Bryan Schwartzman: From my home studio, welcome to Evolve: Groundbreaking Jewish Conversations.

Harry Webne-Behrman: As you're listening to someone's story, you might even be thinking "Why is it that they believe that?" in a judgemental way. You know? Instead what I'd like you to do is take a deep breath and say, "I wonder why this person has come to have that belief."

Bryan Schwartzman: I'm your host, Bryan Schwartzman, and our guest today is Harry Webne-Behrman, a long time facilitator and mediator. We'll be talking about his Evolve essay, "How to Have Healing Conversations About Israel/Palestine." All right, so since I got involved in Jewish life as a young adult in the late 1990 - a little ways back - since then, North American Jews have been talking about, wrestling with how and why we can no longer talk about Israel. How one of the three core elements -along with Soviet Jewry, when that was a thing, and the Holocaust, the things that united most of American Jewry - was now the thing tearing at its fabric. Things have only gotten worse in the past few years as our overall political environment has gotten more and more polarized, and so many of us have retreated to our own echo chambers.

It's possible that as Americans face an election year and all of us throughout the world need to figure out what our post-pandemic society will look like, we need dialogue and facilitated dialogue more than ever. So Harry, our guest today, he was actually able to do that and lead that. Harry's essay for Evolve focuses on the time when he was a member of the Reconstructionist congregation Shaarei Shamayim in Madison, Wisconsin. So from 2015 to 2017 Harry led a facilitated, organized conversation on Israel/Palestine that was started by the congregation and had participation and support not only from other congregations, but also from the local Jewish Federation. And they actually had a sustained dialogue -- I believe they met monthly -- on the most difficult issues related to Israel/Palestine. So this group had broad communal conversations and people actually kept coming back for more. So how did they do it? How did they create and sustain interest? What lessons were learned? So even if communities can't replicate this model today because of social distancing, what can they learn now and for the near future  when these kinds of things are possible again, if they're done right. So we're going to be talking about all of that. 

One important note on some of the things we won't be talking about: The Israel/Palestine dialogue took place under what's called or known as double confidentiality, meaning that participants promise never to discuss what was said or what happened with anybody, ever, essentially. So that made parts of this interview a little tricky and precluded some questions I would have loved to ask, such as "What was the craziest and most offensive thing anyone said?" I mean, in all seriousness, some of the nitty-gritty, in terms of what was discussed was off the table for this interview. Yet despite these parameters, we were able to have a substantive and informative conversation about the dialogue process itself and the difference it can make for individuals and their communities.

All right. As a reminder, all of the essays discussed on this show are available to read for free -- no pay wall here -- on the Evolve website, which is http://evolve.reconstructing judaism.org. The essays are not required reading for the show, but we always recommend checking them out. 

Okay, let's get to our guest, Harry Webne-Behrman. So Harry has served as a facilitator, consultant, educator, and mediator for more than 40 years, along with his partner Lisa Webne-Behrman. He has served as the senior partner of Collaborative Initiative, Inc., a private consulting and mediation firm based in Madison. The couple now make their home in Ottawa, Canada. He is the author of two books: "What Matters at Work", which was just published this year; and "The Practice of Facilitation,"  published back in 1998.

So, Harry, welcome to the show. 

Harry Webne-Behrman: It's good to be with you, Bryan. Thank you. 

Bryan Schwartzman: All right, so we're, we're talking to you  in your home, in Ottawa. how are you doing? What's your shelter in place? 

Harry Webne-Behrman: So, I live in a, condo, here in west central Ottawa, which, means that  we're upstairs, get to look outside and as things warm up, get to open up the windows a little bit.

ut, it means that my partner and I are, taking turns being in the confidential space, for each of us being able to do our work. And alternatively, hanging out with the dog to make sure he doesn't get overly excited when we're doing Zoom meetings. 

