Depending on American philanthropy

The first article asks what Israelis themselves give money to good causes. The second points out that a new American generation no longer wants to fund the conflict.

A cartoon on how to dispossess Palestinians, from settlers to outposts, produced by NGO Yesh Din.

Rethinking progressive NGO funding in Israel

Marked as traitors by the dominant Right for relying on foreign aid, Israeli liberal NGOs need a wider base of local donors.

By Hillel Ben-Sasson, openDemocracy
February 05, 2016

In accordance with the overall rise of populist and extreme-right political forces throughout the developed world, Israel has been dominated for almost a decade now by hard right coalitions. As in other countries, such as Turkey and Russia, when facing decline in popularity or policy failures, the Right consistently attempts to divert the fire and aim it at progressive and human rights NGOs. Framing the latter as a fifth column, after all, is killing two birds with one stone. First, it hangs the guilt of a worrisome reality on someone else rather than the government. Second, it compels the most vocal and professional critics of the government—progressive NGOs, academics and political activists—to go on the defence, thus silencing or curbing their opposition.

This tactic has appeared again in Israel recently, with a bill promoted by hard-right Justice Minister, Ms. Ayelet Shaked, mandating that NGOs supported by foreign governments disclose that information on every public document they issue, and wear special tags when present in the Parliament. Conveniently, all such organizations happen to be on the progressive side.

Putting aside, for a moment, the veracity and importance of outcries against the bill, the debate also provides an opportunity to examine political philanthropy in Israel in a wider context, both in the past and at present.

From the late nineteenth century onward, Jewish philanthropy from abroad, especially the US, was vital to Israel’s establishment. This trend continued in 1948 and thereafter, following the official recognition of the State of Israel. During its first years, Israel received donations equivalent to 25% of the country’s gross national product at the time. Since those days, the philanthropic landscape has changed quite a bit. Israel’s national budget has grown considerably, rendering the share arriving from Jewish communities outside the country relatively far smaller (despite its increase in absolute number of dollars). At the same time, a parallel process of privatizing Jewish philanthropy started taking form: more and more American individuals, foundations, and even specific federations, directly channel their contributions to specific causes and organizations in Israel, rather than passing them through the State or pre-state Zionist institutions.

The consequences of these trends in philanthropy are varied and substantial. Of particular interest here is the way in which Israeli philanthropy took shape in relation to diasporic Jewish philanthropy. Israelis, even the most affluent ones, give far less than their Jewish counterparts overseas (both in relative and in absolute numbers). In addition, Israeli contributions to NGO political work are extremely rare. All fundraisers know the handful of millionnaires that give politically. However, I would argue that Shaked’s McCarthy-styled bill mentioned earlier provides an opportunity to question this piece of common knowledge and breathe life into the option of growth in Israeli political philanthropy.

Political philanthropy is a cultural and communal action, one that, if cultivated properly, could bring about engagement between Israeli society and the human rights community.

First, Israeli political entrepreneurs must accept what is, in the US, a trivial truth: that philanthropy is a cultural and communal action, one that can bring about the engagement of a society when cultivated properly. As a culture, political philanthropy, therefore, need not begin at the top and the very wealthy. This sector of society is, in fact, more likely to get on board after the trend of political giving has been established in wider circles of the middle and upper-middle class. Outspoken political alignment is far less risky for the middle class in Israel, making this sector a powerful base from which this culture of giving can begin to grow.

In cultivating the culture of political philanthropy in Israel, large donations need not be the goal.Furthermore, in cultivating the culture of political philanthropy in Israel, large donations need not be the goal. The main goal of non-profits should, at first, be the creation of ever increasing circles of donors, each giving between NIS 500-1000 annually, the rough equivalent of $100-250. Building such a support base is not only a wise move against the relentless attacks on foreign governmental funding to NGOs, it also has a healing potential for Israel’s wounded liberal camp, in its call to members to put their money where their values, ideals and collective interests already stand.

