|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Discomfort is not a failure of education; it is often its beginning.
Cultural exchange programs in schools are designed precisely to move students beyond the familiar—to challenge assumptions, broaden perspective, and build the civic muscle required to live in a pluralistic society. Research consistently shows that sustained, structured intercultural contact improves critical thinking, empathy, and students’ ability to engage constructively with difference. These outcomes are not incidental. They are core to education in a diverse democracy.
It is therefore worth examining why programs such as the ShinShinim—Israeli cultural emissaries placed in schools through long-standing, carefully structured partnerships—have become targets for elimination rather than discussion or improvement. While concerns about student comfort deserve attention, they should not be allowed to eclipse a more sobering reality: in the current climate, Israeli identity itself—Israeli people, and by extension, Jews—have increasingly been recast as inherently suspect, if not demonic.
The Rochester Beacon’s Dec. 31 article, “The ShinShinim divide in Pittsford,” references student discomfort linked to an image described only as being “associated with the Israel Defense Forces,” but offers no further detail or verification. Without specificity—what the image was, how it was presented, or in what educational context—readers are unable to assess the claim. Precision matters, especially when reporting on sensitive topics, and vague associations risk substituting suggestions for substantiated facts.
Across the United States and globally, we are witnessing a coordinated effort to normalize the exclusion of Israelis—and those associated with Israel—from public and civic spaces. This effort is often framed as political critique, but in practice it extends far beyond policy disagreement. It manifests as campaigns to remove Israeli speakers, artists, educators, and cultural programs regardless of content, conduct, or educational value. This dynamic is not limited to Jewish communities; it affects Israelis of all backgrounds, including Muslims, Christians, Druze, and others who live, work, and serve in Israel.
Calls to “pause” or “eliminate” school-based exchange programs should be understood within this broader context. Language matters. When cultural education is recast as covert propaganda, when the mere presence of an Israeli teenager or educator is described as threatening or traumatic, we are no longer discussing pedagogy—we are engaging in collective suspicion. The rhetoric echoes older forms of ideological exclusion, in which identity is immediately translated as evidence of bad intent.
Recent political developments underscore this trend. Policy shifts that legitimize boycotts or institutional disengagement from Israel are often presented as symbolic or administrative. Yet their practical effect is to signal that Israeli participation in civic life is optional, conditional, or undesirable. When that signal reaches schools, it does real harm. It teaches students that some national identities are incompatible with inclusion—and that discomfort and suspicion are grounds for erasure rather than rigorous inquiry.
Educational leaders face a difficult task: balancing student well-being with the responsibility to prepare young people for a complex world. But shielding students from lawful, vetted cultural exchange programs because they provoke unease sets a troubling precedent. Growth does not come from eliminating difference; it comes from learning how to encounter it responsibly.
Programs like ShinShinim are not beyond critique. Like all educational initiatives, they benefit from transparency, oversight, and continuous improvement. But eliminating them on the basis of narrative suspicion—rather than evidence, outcomes, or good-faith engagement—risks reinforcing precisely the divisions schools exist to bridge.
The recent debate in Penfield Schools over book banning offers a useful parallel. Parents rightly retain the authority to determine what their own children read, but removing books from school libraries because their content makes some uncomfortable would amount to silencing identities and experiences that exist whether or not they cause discomfort.
The same principle applies here. Parents and students in Pittsford may express discomfort (one student referred to the visit as a “jump-scare”) with the presence of an Israeli teen in the classroom, but the Pittsford Schools have been clear that families are notified well in advance of ShinShinim visits and may opt their children out. Choosing to shield one’s own child from what feels uncomfortable is a parental prerogative; seeking to eliminate a program for everyone else is something else entirely—and runs counter to the purpose of a liberal education.
