Her question is critical.
My recommendation is to inform as much as possible about the normalcy of Gazan Palestinians, which means leaving out ALL expressions of anger, or political ideology from statements.
I would recommend Spielberg type interviews with elders and children, historical documentaries (with Jewish Israeli partners) to construct 5 generations of family history. (Elders talking about their grandparents).
When my son was first interested in my mother-in-law's story, after first hearing of her experience in some depth at 17, then visiting Yad Vashem and seeking and finding a couple possible names of his ancesters, his first impression was despondent, that such an experience only leaves scars and nothing else but scars.
I told him that the most significant fact about his grandmother was that she determined to LIVE fully after the holocaust (not pretentiously, but actually). Her youth remained. She lived in Israel from 49 - 56, then had family, a life in various parts of the US and Europe, good friends, good work (a public health statistician in London).
From seeing her life at any point after leaving Hungary, one could not say "this is a refugee" or "this is a holocaust survivor".
But, one would say, "this is someone that is alive, normal, that I can identify with".
That's the key, "that I can identify with" (not pretentiously, but trusting that the details of how families live - what they eat, what fixtures they like in their homes, what they talk about with their grandchildren, and what they experienced at different moments in their lives.)
NOT what they propagandize, but what they experience, "my favorite things".
You have a memory LeanDor.
I was involved with Ananda Marga mostly on, not always, from 1973 - around 1997 or so.
Ananda Marga has very diverging views expressed, from the most progressive of any, to periodic fascism and fanatic.
My son introduced me to chabad and to serious Jewish practice and study, which I do inconsistently currently.
I combine the emphasis in Ananda Marga on ethical practice and monist theology, with the Jewish emphasis on ethical practice and monist theology.
Both also have a sense of "chosenness", in the sense of responsibility to attempt to heal the planet. Ananda Marga has a concept of sadvipra, which is taught as a turner of history. Jewish teachings are more of the nature of "all my relations", or "tikun olam".
I find the Jewish to be more relevant to my life, more harmonious with my deeper views. Both are serious and important.
Both need continuous reminders to keep their eyes on the prize.
Both are positive in orientation, meaning that they propose, more than they oppose.
Gorenberg is right on.
"The interesting insight here is that Israel has now become the basis of American Jewish identity. And so if you Americans lose Israel, there goes Jewish life." is a misread of Gorenberg's point.
He is describing the commonly stated liberal Zionist theme that there is an existential communal connection between American Jews and Israeli, and a reasonable criticism of Israeli policies and practices.
I think it is accurate to describe that the shift from sympathy with Zionism, even with severe criticisms, to antipathy for Zionism, is part of the process in the vast majority that undertake that, of renunciation of Judaism.
Peter Beinart writes and speaks about Phil's point of Zionism instead of individual spiritual and community engagement as comprising too much of American Jewish identity.
Beinart writes about the substantive effort to continue to run and attend Jewish education and ongoing ritual as that effort, to make Judaism a phenomena that happens here, not only there.
The generation gap issues are not new at all in Jewish community.
I, and likely Phil, very very rarely spoke of Israel at all. Even at 14, we did speak of Vietnam and civil rights.
You know that I think you are duped in supporting Ron Paul because he has no prospect of delivering his promises even if elected.
1. 'The expenditure of money for campaigning and for lobbying is protected free speech.'
2. The role of the president to a constitutionalist is to execute the legislation passed by Congress (those subject to the free speech of money in lobbying).
3. Treaty modifications or removals require 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress.
The reason that the majority of his proposals would not get through Congress are similar to the reasons that his proposals won't result in the republic nomination, that the republican party is the party of strong arm of defense, in defense of interests, not of sovereignty.
Relative to Israel, he renounces influence on Israel, is the sum total of his foreign policy.
You are betting on the wrong man to represent your perspective in this case.
As President, he could neglect his constitutional responsibilities to enforce the legislated laws of the land, including administrative agencies. But, then he'd be impeached, likely cause the US to go into some actual economic spinout, rather than the deferral of that.
Those that are invested in gold and silver would do well.