Application Essay

Michael Kadish

During my year in Israel, my program was given three weeks in Jerusalem, in a little place called Machon Mayir. Up until that point, roughly four months into the year, we had seen a great deal of Israel, but for a country with so much inner fighting, and so many sides, we had really only been shown one political point of view.

I'm not sure if my organizers were aware of Machon's plans for us, but it showed a very welcomed open-mindedness, that our program did not see anywhere else. In a country where so many religions consider it rightfully theirs, there is rarely consensus, let alone peace. To make the matters even more complicated, none of the major religions are in agreement among themselves. Arabs are in factions as to whether they should fight for there own country, fight for their possession of the entirety of Israel, willingness to concede to the Israelis, or to invite alliances from the Arab nations. Christians fight over whom they support, how far they should interfere, and who will be used to get Jesus back faster.

The Jews, meanwhile, are divided into four strong religious regions. At the same time, the Jewish population has three ethnic minorities, Sephardim, Ethiopians, and Russians, each claiming to have been disregarded. At the same time, the population has lines drawn, unrelated to the previous categories, of where they stand on land for peace, rules for conversion, military service, how to present themselves to the world, what should be done to prevent anti-Semitism, and even prevalent economic views ranging from black to white on a capitalist to communist standpoint.

These arguments were much more volatile, and in most cases that was due to the fact that these effected the population so much more. Each side, generally, had extremely strong arguments for its case. The amazing thing about Machon, was that in three very jammed weeks, we were given representatives from each angle to talk to us. There was no, "this side is wrong, period." Well, we were told that, by many of the speakers, but we then would hear from the opposition, which would demonstrate the complexity of the situation, by showing us the answer was not up, but down, or a little less figuratively, one said a sharp left, and the other a sharp right.

The program showed the importance of understanding viewpoints. In such vital decisions, assuming that one side is "simply wrong," shows not only an inability to empathize, that one should not be placed in a position over other people. The meaning that I obtained was that back home in America, where we too had such problems, to a lesser degree, we need more political leaders who will roll up their sleeves, and follow in the footsteps of John Jay, or Henry Clay, and to create compromises between the two. Not only should both sides be appreciative of the compromise, it must show to each other that both are right.

Ironically, in a country where people return with religious epiphanies, I came out with a humanist realization.