The Jewish Federation of Rochester would applaud the creation and implementation of other student exchange programs—Palestinian, Japanese, Russian, German, Chinese, et cetera. These can only help to foster the kind of environment every school should be: where individuals whose governments and identities are maligned in media can be recognized as humans. Ultimately, we hope for an academic environment in which two individuals from countries in conflict can model for our students and communities what dialogue and challenging conversations can look like.
Until that time comes, if we want students who can think critically, resist misinformation, and engage ethically across difference, we must be willing to model those same principles ourselves. Discomfort, handled well, is not a threat to education. It is one of its most powerful tools. We are proud of the relationships we have built with school districts such as Pittsford’s, and proud to be able to challenge discomfort, prejudice, and inherent bias to replace these with understanding and new perspective.
Monica Gebell is executive director of the Levine Center to End Hate, Jewish Federation of Greater Rochester.
The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing [email protected].
ShinShinim is described as cultural exchange, but it is a state-linked public-diplomacy program tied to the Israeli government. Participants are selected, trained, and placed through institutions connected to the state, not as independent exchange students. When a government is widely accused by human-rights organizations and genocide scholars of mass civilian harm, schools have a right to question hosting its representatives. That is not antisemitism or hostility to Israelis or Jews; it is political accountability. Students are expressing ethical concern and emotional trauma, not mere discomfort. True education requires balance, multiple perspectives, and independence from any government actively engaged in war.
At critical times in history, established beliefs and biases were challenged to usher in positive change. This was true with the abolition of slavery, desegregation and the right to vote. Ms. Gebell suggests that the Shin Shinim program is “long standing (and) carefully structured” While this statement is misleading at best, it does not preclude questioning the appropriateness of this program in public schools. She also displays flagrant contempt for Palestinian families when she refers to their pain as simple “discomfort” and suggests that it should not carry weight but should be a catalyst for learning.
To conflate Israel with Jewish identity is a key component of the indoctrination that has resulted in the impunity Israel continues to benefit from. This conflation has made Israel untouchable and therefore able to commit atrocities with no interference. This method is a force that has silenced critics and the voices of Palestinians, the real victims. Average Americans know nothing about the true history of this conflict, and organizations like the Jewish Federation ensure that this remains so. A quote from The Jewish Agency for Israel describes their mission to “strengthen the Jewish people in Israel and around the world…supporting the resilience and security of Israel…and encouraging every Jewish person to engage with Israel.” They also boast about “helping more than 32,000 Jews start new lives in Israel” (this happened while the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians continued with homes being demolished and people being forced off their land by the State of Israel and its violent militias). In 2023, the US Jewish Federations contributed $65.4 million in core, unrestricted operation support to the Jewish Agency. The interconnectedness of these organizations with the State of Israel can not be underemphasized. Their main concern is the promotion the State of Israel, even now when it is committing atrocities and genocide, and blocking humanitarian aid from entering Gaza resulting in hundreds of additional deaths. The fact that none of this is mentioned by Ms. Gebell is telling. While Palestinians are being intentionally annihilated by Israel, no emissaries from that country, no matter how young and innocent they are, should be allowed to speak in public schools.
Ms. Gebell. I don’t know if the “recent debate in Penfield schools” offers a useful parallel but I do know that the debate in Penfield was not about book banning. No one was in favor of banning books! The debate was about what is developmentally appropriate in schools and the role of families vis a vis the school.
According to Unicef, the Israeli military has destroyed or damaged 97% of the schools in Gaza during this war. Why would we consider bringing this program to any school?
Thank you, Roberta. My thoughts and concern, exactly!!
Exactly. It is a program aimed at influencing American opinions about Israel, particularly youth, that is completely biased and hurtful to Palestinians by nature of the complete omission of their experience, oppression & now the genocide.
Like a lot of hot topics, it’s easier for many to get excited by their own sides’ best arguments while bashing the other sides’ worst arguments, without much listening happening on either side. This seems to be happening here, as both this article and the comments underneath it combine a few strong arguments in favor of their own point with lots of critiquing of opposing strawmen.