Bringing about such a shift in liberal philanthropy in Israel will demand more that creating a new Rolodex of names. In order to address the potentially wide base of middle-class local supporters, Israeli liberal NGOs will need to create a whole new organizational language. Whereas Jewish American donors are generally sympathetic to talk of humanistic and Jewish values, such language is unlikely to garner the attention of well-off Israelis. The business and tech-oriented organizational culture of the potential new liberal donor base will demand NGOs to articulate their goals and objectives through concrete work plans, with clear benchmarks and tangible, measurable impact. If Israeli donors are to support liberal political organizations, they must be dealt with as investors, not patrons.

So, is it worth all the fuss?

The immense potential of numerous smaller-scale donations was tapped into during the Labour party primaries last year (2015). During their respective campaigns, MKs Stav Shaffir and Shelly Yachimovich raised hundreds of thousands of shekels from a large number of small contributors. This money helped both MKs in several ways: first and most obvious, they raised the funds needed to cover the campaign expenses; second, the donations were a public expression of popular support long before the ballots boxes were positioned; third, donations made it possible for supporters who are not young, on-the-ground activists to translate their support into meaningful action.

It would do liberal and progressive NGOs some good to learn from Shaffir and Yachimovich. The benefits of such an effort lie not only in the financial arena: they extend beyond to creating a cultural atmosphere in which philanthropy is regarded as a kind of “membership fee” of those belonging to a specific political camp, with a shared set of convictions, which they act upon together.

Dr. Hillel Ben-Sasson is a former Director of Programmes at Molad: The Centre for Renewal of Israeli Democracy.

Young American Jews on a trip to Israel organised by the NGO Birthright.

American Jews, money and the Israel-Palestine conflict

Although the American Jewish community spends relatively little on human rights work in Israel/Palestine, they are getting serious about promoting a lasting peace in the region.

By Benjy Cannon, openDemocracy
April 09, 2014

The American Jewish community has a complex philanthropic and political relationship with Israel. On the one-hand, substantial American Jewish money flows into Israel, often directed at causes that explicitly or implicitly contribute to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On the other hand, American Jews, particularly the younger generation, overwhelmingly support a peace deal that would grant Palestinian independence and end the occupation of Palestinian lands. So while American Jewish funding for Israeli human rights organizations pales in comparison to other causes in Israel, many Jews are pushing for a political solution consonant with the goals of human rights activists.

American-Jewish Giving to Israel

A 2012 study from Brandeis University estimated that in 2007, American Jews donated just over $2 billion to organizations in Israel, while a more recent article in the Forward estimated the number at 1.7 billion annually.

Where does all that money go? In 2007, the largest category (worth about $500 million) fell into a conglomerate of “traditional Zionist groups.” These groups include an Emergency Fund for the Second Lebanon war; the Jewish National Fund (JNF), which plants trees and develops land in Israel and in areas beyond the Green Line; and Birthright Israel, which runs tours for young Jewish adults. The JNF and Birthright seem to have innocuous, or even laudable goals, which helps explain their tremendous fundraising power. However, activists have criticized the JNF and Birthright for their complicity in human rights abuses and indifference to the occupation, respectively.

After clearing the Palestinians from Beer Sheva and its environs, the JNF planted Yattir Forest, claiming it as a victory for making the desert bloom. Photo: KKL-JNF Photo Archive

Conversely, the Brandeis study listed “Progressive” organizations – which deal with human rights issues in Israel and the West Bank — as the second smallest beneficiaries of American Jewish money, with about $46 million in funds in 2007. While this sum is significant, it is far less than the money going to other causes.

But money only tells half the story. The progressive American Jewish grassroots, particularly the younger generation, is passionate about solving the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Changing Political Tides

In “Funding cannot stop rights abuses,” American anthropologist Lori Allen concludes that while human rights organizations do incredible work documenting and publicizing human rights issues in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, these measures are ultimately insufficient. Rather, only a political solution can secure a peaceful future for Israelis and Palestinians, and end the occupation.

