Guest-Host Encounters in Diaspora-Heritage Tourism: The Taglit-Birthright Israel Mifgash (Encounter)

Abstract

More than 300,000 diaspora Jewish young adults and tens of thousands of their Israeli peers have participated in structured, cross-cultural encounters—mifgashim—in the context of an experiential education program known as Taglit-Birthright Israel. Drawing on field observations, interviews, and surveys, the formal and informal components of the encounters are described, and the meanings participants attach to the experience are analyzed. For North Americans, the encounters enable a personal and seemingly authentic experience of “the real” Israel, and make them feel welcome in the Jewish homeland. For Israelis, the encounters foster national pride, as well as identification with the transnational Jewish collective. Although program sponsors hoped the encounters would also create a forum for learning by Israeli participants about life in the Jewish diaspora, this latter goal was not typically achieved. This article explores the mechanisms by which the encounters generate identification with the homeland and the transnational Jewish collective, as well as the limitations of the encounters as a vehicle for reciprocal learning about diaspora culture and society.

Notes

¹We thank members of the field researcher staff, including Noa Milman, Edna Lapidot, and Carmit Padan. Noa Milman also coded the qualitative data and translated many of the quotations. The survey of Israeli participants was conducted by the firm, Research Success, under the supervision of Ezra Kopelowitz. We also thank Michelle Shain and the anonymous reviewers of this journal for their helpful comments.

²Taglit does not fit neatly into a single theoretical framework, but it is clearly a kind of heritage tourism (Lev Ari & Mittelberg, 2008). To be sure, most diaspora visitors were not born or directly descendent from parents or grandparents who lived in Israel. Nevertheless, Jews worldwide—including North American Jews—regard the Land of Israel as their ancestral homeland and feel strong ties to the modern Jewish state. Moreover, in the context of the trips, they are encouraged to relate to both historical and modern Israel as “their home,” and most participants accept this construction. Diaspora Jews can and do participate in heritage tourism in the lands of their immediate forebears, including Poland, Spain, and Russia. As a long-dispersed people, Jews have multiple heritage sites.

³Not all diarists fulfilled their volunteer commitment. In all, 12 diaries were collected.

⁴Most diary entries and all focus group discussions among Israelis were recorded in Hebrew. The wrap-up discussions during the trips were conducted in English but were contemporaneously recorded in Hebrew. The translations appearing here are of the contemporaneous Hebrew summary. The supplemental North American focus group discussions were conducted in English. All field notes, diaries, and interviews recorded in Hebrew were transcribed in Hebrew. Translations were made following coding and analysis.

⁵Focus group interviews with North American participants, conducted as part of the 2007 “After Birthright Israel” community study, were also examined (see Sasson, Saxe, Rosen, Selinger-Abutbul, & Hecht, 2007).

⁶Israel has near-universal conscription: Israeli Jewish men are drafted to serve 3 years and women for 2 years. Jewish women who are religious and most Arab Israeli citizens are not drafted (some Arab Israelis from the Druze, Bedouin, and Circassian minorities volunteer for military service). Ultra-Orthodox Jewish men are typically granted waivers for study that exempt them from service.

⁷The survey indicated that 55% to 88% felt “very much” free to express their personal opinions about their military service, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Judaism in Israel, and the Israeli lifestyle.

⁸Eighty-eight percent of North American participants agreed (either “strongly agreed” or “agreed”) that the mifgash led to personal connections with Israelis. Seventy-seven percent of Israelis agreed (either “strongly agreed” or “agreed”) that the mifgash made them feel more connected to their American and Canadian peers.

⁹The three levels of authenticity discussed here are derived from the sizable literature on authenticity in tourism. The distinction between objective and existential authenticity is from Palmer (1999), Prentice (2001), and Wang (1999). Wang further distinguished these two forms from “constructed authenticity”: “Things appear authentic not because they are inherently authentic but because they are constructed as such in terms of points of view, beliefs, perspectives or powers” (p. 351). This latter form corresponds to our concept of “historical authenticity.”

¹⁰The Taglit experience encourages, but does not require, an essentialist view of authenticity. Participants may believe that “authenticity is about … maintaining an honest view of the process by which we construct the identities and traditions we need to survive” (Charme, 2000, p. 133).