Bryan Schwartzman: Got it. So how did you get into facilitating conversations and, and what do you call yourself ? Are you a facilitator or a mediator? A trainer? 

Harry Webne-Behrman: So I'm all of those things, depending on the context. When I define what a mediator is, I think of a facilitator who is specifically focused on being an impartial resource for addressing conflicts among parties. whereas certain certain types of facilitation do not require inherently that they're dealing with conflicts.

Facilitators, though, in general, are really beneficial for helping navigate really complex conversations, where people really require some, external attention to the process. I have been involved in this work for about 40 years, which is a strange thing to think about. I was in graduate  school at theUuniversity of Wisconsin in Madison, and was invited to become involved with a group called the Center for Conflict Resolution, which was one of the forerunners of doing facilitated, conversations in a variety of settings, and they actually ended up writing some of the original manuals for group facilitation and building consensus that have been applied to many contexts since that time. But I got my start really in the field of dispute resolution facilitation in my work with CCR, the  Center for Conflict Resolution. 

Bryan Schwartzman: So before we get to the Israel/Palestine discussion, which is really the focus of why we're here, I understand that you previously had done work in bringing pro-choice and pro-life advocates together, and I kind of do want to hear about that and maybe how it prepared you for an equally - a conversation that's equally, potentially volatile.

Harry Webne-Behrman: So, in 1991, I believe,  I was invited to, convene a dialogue between leaders who identified as pro -hoice and and pro-life within the state of Wisconsin. And so we created a basic set of guidelines that I felt would be important for this to be a conversation that would have validity and integrity and welcoming.

And then we were able to get four legislators from the Wisconsin legislature to sponsor the initial invitation. And two of them were Democrats. Two were Republicans. Two were pro-choice, two were pro-life. Long story short, they found the conversations to be so worthwhile that they met for a year and a half, and through those discussions, a couple of things happened.

One was they came to appreciate and respect that they had a high degree of common ground, even though they held really strongly divergent perspectives on this crucial issue in their lives. Second, that they reduced  the degree -- I wouldn't necessarily completely eliminated it, but they significantly reduced the degree to which they had been previously demonizing one another, both publicly and privately.

And thirdly, they engaged at the, near the end of our time in a very public, courageous act, which was to announce to their particular communities together of the areas of common ground that they held.

Bryan Schwartzman: So the, the subject o f your Evolve  essay was tge discussion group formed in Madison, Wisconsin, started by, the Reconstructionist congregation, Sha'arei Shamayim, and from what I understand expanded to include members of the Jewish, of the larger Jewish community there. Can you talk about the catalyst for that discussion group and how you came to be involved? 

Harry Webne-Behrman: Yeah, so the, the catalyst was really a recognition within leadership, both from a rabbi, Laurie Zimmerman, and the president of the congregation at the time, Jeff Spitzer-Resnick that there was a need within the Jewish community to try to have respectful conversation regarding the future of Israel/Palestine. And they had found materials that were developed by Josh Clemens, and others at the Jewish dialogue group in Philadelphia, that were intended to guide such conversations. And if I understand correctly, they involved Josh in convening an initial larger group discussion, that Sha'arei Shamayim hosted. I was not involved in that, but it had a positive response. And from that, Laurie and Jeff felt that it would be great to see if there could be a community wide effort at this. And, they were able to receive support, which I think is actually rather crucial, from the Jewish Federationof Madison to be able to sponsor such dialogues. And, I was invited, given my experience, to facilitate those conversations. 

Bryan Schwartzman: Are you a member , or were you a member of the Madison community? 

Harry Webne-Behrman: So, I was a member of Sha'arei Shamayim for a number of years, so I knew both Rabbi Laurie and Jeff through through that. Yeah. 

ryan Schwartzman: So I know that Rabbi Laurie Zimmerman of Sha'arei Shamayim has  really publicly spoken with a point of view on the Israeli Palestinian conflic, you know, definitely known, as having a perspective of the left. You know, how, how were you able to, it sounds like you were able to get buy in from the larger community and get different perspectives involved. So how did you, - how did, as a community, or you as a facilitator, how were you able to do that? Cause I could see that being, you know, being an obstacle to getting off the ground. 

