Preamble

In addition to all the mechanisms and management of discussion that we are going to explore, there is the theme itself which requires some analysis. We have split this into two chapters for the sake of expediency. (In I.2., the next chapter, we will look at themes and orientation). Let's look at four different discussion topics, and see what they involve: The Shoah (Holocaust). Should Israel offer to give up the Golan Heights? How can we counter anti-Israel propaganda in the media? Or How can we best combat Antisemitism? What is the key to my identity as a Jew? How can I best explore that identity? Is further exploration really necessary? Some of the differences between these discussions will be very clear. Before you continue reading, jot down for yourself the differences you can see in ways of approaching these themes… Now read on.

i. The Shoah (Holocaust)

This is an open topic that can lead in almost any direction. It is an event from the past, which we can look at in retrospect without having to make any direct decisions about it. On the other hand, there are many ways in which to connect it to ourselves, draw meaning from it, and use it as a measure of our own time and the future as well. It can be approached intellectually and emotionally, objectively and personally. It is a huge topic, likely to get away from the leader unless he or she keeps the approach and sub-topic very specific. It is a subject that presupposes a commonality of feeling. It involves also deeply-seated prejudices and preconceived notions. The Holocaust has had such a powerful impact on our minds that there are probably basic questions we all should examine but do not, because we assume we know the answers already.

ii. The Golan Heights

This discussion will illustrate how people who think they are discussing something rationally and intelligently are grabbed and blinded by their emotions. This is discussion at the basic level of debate, trying to persuade. Not every political discussion needs to become a debate in which each side tries to convince the other, but it often does, as do other discussions on topics that would not seem to demand such clearly-defined sides. If you listen closely to such political or issue-oriented debate, you'll see how often: People have already made up their minds; How they try to impress and outdo each other with facts and splinters of information; How intent they become on defending their side and accusing the other. This is how they actively engage in discussion, rather than taking the stance that they can really stand to learn something from someone else's opinion. What are the challenges you face in mediating such a discussion? How do you extract important points without showing favoritism? Or is it even appropriate to show bias?

iii. Anti-Israel Propaganda - Antisemitism

These types of discussions presuppose a certain basis for agreement: That there is in fact anti-Israel propaganda; or That Antisemitism exists in a certain place or time; and, in either case: That something must be done. That common agreement assumes common desires as well, and moves directly into action. There is a specific goal to reach, cases to prove, tasks to clarify and delegate, and a schedule to keep.

iv. Jewish Identity

While a discussion on the Holocaust invites a personal, emotional response, addressing Jewish identively absolutely demands it. It is the very basis of the discussion: there is no right or wrong, only a personal response. The subject is vague, and unless the leader is careful with the structure and the stimuli, it can become ambiguous, with few borders and few concrete points on which to focus. Even in a subject like this, it is possible that members will begin debating, as if they were discussing a political issue, because of patterns of discussion - or non-discussion - that have been instilled in them.