My take:
– The conflict in the Middle East is incredibly complicated and it’s simply impossible to present a description of what’s going on in the region that everyone could agree on. Therefore this should not be a requirement for any Israeli, Palestinian, or other similar cultural exchange. Instead, the teacher should spend some time before or after the presentation explaining such complexity and allowing students to draw their own conclusions.
– Since as I understand it every young Israeli citizen is required by law spend time in the IDF, any Israeli cultural exchange would likely include some description of this formative time. Therefore, mention or description of IDF participation is not something to be desperately avoided, but rather a normal part of any cultural exchange with a country who requires widespread military participation.
– At the same time, any discussion of war, international conflict, or even unrelated sensitive topics that might come up in ShinShinim presentations each requires a sensitivity that may or may not be exemplified in these presentations. And as parents have the right to be the ones to introduce their children to some sensitive topics, parents should absolutely be given warning to be able to withdraw their children from such presentations. I believe those who say this didn’t happen here, and that should be changed.
– Meanwhile, the comfort or discomfort of a teenager (by definition a person so young that many experiences will be so new or unexpected as to cause discomfort) is irrelevant up to a point. Obviously experiences like bullying, outright racism, and other direct and clear harms should be prevented – but no young person has a right to be presented with only narratives which they find easy to digest. Rather, presenting alternate viewpoints and wrestling with the resulting complexities is an important goal of education. Therefore few, if any, decisions about ShinShinim should use the number of uncomfortable students as a key measure.
It seems obvious to me that ShinShinim should continue while making some adjustments to make it easier for parents to withdraw their students from participation. Meanwhile, the solution to ShinShinim’s one-sidedness is to include more presentations/lectures/readings on more cultural perspectives, not to remove this one.
BRAVO, Monica.
This essay repeatedly reframes what happened in Pittsford as a debate about “discomfort” and “growth.” That framing is inaccurate and minimizes the harm students actually experienced as a result of this program.
This was not abstract learning that families could prepare for or meaningfully opt into. Despite claims to the contrary, dozens of students and parents report they were not informed in advance of these visits. What arrived in classrooms instead were politicized maps, uncontextualized statements about rockets and missile defense, Zoom connections with active or former soldiers, and comments from presenters expressing eagerness to join the military themselves.
For some Pittsford students—particularly those of Palestinian descent—this was not theoretical. Some have family members who have been killed. Others have relatives displaced, living under siege, or now in tents. When military power is normalized or celebrated in a classroom without balance or context, those students are not being “challenged.” They are being confronted with real, ongoing loss tied directly to their own families, in a space that is supposed to be safe.
Students also described trying to ask good-faith questions about Palestinian history or identity and being shut down. Others reported being singled out or mocked, including dismissive treatment of Muslim names. Parents documented these incidents, requested opt-outs, and in some cases later learned the program returned anyway.
Anyone who has taken the time to speak directly with these students and parents can see that this is not about a single image or momentary unease. It reflects a pattern across classrooms and years, combined with lack of timely notice, inadequate oversight, and an insufficient response when harm was reported.
It also matters to be honest about what this program is. ShinShinim is not a student exchange. These are post–high school graduates, trained as emissaries by an outside organization, placed into required class time to deliver structured programming, and accountable primarily to that sponsor. That role carries power. In public schools, power requires safeguards.
None of this is an attack on Israeli identity or Jewish culture. The parents raising concerns include Muslims, Christians, Jews, and families of no religious affiliation. The issue is governance, transparency, and student safety.
Discomfort can be part of learning. Trauma, silencing, and bullying are not. When students report fear, humiliation, or being unable to speak about their own identity safely, the issue is no longer philosophical—it is about duty of care.
Families have proposed a constructive path forward: a district-led process with independent oversight, teacher control, and inclusion of local Palestinian voices. That is not a call to eliminate education; it is a demand that education be done responsibly and that students’ lived experiences not be reframed away.