Harry Webne-Behrman: So I think that, Rabbi Laurie is perceived this way and of course  has her own outspoken opinions on issues.

 think  more broadly Sha'arei Shamayim within the Madison community at that time, was seen as a bit more progressive, politically, than much of the mainstream community. So these were obstacles that needed to be navigated. I think that the stamp of the Jewish Federation on this process was crucial, as well as the co-sponsorship of several other congregations within the Madison community. So in that way, people knew that they were being invited for  a conversation that reflected the message of the invitation, which was one of inclusion, which was one of respect for the various perspectives that people had, and one that would be professionally facilitated by someone whose commitment was to that kind of dialogue. 

Bryan Schwartzman: You can't speak for those other, for the Jewish Federation of Madison or the other congregations, but was it your sense, they felt that there was such a need for this kind of dialogue, and maybe a weariness with  it being a third rail you can't touch,  that that might've been why they got behind it. 

Harry Webne-Behrman: I think that's a good point. I think they got behind it because they saw the need. I think they got behind it because the oOriginal argument that was made regarding the need was compelling, and then they renewed their commitment. So we had two years of this commitment because they saw, demonstrated through the results of the dialogues, that we were attracting a cross section of people, and we were succeeding in engaging people in respectful conversations that were beginning to respond to that need.

Bryan Schwartzman: And what was the actual physical setting and setup, or did it change  from month to month or however frequently it met? 

Harry Webne-Behrman: So the general setup was consistent from month to month, though the locations  varied. The setup was one where we had a dozen people sitting in a circle and, and when they entered the room, I had the preregistration. So I knew who all these people were and I, and there had been communication with almost all of them, if not all of them in advance by email, through which I had, again, clarified the intention of the conversation, also provided materials. at first, those materials came from the Jewish dialogue group.

As we went on and the process evolved, they included some other materials that were more topic specific, but they knew in advance what they were coming to. and in that regard, each session was very much alike. I would welcome everyone as they arrive, individually introduce them to different people, because chances were that they did not know most of the people. There were some light snacks, refreshments. You have to make sure you have some food. And also there were ground rules posted on the wall, that were flip chart paper that I carried with me from month to month now that I think about it.

And, while the ground rules slightly, were revised over time, for the most part, they were pretty constant. And so as a point of departure in welcoming everyone, I would clarify with them and make sure that the ground rules were acceptable to them for how we were going to conduct this conversation or clarify the purpose of the conversation.

And, and then we had, a format for beginning that was consistent each time. I can say a little bit about that if you'd like. 

ryan Schwartzman: Yeah, I think our, I'd be interested to hear about the ground rules. I mean,I assume no name calling is probably, 

Harry Webne-Behrman: Yeah. So the, the ground rules were, you know, one person would speak at a time. We would listen fully and allow people to complete their thoughts and perspectives without interruption. There was very importantly, respect for the experiences that people had. So that the job here was to listen fully and not try to persuade. And I even would give people an example as we've talked about.

I'd say, as you're listening to someone's story, you might even be thinking, well, why is it that they believe that? And, in a judgmental way. And I'd say, you know, instead what I'd like you to do is take a deep breath and say, Hmm, I wonder why this person has come to have that belief. And then to look at myself and wonder where am I curious? What's the source of that curiosity? 

And that was easier said than done, but to establish that tone right from the start was really important. Another thing that was important at the start was to clarify confidentiality. And how it was crucial that we not attribute any of the opinions that we were hearing or share any of the stories or experiences outside of that room.

