Photo: MN Hillel

Belonging to Am Yisrael

By Rabbi Jill Avrin
Director of Campus Affairs | Senior Educator

Sept 21, 2026 
Yom Kippur – Jewish Day of Atonement 5787

University of Minnesota – When I was in Israel last January, my group met Rimo, a Bedouin Muslim Israeli police officer who picked up a last-minute overnight shift working at the Nova Festival on October 7th, 2023. Rimo recounted every moment of that day, from the inner voice that told him to pack a third magazine before he left the house, to 6:22 AM when the staffing switch was supposed to start to 6:29 when he realized the rockets weren’t stopping to 6:45 when he heard the first gunfire on site, and on and on… Rimo saved 200 Israeli music-goers that morning. He did so in a car that didn’t belong to him, driving back and forth from the site of the music festival to a small green house he discovered not too far away… back and forth, back and forth, picking up people hiding in bushes along the road, 8-10 people at a time, all piled on top of each other and promising the people he couldn’t fit that he would go back for them. And he did – all day long, until he finally returned to his wife and children at 9:30 PM, forever changed, forever a gibor Yisrael, a hero of the people of Israel.

Rimo’s story is remarkable and one I’ve continued to think about many months after my trip. Rimo’s identity as a Muslim who is proud to be Israeli complicates the narrative that so many promote of a society where all Jews and all Muslims are set up in opposition to each other.

One of our leaders, Rabbi Tracy Kaplowitz, reminded us that though most people like to think of themselves as people who would do what Rimo did, running toward gunfire and knowingly putting their life at risk to save others, in reality, when faced with this type of life-or-death scenario, a very tiny percentage of the population actually does.

Most of us think of ourselves as righteous people. We hold values of preserving life, of saving others, and we want to think that we would act like Rimo, doing whatever we could to save others in the face of danger, even if it means putting our own lives at risk.

This made me wonder – what leads most of us to hold the beliefs that we hold… not only about ourselves and the type of people we are, but also the beliefs that shape our worldview? And how often do we hold beliefs that do not align with reality, or that we do not follow through with, even if we have the best intentions? To what extent are we influenced by the people we associate with, the experiences we have, the classes we take, or the content we view online, and how often do we apply a critical lens to the stimuli we take in from the world – slowing down, weighing contrasting views, and considering the emotional impact our beliefs have on ourselves and others?

Shankar Vedantam, host of the Hidden Brain podcast frames it like this: 

 “When we think about what we do and why we do it, we often assume we are acting intentionally and autonomously. I do something because I want to do it. I choose to do it. In recent years, social scientists have shown that this is often untrue. Our actions, our preferences, the very way we see the world is filtered through the prism of our group identities.”

Yes, Rimo acted intentionally and autonomously. And he acted because of the affinity and connection he felt to his fellow Israelis. In the most extreme of circumstances, he acted through the lens of his Israeli identity.

Research proves our attachment to groups and groupthink again and again. Psychologist Jay Van Bavel, a guest on Vedantam’s show, explains how in one interesting study, researchers asked participants to assess how bad a stinky t-shirt smelled to them. The t-shirt was worn by one person for a week straight. They exercised in it, sweated in it, and then at the end of the week they sealed it in a bin. Then the researchers manipulated the shirt so that it either had a logo from one university or another. The study found that when people thought the shirt came from someone from their rival university, they assessed the smell as much more disgusting than when they thought it was from someone who went to their alma mater.

The impact of this study is to emphasize that even when it comes to something that doesn’t really matter, like how badly a t-shirt smells, our brains are wired to see the groups we associate with positively and also to see groups we don’t associate with negatively.  

It should therefore not be surprising that the groups we associate with also heavily impact our views on broader societal issues. A different study by Van Bavel found that even people who hold extreme views are swayed if they find out the group they associate with holds a contrasting view. In these cases, those with extreme views may not change their views, but they will shift to a more moderate position.