Thank you, Dan, for comprehensively explaining why this program needs to be eliminated.
Thank you, Dan. You make excellent points, that I fully agree with and endorse.
I have a serious concern about any “cross-cultural exchange”‘ that brings students from any country – not just Israel – into classrooms here where they make presentations or lead discussions that include anything about military service or activities, however. That has no place in a classroom, except in a historical context — and any presentation about military presence or activities in a historical context should only be presented by teachers, providing a balanced historical perspective. Anything else becomes propaganda. I’m wondering, now, if propaganda is part of the purpose of the ShinShinim program in the first place.
What I’ve read thus far has not clarified its purpose and mission. Nor has it clarified why the teens are spending their time in our schools. Do we invite other cross-cultural exchange students to our schools from other countries as well? Ms. Gebell’s case for this being an important program leaves me shaking my head, at most. Yes, raising uncomfortable ideas is an important part of education, but that is the teacher’s role! Yes, expanding students’ perspectives and understanding of how the world works is critical, but that is the teacher’s role!
Speakers can add to the classroom experience and enhance what the teacher brings to the classroom, but the teacher should be managing who and how and what they introduce, to better provide context and understanding as it fits the curriculum. I’m not convinced what has been taking place with the ShinShinim program is enhancing or adding anything to the curriculum, but, instead, serves the purpose of the program itself and serves the country which developed it.
Excellent commentary. Thank you for your insights, Dan. I would add that the concern for protecting “Israeli identity” and differentiating that from the actions of the Israeli government is ridiculous at this point in time. The appropriate focus should be on recognizing Palestinian identity, culture and history, as well as the brutality and discrimination they suffer at the hands of the Israeli state.
As someone who had Mrs. Gebell as my high school English teacher, I am very disappointed that she has become an apologist for this propaganda program. Since she claims the article provides “no further detail or verification” on the programs association with the IDF, I’ll provide it:
– Shinshinim students have made material encouraging students to, when visiting Israel, buy IDF sweatshirts and to visit illegally occupied territory in the West Bank to go hiking (Nahal Arugot)
– The Shinshinim Facebook page has posted a memorial for a Rochester native IDF soldier who died in Gaza
– As part of the teacher exchange, a Barker Road teacher was taken to the illegally occupied Golan heights for tourism
– The chairman of the steering committee for the Rochester-Modiin partnership is a retired Israeli air force commander, along with other members who have worked for the Israeli government or IDF
Among many other examples…
Gebell’s entire position reflects an internal contradiction. She says censorship of school books “would amount to silencing identities and experiences” when her own Jewish Federations called for congress to ban TikTok because of its anti-Israel content (https://forward.com/fast-forward/590156/tiktok-ban-congress-antisemitism/). She talks about the Shinshinim program helping to advance a diverse pluralistic democracy when Israel has citizenship and property laws exclusively for and favoring its Jewish population and restricts expression and freedom of movement for Palestinians. She can’t even mention Palestinians without literally hyperlinking the word to an article about Hamas (seriously, click on it)!
Emir, while I don’t recall having you, but your brother (S), I appreciate your post. I am not an apologist, however: I am a Zionist. You will automatically equate this with a propagandist or an apologist, so perhaps I would be entitled to say the same of you–an apologist for jihad and Islamist propaganda. True? The hyperlink I’ve provided you allows you to read about Palestinian’s ‘government,’ just as you and others so effortlessless (and thoughtlessly) equate the Shinshinim with their government. Palestinians fight for Hamas. Israelis fight for the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces–they defend their safety from those whose charter (look it up!) vows to eliminate every last Jew from the Earth, starting with those in the Jewish state.