And people, I think felt implicitly a greater sense of relief and respect for how their own stories would be treated through those ground rules. And having said that, one of the things that also came up early in it, it came up, on a number of occasions was people would say, well, can't I bring my honest opinions here? I feel strongly about this. I want, if I'm angry about something, I want to be angry!  And to be reassured: yeah. Bring the full passion of how you're feeling. Bring the full experience that you have that has led you to that feeling. And at the same time. Let's try to make this a safe space that allows others to hear that and allows you to hear those others.

Bryan Schwartzman: OK,a short time out here. We hope you're finding this a powerful interview. Do you want others to experience the same kind of conversation? Please take a moment to give us a five star rating or leave us a review. Positive ratings and reviews really help other people find out about the show. All right. Back to our interview.

Right in your, in your workup, in your evolve essay about step in / step out of questions. I was wondering if he could give us examples and did answers actually shape your, you know, how you carried things forward? 

Harry Webne-Behrman: Yeah. Yeah. So, several of these questions came from the Jewish dialogue groups.

So, we would begin, getting people comfortable with the idea of voicing their perspectives by literally having them stand in the circle and step forward if something was true for them. in some cases, we had people who, for various reasons were unable to step, literally. So we had other forms of indication.

We just make it inclusive around the circle. But, you know, it would be increasingly risky. So, there might be a question like, Do you follow current events regarding Israel/Palestine? And so it was a yes or no. have you ever been to Israel/Palestine? So again, there's a question about whether people have been there.

Okay. Have you participated actively in political activities regarding Israel/Palestine. That's a riskier question. So these kinds of questions begin to give people a sense of the room and one another and where they have areas of commonality and where  they have differences. And it would then bridge into what became a really powerful conversation, which was for one to think about one's own perspective.

Where do you stand regarding the future? And we asked people to do this in a couple of steps. One was to use index cards that we passed around to everyone to write down, this is where I stand and how I've come to believe this. And so you would do that individually, and it might be based upon things you've read, things you've experienced, whatever your story is, this is where I stand and how I've come to believe this. And then to partner with someone you don't know and for the two of you to share those perspectives with one another in a conversation where the person who was listening was invited to do so without judgment, without sharing opinions, just to be present, to listen and understand.

Some did that better than others, but that was the goal. And then as a result of that pair conversation, for the pair to then generate a question together: where are we curious? What would we like to discuss with this group? And that's how we generated the particular questions for that night. 

Bryan Schwartzman: How much thought goes into terminology?

I mean, even  using Israel/Palestine, I think so many places and people, that term would just, would just sound natural. Other people, I mean, I certainly know people well with a certain political perspective, they might bristle at that or might go  like, what are you talking about? Palestine is not a country. It's never declared independence. And  they might not hear the rest of the sentence. And you know, the same could go for, you know, any number of things. The West Bank - terminology is just inherently fraught. How do you think about that with a communal conversation?

Harry Webne-Behrman: So I think in this regard, the terminology, for me, has evolved, and the terminology that might be considered to be appropriate and given community will vary from place to place.

he terminology that was used at that time in those conversations was regarding the future of Israel and the Palestinians. So I am actually in phrasing things today, expressing it differently than I did several years ago. 

And 

Bryan Schwartzman: what's gotten you to that point? 

Harry Webne-Behrman: I think it's a combination of things.

I think it's, both my immigration to Canada where I find the framing of the conversation to be more along the lines of using Israel/Palestine as a terminology that I'm exposed to. And I think over time it's my own comfort with the idea that this whole region is the traditional home of, both peoples and for me to label it only in terms of the current state of Israel, doesn't give, in my regard, appropriate weight to that sense of its identity to both peoples.

Bryan Schwartzman: So from what I understand, you conducted 22 sessions over  about atwo year period, you had at least 180 participants. How do you, not only how did you generate that kind of interest, but how did you, how did you keep it up? I mean, a lot of these things  can peter out. 

