Listening to the debates here, I'm reminded of the debate between Beit Hilel and Beit Shammai on study and action. Should one study the world; or act to change it. Luckily, I'm involved in both worlds.

More than 150,000 have come to Israel so far via the Birthright program. 3/4 are from North America, but 44 other countries provide participants. Among the applicants, about 100,000 were left behind, due to lack of space. We are close to a tipping point.

We estimate there are about 90,000 youths from ages 18-26 that are still eligible for the program. Among this age group, nearly 15% have participated in Taglit, and we expect that it will rise to 25%.

The impact of Taglit is considerate. Those who participated think and feel very different regarding Israel a few months after their participation. The impact is immediate, and it lasts around 3 - 5 years.

I'd like to go beyond data, and draw more complex lessons.

First, these young Jews want to be connected to Israel. The young ones are actually more connected than previous generations, and more engaged and interested. They want and yearn for meaningful connection. Interest in Taglit continued through the intifada, and today nearly half of the slots are taken within 24 hours. The large number of previous participants returning to their respective homelands actually increases the rate of interest in Taglit.

Second, person to person encounters are at the heart of this success. Before, visiting Israel was not a central issue in the minds of young Jews. Giving money was a main track for Jews in the Diaspora. Taglit changed that. The interactions with Israelis during Taglit created the means for young Israelis and Jews to interact afterwards. They discovered what they have in common. The impacts of the meetings are profound. Their individual and national identity is strengthened.

Third, pedagogy is not a zero sum game. Taglit has succeeded to combine education with experience. Fun and emotional engagement is important to the young generation.

Fourth; an institutional lesson. Institutions must adapt or be replaced. Taglit is a creation of a new organization, which is easier than changing existing ones. What happens when the Taglit alumni come back home? Their behavioral attitude fails to match their institutional participation. They are hungry for meaningful community engagement, but the existing frameworks do not give them room for self – expression.

The lesson is we can change our world and make it better.

In Israel the challenge is how to achieve peace, while among the Diaspora the challenge is how to deal with assimilation.

I hope the words in the Herzliya Conference will be translated to actions.