here because Palestine is the homeland of the Palestinians, just as Iraq is the homeland of the Iraqis and Holland the homeland of the Dutch. The question of what cultural assets the Palestinians have created here or what care they have taken of the landscape or the agriculture is of no relevance to the need to discuss their right to their homeland. Needless to say, the Palestinian owes no deference to God's promises to Abraham, to the longings of Yehuda Hallevi and Bialik, or the achievements of the early Zionist pioneers. 

Current talk about pushing the Palestinian masses back to oil-rich Kuwait or fertile Iraq makes no more sense than would talking about our own mass emigration to 'Jewish' Brooklyn. Knaves and fools in both camps might add: 'After all, they'll be among their brothers there.' But just as I am entitled to see myself as an Israeli Jew, not a Brooklyner or a Golders Greener, so a Palestinian Arab is entitled to regard himself as a Palestinian, not an Iraqi or Kuwaiti. The fact that only an enlightened minority of Palestinians seem to see it that way at the moment cannot prejudice the national right to self-determination when the time comes. Let us remember with all the reservations the comparison requires - that it was only a Zionist-minded minority of Jews that - justly! - claimed the right to establish a Hebrew State here in the name of the entire Jewish people for the benefit of the Jews who would one day come to a national consciousness. 

This land is our land. It is also their land. Right conflicts with right. To be a free people in our own land' is a right that is valid either universally or not at all.

Jewish Memory - Avraham Infeld

When I came to study in Israel, I wrote my dad a letter saying I would be studying Jewish History. He said "What, they teach Jewish History at the Hebrew University? There is no such thing as Jewish history. Gentiles have history, Jews have memory." The most important part of being a Jew is a sense of Jewish memory.

That is why the verb that appears most in our ritual is Z'chor, Zecher, Zicharon. Remember, remember, remember. If someone asks me to describe who is a Jew in one sentence, I would say, "a Jew is one who is strictly forbidden from suffering amnesia.

Imagine a couple about to get married, they are in love. Their parents have spent a fortune on the caterer. They get under the chuppa, and what is the first thing they do? Break a glass. Why? To remember the destruction of Jerusalem.

Believe me, I have never met a couple who have spent the first night of their marriage worrying about the destruction of the Temple. But you cannot build a Jewish family, build a new Jewish home, you cannot create Jewishly without calling upon Jewish memory. And my father was right. What is the difference between history and memory? History is knowing what happened in the past. Memory is asking how does what happened in the past impact on who I am today.

That is why we don't teach our children that our forefathers came out of Egypt. We teach them that each person must see oneself as if he or she personally came out of Egypt. The challenge to the Jew is how do you take this collective memory of this people and make it a part of your life.

As a child in South Africa, a major holiday in our home was Shavuot. I used to walk around the dining room table with a basket of fruit singing songs about fruits and the harvest. But it was stupid. It was the wrong season. I was in the wrong hemisphere! You pray for rain at the wrong time. You know why? Because as a Jew you don't function out of your own personal needs, you function out of a collective memory of a people.

On Educating Children - Janusz Korczak

Understanding their vulnerability: Children have little power and are therefore easily exploited and disempowered. This leads to a need for a pedagogy of "Stewardship" and the need to create a safe space for children to express themselves without the fear of being exploited.

Understanding their uniqueness: This is the key to nurturing children. We need to understand the spark in each child, respect the mystery in each child and therefore, while we try to understand and work with their uniqueness we should not try to reduce each young person to a totally understood human being. We need to lead each child to where they need to go. It is not about "making you into something" rather about helping "make you what you can make of yourself."

Understanding meaning making: Children are involved in a process of making meaning of their selves, their surroundings, their community, and their world. Educators have the power to shape the narrative within which this meaning making takes place.

Understanding community: To enable all the above to happen, it is important to create a community for these to happen and to enable the educators to ask the central questions: Who is the child? What is their greatest gift? What do they fear? How can we make them feel valued?

From the Address to the 9th Convention of Hanoar Haoved Vehalomed - Yitzhak Rabin

I used to be a member of the movement; I grew up in this movement where we slept in cabins. Cabins that were hot in the summer and, in the winter, leaked from the rain. I was among those who did Hachshara. I ended up in the Palmach, the Tzahal, and the rest we all know…

I came here today to greet you, but not only that, I also came to demand of you…

What do I expect of you? I was told by the mazkir that the issue for your discussion is: “Israeli society in times of peace.” Of course we have to look at the image of society once we will achieve peace, but we are still striving towards peace. The first thing I expect from this movement and from many others in this country is: Deal with the killers of peace! Deal with the Arabs and the Jews who are the killers of peace.

If there won’t be a movement of young people – and I mean your movement – that will know how to stand up, to support peace, and to resist the killers – those who want to assassinate peace… This is the movement that you have to be. This is your future.

The second thing is: Don’t accept conventions. Not in society, nor in any other fields. Whether it’s a society, a state, or any other kind of entity that does not know how to create change, it is an entity that has gone withered. The reality of today is different than the reality of fifty years ago in every aspect. If there is anything that is unique about youth, it’s the tendency towards rebellion against conventions. That is, not just for the sake of being a rebel, but for the sake of creating change…

This is why I place this demand on you – the youth movements. The youth movements in our times built an army and we built settlements because that was the need of the hour. Today the needs are different, more varied, and present more challenges for you to face. You will be tested in your ability to continue and change what there is to be changed. I wish for you to be like that. I believe you can be like that and, together, adults and youngsters, we will march this country into peace, security, prosperity and success.

Reuven and Shimon - Martin Buber

Let us imagine two human beings, sitting one beside the other, having a conversation - Reuven and Shimon - see if we can count the number of faces acting in this play.

Firstly - here is Reuven the way he wishes to be seen by Shimon, and Shimon the way he wishes to be seen by Reuven. Reuven as he really appears to Shimon, that is Shimon's image in Reuven's eyes, that usually isn't the same with the image wanted by Shimon, and vice versa.

Add to this Reuven as he is in his won eyes and Shimon as he is in his own eyes.
Lastly, Reuven and his inner world, and Shimon's inner world.

Two living human beings, six imaginary characters.
A truly spooky crowd.
 Often involved in a conversation of two!

If so, what is really real in human dialogue?

Laz - Zika - Martin Buber

There are two ways one person can relate to another in this world:
The first - "I - You" The second - "I - It"

We're walking on our path and we meet another person walking on his. All we know is the road that we walked on, and we don't know the road the other person has walked on. It is a coincidence that we met, nevertheless our relationship is valuable. While we look at the person in front of us, we decide how we'll behave: will we warmly greet the person, or will we ignore them? Will we try to be open and honest, or maybe closed? Will we be indifferent about the road that he's walking on, or maybe the opposite - we could ask him where he's coming from and where he's going to, and we can show curiosity towards all that happens to him. The question "what is our wish/intention we carry when we approach a conversation," is the first and most basic question that we shall ask ourselves. One wish is to form a relationship of "I - It" type. The "It" is the other. The unknown. The distant. The frightening. The "It" is for us just a shaky bunch of qualities, that will never be linked strong enough to form a whole human being. Another wish is to form a relationship of affinity, the "I - You" type. The other person isn't an object. I don't have any prejudice towards him. I see him as a whole human being that has wills, dreams, loves, and disappointments. He's complex and multi-colored and it's impossible to put one label on him. In every encounter that we have, we choose our relationship to our world: Is this a world of people who see each other as "It," that are all strangers to each other, or is this a world of "I - You," where people are seeking of human contact, where people are looking for other people?