Harry Webne-Behrman: Yeah. Well, I think that the combination of Rabbi Laurie speaking regularly with other rabbis within the community, and Jeff speaking with other congregation presidents and the Federation, supporting our messaging in its monthly newsletters, kept the word out there.

I also think that the fact that the dialogues were themselves proving to be rewarding to the participants was then leading to participants telling others, Hey, get involved. Come to this. You will like it. And so there was more, I think it iterated new interests that way. I think that's one level. I think the second level of, of how we sustain the energy was how the dialogues themselves evolved.

In the first year, they were primarily for new people engaging in a first dialogue. Towards the end of that year, we began to create, items that lent themselves to conversation among people who'd already been involved in the dialogue because they wanted to dive more deeply into certain topics.

And then in the second year, it was split about 50/50 between people who were brand new to the process and people who were coming back because they wanted to dive more deeply. So specific issues that were generated -- and  this is where we really transcended the initial materials from Jewish dialogue group -- had to do with a couple of things that you've actually brought up.

hat about the West bank? what about the future of Jerusalem? What about  settlements? How does the future of this region relate to the larger region? What about issues such as water rights? There were a number of topics that people were generating, and then because of the political issues of the time, there were also news stories that would drive new topics. So it's not that we preconceived in, you know, in January of the year all the topics that we would then bring forward the entire year. We kept on iterating, and I think in that regard it was sustaining energy for participants. It was inviting new participants and it was sustaining energy for me.

It was very interesting for me to bring people together around new topics. At the same time, it was also really interesting for me, and I don't think this ever grows old ,for me to have people sit down around a circle, engage in dialogue who have very limited, if any, known history of having done so, especially around contentious issues.

I sometimes take for granted this facilitator bubble that I live in where I get to bring together groups of really caring people and help them have conversations that live up to our human potential. I take that for granted sometimes, so it's really nice for me to bring people together in the ways we were in these dialogues to discover it anew.

Bryan Schwartzman: All right. another short break here, if you'd like to support the groundbreaking conversations of Evolve that happened on our podcast. on the website, in our web conversations or in the curriculum we're producing, you can support us. Please, please make a contribution to reconstructing judaism.org/evolve-donate.

There's also a Donate link in our show notes. Thanks for listening. And, thanks for all your support. All right, back to our interview. 

So one of the things  I've heard when North Americans, Jews,  non-Jews tend to get together to talk about Israel, Israel, and the Palestinians. Israel/Palestine, is that particularly with Jews that the conversation tends to be about North American Jews, Jewish identity and their relationship to Israel as opposed to really reflecting or pertaining to the realities on the ground in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. I'm wondering how you know, if that's, if that's the case, how you respond to it.

Harry Webne-Behrman: Sure. So I think there's certainly that propensity. I think that one of the things that was beneficial and fortunate about these dialogues is that many North American Jews have spent time living in Israel or have spent extensive time traveling in Israel. And then we also have a number of Jews in our communities -- certainly this was true and is true in Madison -- people who are themselves, Israelis, and who come to this from that perspective. Also, so many of us have family in Israel. 

So while that skew that you described is certainly one that can lead to a shifting of the conversation into being aNorth-American-centric, one of the opportunities that was also there was to recognize, wow, this is a blind spot. Where are we curious? How might we learn about it? And people were also really grateful for those people in the room who had spent extensive time in Israel and who did bring that experience of being on the ground to the conversation. 

Bryan Schwartzman: So where did this, you know. I guess, how did this end, were there were there tangible results you could point to? Was there a document of everything we agree on? How did it leave off? 

Harry Webne-Behrman: So, I want to describe the endings at a couple of different levels if it's okay. One is that a given conversation would end with people checking out and describing briefly how they were feeling now that they had been involved in this conversation and it was an honest expression. Sometimes people would say plaudits of gratitude. Occasionally people would say, I'm feeling very uncomfortable with the lack of resolution here and the lack of action. That's how they were feeling. But I think overwhelmingly people had a sense of appreciation that such a space existed and a great deal of curiosity to have more such conversations.