The bottom line is that humans find it desirable to align our views with the groups we are a part of. This fact poses a wide range of societal challenges, one being what we do when the different groups we are part of hold opposing views. Will we abandon one group for the other, or attempt to stay in both, feeling constantly challenged, lost, or isolated?

This is not a theoretical question for us as American Jews today, and particularly for young American Jews, like you all, who are under the age of 30. An increasing number of group leaders and influencers, particularly those in your age demographic, have started demanding anti-Israel allegiance to be accepted in their groups, even when those groups have nothing to do with Israel, religion, or politics.

Even non-Jews, like Ed Sheeran, who desperately want to avoid politics, feel pressure to weigh in. It is no longer possible to be neutral, certainly not for politicians or pop stars, and definitely not for Jews. I know how much easier and sometimes preferable it would be to just go to class and lay low; but we don’t get to decide what conversations, judgements, and questions others will impose upon us.

We can’t predict when Israel will come up in a class, at a concert, or on a friend’s social media, but we know that it will… and when those moments occur, it is up to us to determine how we will respond. What will we do when a group we are part of asks us to choose?

Many rightfully understand these growing litmus tests as a crisis for American Jewry, but this crisis is not an unsolvable one.

Why do I say this? Because Jews have been successfully overcoming the human tendency toward group-think for thousands of years. Our ancestors didn’t need a social scientist to warn them of the dangers of unanimity. Our rabbinic texts are grounded in commitments to upholding the holiness of multiple opinions – this attitude became so ingrained that it became a defining feature of what it means to be Jewish and to be accepted and embraced in Jewish settings. Two Jews, three opinions is not just a stereotype – it is a model of text study. We study in chevruta, in pairs, because iron sharpens iron – each person has something unique to add, and we learn better when we learn from each other.

And even when decisions must be made, we affirm that all debate that is for the sake of heaven is sacred. When Hillel and Shamai presented different opinions on the law, we learn: Eilu v’eilu divrei Elohim Chaim – these and these are the words of the living God.

Both interpretations are holy even though the law sided with Hillel. And why did the law side with Hillel? Because Hillel always presented Shamai’s opinion before his own.

I imagine what the disciples of the house of Hillel and the house of Shamai might have done in the experiment with the stinky shirt…. how might they have viewed a shirt that said Hillel vs a shirt that said Shamai? Would they act like us today, treating the other with disgust – or might they, because of their training, be more inclined to view their rival with greater favorability?

In every case that came before a court, Jews were unique in preserving the minority opinion.  Where other cultures would simply record the ruling opinion, Jews insisted on including the opinions of those who dissented in the formal record.

Groupthink was not only frowned upon but treated with suspicion. One Talmudic text explains that if the Sanhedrin reached a unanimous decision, they would delay the ruling by an additional day, in case one of the judges might change their mind over night.

This does not mean that loyalty to the group, the group being the Jewish people, wasn’t valued, it was. Not only was it valued; it was literally everything. To be Jewish meant being part of the Jewish people and being part of the Jewish people meant embracing and wrestling with a diversity of perspectives.

Kol Yisrael arevim ze b’zeh – all Jews are responsible for one another.

We must figure out how to be responsible for one another and to embrace a diversity of opinion, including, and especially when it comes to perspectives on Israel.

And we also need to be more sophisticated in determining the purpose of criticism waged against Israel, being willing to engage with criticism that is warranted and also being willing to reject and call out criticism that is hateful, hostile, and harmful.

Daniel Hartman and Yosi Klein Halevi regularly ask:

Are you criticizing Israel because you hold it to a high standard and want to see it thrive as a just society? Or are you criticizing Israel because you believe it is inherently evil and you want to see it destroyed?

The answer to this question is the key that guides us as we navigate this challenging landscape. For example – let’s look at the difference between Amos Harel and Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor.