More worrisome, though, is your positing that “Shinshinim students have made material encouraging students to, when visiting Israel, buy IDF sweatshirts and to visit illegally occupied territory in the West Bank to go hiking.” You’d need to provide proof of these ‘materials’ before I could take this seriously, but Shinshinim are trained only to discuss what the cooperating teacher has asked them to. They are not allowed to distribute non-approved materials, and all cooperating teachers and site managers observe them–none of us, nor any of our school liaisons, have ever received word of this. You’ll have to send me a photo so that we can address that. Until you do, there is no evidence.
When you list what you believe are ‘associations with the IDF,’ what you’re really doing is engaging in conspiratorial behavior. You are giving in to a zeitgeist that Jews, but in contemporary thought, Israelis, are all bloodlusty, evil. The Defense Forces exist, dear former student, to defend: every war that Israel has engaged in since its inception was not a war Israel started. Arab countries have been intent on its demise since 1948, and even prior, when Arabs who would die before claiming Israeli citizenship were given the opportunity for their own state alongside Israel, they refused. (Look it up: start with Mufti Hajj Amin Husseini and Yassar Arafat.) To this day, Palestinians could have had their own state. I’ll trust that you’re wise enough now to do your research and have honed your critical thinking skills to inspect why a Jewish state has so long been rejected.
But I do worry about your giving yourself over to the consipiratorial blood libel.
Many of us visit what are known as “occupied territories” when we visit the Holy Land because some of the most holy sites to Jews are in those places–did you know this? Our –your and my–ancestral patriarchs and matriarchs are buried there. Muslims visit Al Aqsa; Jews visit Machpelah. These are not crimes.
Dear Emir, I hope that you can distinguish been the kind of book banning that extinguishes identities and the kind that is hate speech.
Dear Emir, I hope you come to reflect on your own biases and disdain–or is it hate–for people who, like your old teacher, believe that Jews deserve to live and determine the course of their future safely–just as I believe that Palestinians do as well, and to live safely and free from Hamas.
When you’re ready, look me up. I’d love to talk and see how you are.
Your response to Emir rests on several false equivalences and historical inaccuracies that really need to be addressed.
First, the claim that “Palestinians fight for Hamas” is simply false. Palestinians are not Hamas. Millions live under the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, millions more live as refugees or under Israeli control, and many openly oppose Hamas. Treating an entire people as interchangeable with one armed group is exactly the kind of collective blame you claim to reject.
Second, the idea that Israel has “never started a war” does not match the historical record. Israel initiated major military campaigns in 1956 (the Suez invasion of Egypt) and 1982 (the invasion of Lebanon), among others. Whether someone thinks those actions were justified is a separate debate, but they were not purely defensive reactions.
Third, pointing out institutional links between ShinShinim and the Israeli state is neither “blood libel” nor a conspiracy theory. ShinShinim are openly described by the Jewish Agency as young Israeli “ambassadors” who serve just before entering the IDF. Their leadership in Rochester includes former Israeli military and government officials, and their social media has publicly memorialized IDF soldiers. That is not antisemitism, it is how the program presents itself.
Fourth, dismissing concerns about materials that promote IDF tourism or visits to occupied territory because you personally have not seen them is not a rebuttal. “I haven’t been told” does not invalidate specific allegations. If ShinShinim are operating in classrooms, transparency should come from the program, not from students being forced to produce evidence to be believed.
Fifth, framing “occupied territories” as merely religious or cultural tourism ignores international law. The West Bank and Golan Heights are widely recognized as occupied territory regardless of religious significance. Visiting them may be legal, but portraying that reality as politically neutral is misleading.
Finally, equating criticism of a state-linked program with hatred of Jews or support for “jihad” is both inaccurate and dangerous. Many Jewish people, including Israelis, oppose these policies and programs. Accountability is not antisemitism, and declining to host a government-affiliated advocacy program in schools is not the same as rejecting Jewish or Israeli people.
If ShinShinim is truly about education rather than advocacy, it should be able to withstand scrutiny. Smearing critics instead of addressing documented concerns does not promote pluralism, it undermines it.