It was not an action oriented dialogue. It was not intended to lead to a policy shift or political action, or even for that matter,  specific actions by your social action committee within your given congregation. However, individuals, because of the insights that they gained, were sometimes moved to bring those insights back to their communities.

And as a result, I think in a positive way, they infected their communities with a new sense of hope about what was possible. If we could only convene more of these kinds of conversations. I don't have any recollection of a tangible change.  () This is my meta-level of the response now.) I have no recollection of a tangible change within the Madison Jewish community, at a policy level or governance level as a result of these.

And I checked in with Rabbi Laurie once you and I scheduled this to see, you know, did I miss something here? and she said there that her impression was actually similar to mine. She felt that individuals were strongly moved as a result of participating, and that the Jewish Federation was also greatly appreciative that this all happened.

And she also reflected on the idea that the Jewish Federation maintained its support for those two years. And the only reason we stopped was because they weren't in a granting position for that to continue, but they were very supportive. They appreciated the responses. We had evaluations and all those kinds of feedback forms and things to indicate levels of satisfaction, et cetera.

But more than that, they were pleased that we had been successful at getting people from the various communities across Madison to participate. So I'm glad for it. I wish we could be doing it now. I wish we could be doing it in other communities and that's really my hope. . 

Bryan Schwartzman: Sure. And you wrote,  in your article that it was disheartening to learn that few of the other communities had adopted the materials developed by the Jewish dialogue group at the time, and that we could not get the mainstream Madison Jewish community leadership to engage further with the process.

So why do you think that is and what do you, what do you think would be needed to change it? Is it a question of funds, is a question of interest, a courage to commit to something like this? 

Harry Webne-Behrman: Yeah. So to me it's less a matter of funds cause it doesn't need to cost much at all. It's more about political courage and a recognition that such conversation is a critical one for the North American Jewish community to have.

here was a great organization that no longer exists called America speaks that was convened by a woman and Carolyn Lukensmeyer, who's now in Arizona. Carolyn brought together people in different communities to have deep, meaningful conversations around powerful public policy issues at times of great need.

If you look over my shoulder, you will see a poster from one of those conversations. This was the World Trade Center conversation. 

Bryan Schwartzman: We see each other on video, by the way. 

Harry Webne-Behrman: Okay. And the World Trade Ccenter conversation that America speaks convened in July of 2002 was one that involved well over 4,000 people each in intimate conversations, dialogues of about 10 people per table,  through which we were able to have meaningful, respectful dialogue and then turn our attention to several questions that the mayor of New York, the Port Authority of New York and others who were key decision makers needed public input on. Well, through that process, many of the, suggestions that were initially floated were rejected, and many new ideas emerged that ultimately led to what you now see at the site of the World Trade Center. I'm really privileged to have been involved in that as just one of several hundred facilitators, but it shows the power of what these kinds of conversations can do, and they've been applied to healthcare, energy planning and analysis, the future of transportation, budget conversations. There are a lot of ways these can be applied, including the political issue that and the really critical issue that you and I are discussing today, 

Bryan Schwartzman: Talking about the post or whenever we're able to gather together again in person , since  the Jewish dialogue group which developed the model you use doesn't appear to be particularly active right now. Do you have any advice for communities that might want to go through a similar process, how they get started? 

Harry Webne-Behrman: Sure. Well, the Jewish dialogue group was advised by a group called the Public Conversations project in developing their materials and their format.  I know the people at the Public Conversations Project well,  actually, it goes back to that abortion dialogue that I was involved in  the 1990s. So the people with the Public Conversations project, which is based both in Washington DC and Cambridge, Massachusetts are an excellent resource here.

Another group that would be a really fine resource for people is called the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, NCDD, and they're actually a coalition of facilitators that convene many different kinds of public engagement conversations as well as smaller group conversations. And then, lastly, I would refer them to IAP2, which is the International Association for Public Participation. They have many resources and tools that you can use for facilitating a variety of conversations. 