Amos Harel, an accomplished Israeli author and analyst recently published a book called, “06:29, Anatomy of a Failure,” where he examines Israel’s intelligence mistakes leading up to October 7th and uncovers military failures in the operations that followed. It serves in many ways as a commission of inquiry in the absence of one that should be conducted by the government.

Harel is doing the work that needs to be done to sustain Israel as a democratic state – engaging in fact-based inquiry that can lead to teshuvah. On this day of Yom Kippur, this day when we stand before God and atone for our communal sins, we take on the burden and the responsibility for one another with the purpose of lifting each other up and doing better in the future. On Yom Kippur we atone for transgressions we personally committed and also transgressions we collectively committed. To do this, we look to Amos Harel, who, through his work has identified the ways our people have collectively missed the mark. Those in leadership positions in the government no doubt, but also all of us, for our complacency, for not doing more when we could have.

And what is the purpose of this atonement? We atone before God, but we also atone for ourselves so that we can do better in the future. Atoning is not retribution; it is about self-change and communal change. As Amos Harel said in an interview about his book:

“I don’t want people being hanged in the Rabin Square in Tel Aviv. That’s not what this is about. It’s about acknowledgement, it’s about responsibility, and it’s about fixing what went wrong. And if there’s no open discussion over that, then nothing could be fixed.”

Amos Harel is declaring that he is part of the group, counting himself as the “we,” and saying that the goal is for us to do better, even as we face evil, even as we encounter those who are trying to destroy us. He asserts that it is possible to remain intimately connected to, and part of Am Yisrael while not falling into the trap of groupthink.

Amos Harel and his work stand in stark contrast to what Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor have indicated they are trying to do with their new film, Naza, which premiered the day before Rosh Hashanah at the Venice Film Festival. Naza נז״א is an acronym that stands for Nezeg Agavi, which is a military term for “collateral damage.” The directors said that they chose the title as a critique of the way Israel approached the war in Gaza. Though the film is not yet available to the public, the filmmakers have given many public interviews where they have reasserted their goal of activating international opinion against Israel to bring condemnation from the outside. The target audience for the film is not Israelis, but rather international political activists. The screening succeeded in breaking the record for the longest standing ovation in Venice Film Festival history, with an astounding 25-minute standing ovation. It’s hard to even imagine what was going on in the minds of those engaged in the ovation.

The film is being released for the first time on September 30th in New York – with no release date set in Israel. The language the filmmakers have used in the public interviews they have given is not “we” but rather “they,” setting themselves apart from the story they are telling. It’s hard to imagine two more different approaches to creating change.

One focuses on change from within, on introspection, accountability, and teshuvah, the other focuses on change from the outside, through condemnation, scorn, and disgust.

One involves attaching oneself to the Jewish people and saying, we can do better. The other involves distancing oneself from the Jewish people and saying, those other Jews, Jews who I don’t agree with, they should be doing better.

One asserts that one can be an active and flourishing member of a group while also holding it accountable. The other suggests that accountability can only be achieved by abandoning the group.

One seeks applause. The other does not.

American Jewish author and scholar Dara Horn talks about how Jews have been counter-cultural since the biblical period, by introducing beliefs like monotheism or by refusing to bow to tyrants.

Today, in a world of extreme polarization, litmus tests, and cancelling or even doxxing those who we disagree with, perhaps our counter-cultural contribution as Jews is our insistence that one can be part of a group while also holding different beliefs from other members of that group.

We do this by holding nuance, by not being afraid to love Israel in public, and also not being afraid to criticize it, and by refusing to walk away from the Jewish people even when we know that staying involves risk.

I pray that we will all find the courage to embrace the counter-cultural nature of our ancestors and channel that strength into the various groups we inhabit.  As you do, please know that you have a support system here at Hillel to help you navigate the challenges that you face in the world. And know that when you are here, when you have attached yourself to the Jewish people here and anywhere, you will be embraced for your full self and the person you are becoming.

May this new year be a good one for us, for Israel, and for all the Jewish people.