Allen is absolutely right, and American Jews increasingly agree. There is a growing movement – particularly amongst young people – in support of a comprehensive, two-state solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. These young Jews are also clear-eyed about the challenges that lie ahead. Just 23% of non-orthodox American Jews aged 18-29 believe that the Israeli government is sincerely pursuing peace, and a mere 17% of all American Jews believe that the settlement project in the West Bank – a focal point of the Palestinian struggle for human rights – is good for Israel. A whopping 76% of young non-Orthodox Jews believes that a Jewish, democratic Israel, and a free, sovereign Palestine, can live side by side in peace and security.

On the surface, support for a two state solution and Palestinian human rights are not necessarily the same thing. However, the politics of Jewish America indicate a deep sensitivity to human rights issues. According to Pew, 38% of American Jews identify as liberal, which makes us the second most liberal religious denomination in the country, behind Buddhists. Domestically, American Jews are actively tuned in to issues of discrimination against the LGBTQ community, Muslims and African Americans, with large majorities asserting that these groups face “a lot” of discrimination. In contrast, less than 50% of the US general public believes that Muslims and African Americans face significant discrimination.

The politically progressive tendencies of America’s Jews are beginning to manifest themselves in political activism around Israel/Palestine. Given both the history of Jewish involvement in human rights work and attitudes towards discrimination in the US, many American Jews believe that Israel should live up to their values. Supporting a peace agreement in Israel also means supporting an Israel that upholds the basic tenets of justice and egalitarianism that undergird their domestic political leanings. We see this trend reflected in the rise of the progressive Israel lobby.

Expressly pro-Israel, pro-peace American Jewish groups, such as J Street, Americans for Peace Now and the New Israel Fund have flourished in recent years. Sara Sorcher and Elahe Izadi’s recent piece in the National Journal details the rise of J Street, which is dedicated to the resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Sorcher and Izadi argue that J Street has “changed the landscape” of what it means to be pro-Israel in the United States. J Street has created a space for both American Jews and elected officials to challenge the policies of Bibi Netanyahu’s government when it makes peace more difficult or advances detrimental policies. J Street’s political action committee (PAC) was the largest pro-Israel donor in the 2012 election cycle, and Vice President Joe Biden spoke at their most recent conference. Of the over 3,000 attendees, 900 were students, demonstrating the appeal of pro-peace activism for younger Jews.

J Street, The New Israel Fund, Americans for Peace Now and other like-minded groups still face opposition. Politically active American Jews are by no means united behind progressive pro-peace activism. However, the rapid growth of their organizations and age of their supporters is a positive indicator going forward.

The rise of J Street demonstrates the presence of organized people and organized money in progressive Jewish American politics. While J Street and its allies posses a political, rather than specifically human rights oriented focus, their language and policy goals seek to promote Palestinian rights alongside a Jewish, democratic state. American Jews may not donate as much to human rights organizations as to other causes in Israel, but the trail of big money is at odds with Jewish pro-human rights work in the political sphere, and with Jewish American political sympathies. Yes, the disconnect between money and activism is problematic, but it is not indicative of how most American Jews feel about human rights, and is at odds with trends in their political activism.

Cause for Optimism

Understanding the American Jewish connection to human rights in Israel and Palestine requires looking beyond funding to human rights groups. While there are significant funding obstacles, both in the US, Israel and the Palestinian territories for human rights organizations, American Jews have doubled down in pursuit of a political solution to the conflict. This is appropriate. As Allen so eloquently articulated, human rights work, while critically important, is not in and of itself sufficient to fix the significant issues in the region.

The relative dearth of American Jewish money directed towards human rights issues in Israel and the occupied territories is troubling. Progressive American groups seeking to expand the political conversation must continue drawing attention to and rectifying the monetary shortfall. But amidst the challenging, entrenched dissonance between donors and constituents, American Jews cannot lose sight of the urgent need for a political solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The American Jewish community must continue pushing, harder than ever, for a lasting peace to secure a future for human rights in Israel and Palestine.