In recent years, controversy about Birthright-Israel has been making headlines. Birthright has been accused of being a mouthpiece for a right-wing Israeli government and donors. Some claim Birthright gives a one sided Zionist-centered view of Israel while ignoring the situation for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as non-Jews living within the Green Line. There are differences in opinions of those who criticize the organization. Some call for a complete boycott of Birthright trips to Israel, while others simply wish to include more education about the conflict in the itinerary.
So, what is Birthright, why the controversy, and is it accomplishing its goals?
Join the fight for Israel’s fair coverage in the news
A Brief History
Birthright began in December of 1999 out of concern that rising assimilation in the diaspora was leading to disengagement with Jewish life and the State of Israel. The idea of a free trip to Israel for every Jewish young adult came about in 1994 through Yossi Beilin, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister at the time. To date, Birthright has given the opportunity to 650,000 Jewish young adults to travel throughout Israel for free. In Birthright’s own words, their trips have three educational focuses at their core:
- Narratives of the Jewish people;
- Contemporary Israel;
- Ideas and values of the Jewish people.
A unique aspect of the Birthright trip compared to other trips to Israel is the IDF soldiers who act not as security, but as participants on the trip. This experience is known as the Mifgash. This is a key part of how Birthright creates connections between diaspora Jews and Israelis. The Israeli soldiers on Birthright trips are often the same age as the participants and relate to things like tastes in music and common young adult problems. Birthright participants leave the trip with new connections to the State of Israel and new Israeli friends.
Why is Birthright Controversial?
Controversy around Birthright gained major media attention in the summer of 2018, when a small number of participants decided to walk off the trip, claiming that Birthright was giving them only a one-sided view of the conflict. They wanted to talk to Palestinians and visit the West Bank, which is not included in Birthright’s itinerary. Controversy also surrounds Sheldon Adelson, a major supporter of President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Due to his forthright political views, some see Birthright simply as a mouthpiece of the Israeli government and the right-wing.
While controversy around Birthright is often only concentrated on its views of the conflict, there are other criticisms of the trip as well, including the promotion of an Israel-centered view of Jewish life, rather than embracing the value of Jewish life in the diaspora.
So, are these young Jewish activists right? Is Birthright simply a mouthpiece for a right-wing view of Israel? In order to understand the Birthright controversy, you have to go back to its founding.
Birthright was born during a time of immense hope for peace, in between the peace accords that became known as Oslo I and Oslo II. During that time, Yossi Beilin traveled to the United States in his role as Deputy Foreign Minister, and became concerned about the continuity of the Jewish people outside of Israel.
His idea was to “create a wide network of young Jews from around the world and from Israel, to increase awareness of the common Jewish story, not as a religion but as extended family.”
Related reading: I Teach at Birthright. IfNotNow is Wrong.
When he shared his idea, he faced backlash from the government and the Jewish Agency, who wanted more money to be invested into Israel’s periphery, not to “rich American students.” Wealthy philanthropists who would eventually become major funders of Birthright called the plan unrealistic and unsustainable. Birthright only came into being five years later, under another left-wing government led by Ehud Barak.
Between 2006 and 2007, Sheldon Adelson, then known most for being a wealthy casino magnate, donated $60 million dollars to Birthright in order to open spots for 24,000 participants who had been on a waiting list due to Birthright’s exploding popularity. From that point on, he became Birthright’s biggest donor, donating millions of dollars to keep up with Birthright’s growing participation.
Birthright has maintained that Adelson has no impact on the trip itinerary.
Adelson is joined by a variety of other donors from all over the political spectrum. Despite their deep ideological differences, they come together in their support for Birthright because of the trip’s apolitical nature.
Who Decides the Itinerary?
Birthright doesn’t operate its own trips. It utilizes independent trip organizers such as Hillel International, Chabad, and other independent providers to run trips for them. Even as Birthright grew and new donors joined, including its biggest contributor Sheldon Adelson, Birthright did not change how it operates its trips.
All trips must visit a Jewish heritage site, a Zionist heritage site, a contemporary national heritage site, a “natural” heritage site, and a Shoah (Holocaust) heritage and learning site. These requirements give Birthright trips significant flexibility, allowing individual providers to offer unique themed trips including:
- Medically Accessible
- Aspergers
- LGBTQ+
- Biking and Hiking
- Spirituality
- Art, Music, and Entertainment
In 2016, wanting to include more voices in the Israel conversation, Birthright added a mandatory two-hour lecture on geopolitics of the region, as well as including opportunities to talk to Israeli-Arabs. This has caused controversy from some on the right, calling the inclusion of Arab voices unnecessary to include in the Birthright itinerary.
Remaining Apolitical
Despite calls from left-wing groups such as IfNotNow and J-Street that Birthright is a right-wing organization, Birthright maintains that it is apolitical. However, left-wing groups claim that by not taking students to places like checkpoints and the West Bank, they are inherently being political.
Let’s be honest: Birthright knows its audience.
College campuses are more polarized than ever. In an annual survey of first year college students taken by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program at the University of California, Los Angeles in 2016, a little over 42 percent of incoming college freshmen defined themselves as politically “middle of road,” the fewest percentage of moderates since the annual survey’s inception more than fifty years ago. The report also calls the 2016 incoming class “the most politically polarized” in its history.
If the goal of Birthright is to ensure Jewish continuity in the midst of a rising tide of assimilation and intermarriage, while at the same time appealing to a wide range of polarized political views, then the only solution is to not be political. If going to a settlement would anger liberals, and visiting a checkpoint would anger conservatives, then the only solution is to do what would satisfy the greatest number of people: Don’t do either.
Real Results
The Jewish Futures Project (JFP) is a long-term study on the impact of Birthright. It is conducted by the Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University. Its latest report in 2017 showed that Birthright is accomplishing the goals of its founders, outweighing any controversy connected to Birthright.
Key Findings of the Study:
Birthright participants are more likely to feel a connection to Israel, have a Jewish spouse, raise children Jewish and be engaged in Jewish life, even a decade or more after the trip.
In contrast to reports of “distancing” from Israel among young American Jews, Birthright’s effect on connection to Israel persists and is significant. Most JFP panelists feel at least “somewhat” connected to Israel, and participants report higher levels of connection than their nonparticipant peers.
If the goal of Birthright is to ensure the continuity of the Jewish people, and studies show it is accomplishing its goals, then Birthright has no real incentive to change its itinerary, and why should it? From its inception, Birthright has claimed to be an apolitical trip, focusing on connecting diaspora Jews to Israel and the Jewish people. The focus is not and should not be the conflict.
Some Concluding Thoughts…
Something must be said about Birthright loud and clear: No one is forced to go on Birthright.
Birthright is just what it is described as – a gift that every Jewish young adult is entitled to. Just like any gift, one can politely decline.
Birthright also gives every participant the opportunity to extend their trip for a small cost and stay up to three months, during which participants are free and unrestricted to travel to places within Israel proper and the West Bank, talking to whomever they wish. There are plenty of low-cost programs that offer opportunities to travel to settlements, Palestinian cities and villages, and checkpoints in the West Bank. Information about these programs is just a Google search away.
In the social justice world, people often speak of privilege: white privilege, male privilege, etc. What about the privilege of Jewish identity? Of having had the ability to grow up learning about who you are and about Jewish values and history. Birthright is about equalizing that privilege. Leveling the playing field for all Jews, so that everyone has an opportunity to experience what it is like to be a part of a people – the Jewish People. Surely the opportunity Birthright provides outweighs any controversy.