That said, the materials are largely still useful. They were written in a way that aren't particularly time bound. So in that regard, the stands that people take, the positions that they take as a starting point are often still the stands that represent the spectrum of opinion in, at least the American Jewish community, and I believe in the Canadian Jewish community as well. Is there 

Bryan Schwartzman: Is there anything that  happened in this process that you wish you could go back and change or that you feel like you learned from? 

Harry Webne-Behrman: Oh, oh, yeah. I was taking contemporaneous notes at the time of the dialogues in order to inform my own experience with them. And I remember noticing how much people really wanted to dive more deeply.

So if I could have a do over, I would create even more avenues for people to dive more deeply. And I think the 90 minutes that we had was a really nice amount of time for most people. But I also think that if we had created another model that would allow for those who were interested to go in for two and a half or three hours, I think even there, some things would have been possible that you'd just be skimming the surface on , in the dialogues that we had. 

Bryan Schwartzman: So I think this question is a good place to wrap up because I think it encapsulates a lot of your thinking on the process. You in your essay, you quote the theoretical physicist David Bohm, who said the ability to perceive or think differently is more important than the knowledge gained.

And I wonder if you could explain what that means and how it  kind of shapes your view of facilitating conversations. 

Harry Webne-Behrman: Yeah. So, to me, one of the most powerful experiences that I have as a facilitator, whether I'm working in dialogue at such as this or working as a mediator with people who come to me entrenched in a conflict, is the  marvelous ability of people to have an aha moment.

And from that aha, to then dare to have an epiphany. And I say dare to have an epiphany because what often is occurring is the type of learning that occurs when you think that you have it all figured out and you realize that you don't, and that epiphany then is scary. And if we've been successful at creating a safe and constructive space in which to have that epiphany, then one can lower the boundary and say, you know, Bryan, I realized something now that I really didn't get before.

And one of the things that I think we kind of lack a lot of in our society is the legitimacy for first of all of being able to engage in such a conversation and let those boundaries down. And secondly, the validity, that value of being able to have those insights and not know exactly where they're going to take us.

I may have learned something from you that runs contrary to what I previously thought was totally true. But it doesn't necessarily mean that I now have a sense of what I'm going to do with that. And to be okay with the uncertainty, with the ambiguity of those feelings, with the various kinds of feelings that might be there -- I think that's one of the things about dialogue and thinking differently and having a new perspective that draws me to it so powerfully. So I'm grateful for the chance to experience that with people and to witness what they do with it. 

Bryan Schwartzman: And we have grateful to have your essay published on the Evolve website and to have you here on the show and to have a chance to talk about talking. We appreciate it, and certainly, stay safe and healthy, and we hope to converse again,

Harry Webne-Behrman: Thanks very much for the chance, Bryan, and you as well. Stay safe and healthy. 

Bryan Schwartzman: Thank you so much for listening to our interview with Harry Webne-Behrman. If you enjoyed our conversation, please be sure to read his Evolve essay, "How to have healing public conversations about Israel/ Palestine. So what did you think of today's episode? We want to hear from you. Evolve is about creating meaningful conversations two ways. And that includes you. 

So send us your questions, comments, feedbacks, whatever you got, you can reach me directly. You can flood my inbox at bschwartzman@reconstructingjudaism.org. Well, there's so much uncertainty, but you can be reasonably certain we'll be back next month with a brand new episode. in the meantime, we don't know how the world is gonna look. Stay, stay safe, stay healthy, state, stay positive, we're with you.

Evolve. Groundbreaking Jewish conversations is executive produced by Rabbi Jacob Staub and edited by Sam Wachs. Our theme song  is by Rabbi Miriam Margolies. This show is a production of Reconstructing Judaism. I'm your host, Bryan Schwartzman, and we'll see you next time.