The Israel Situation » Non-Profits and NGOs

Donate to Programs for Injured IDF Soldiers

Eric — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:03:16 +0000

Israeli soldiers are regularly injured in the line of duty. As they are fighting for the continued security of the Jewish people, it is important that we remember them and take care of those in need.

My friend Hallie is participating in Dor Chadash’s 5k Run/Walk in New York, and is raising money for the cause. She sent out a request for donations, and the cause is important enough that I wanted to pass it on:

I am excited to be participating in Dor Chadash’s 3rd Annual 5K Run/Walk for Israel on September 19th! Dor Chadash is a non-profit organization that inspires a new generation of Israeli and American Jews to make meaningful connections to Israel and each other.

This year’s Run/Walk is raising money to benefit Dror for the Wounded Foundation – a non-profit that provides assistance to severely wounded Israeli soldiers in the greatest financial need, beyond what the Ministry of Defense can cover. This assistance includes medical and psychological treatment, education and training, and general financial aid.

In Israel, service is required in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), and young adults both men and women begin their duty right after high school at age 18. These young people quickly find themselves in a dangerous world. When injuries happen, they can be devastating and can impact the rest of their lives.

The Dror for the Wounded Foundation does amazing work. There are no words to describe how meaningful their support is to these wounded soldiers. This organization relies on generous donations from people like you and me. Every dollar makes a difference!

If you want to donate to Dror for the Wounded, please visit my friend’s link and give what you can. If you are in the New York area, you can register for the walk/run

Donate to Programs for Injured IDF Soldiers is a post from: The Israel Situation

Organizing Principles: Lessons from Berkeley

Joel — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 21:10:16 +0000

Berkeley added another item to the list of reasons it’s known as our nation’s most liberal university: the battle over a student government resolution that would divest UCB’s resources from Israel. The resolution was initially vetoed by the student body president and was defeated upon a second round of debate. Forward ran a great article today about the strategies used by pro-Israel activists to win the day:

Adam Naftalin-Kelman, the Hillel’s newly installed executive director, said that the strategy for countering divestment efforts was devised at a roundtable meeting convened by Hillel and attended by representatives of local branches of the Anti-Defamation League, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Jewish Community Relations Council, J Street, Israel’s consul general in San Francisco and local rabbis.

What should be instantly clear from the above list of organizations is that this is no small-fry effort. A major American university (even an admittedly radical one) divesting from Israel would be a huge blow to Israel education and support efforts. The fact that all of these groups–notably AIPAC and J-Street–came together for this one purpose indicates that this issue was a very, very big deal outside of the university committee.

Now, I need to confess to something: Adam Naftalin-Kelman is more than just a name on a page for me. Before he was working in Berkeley, he was directing Hillel in Boulder, and I worked closely with him when I was a leader in the organization. I credit a lot of my knowledge of organizing to him, which definitely affects my analysis of this situation.

Early on, it appears that Jewish and pro-Israel organizations on Berkeley’s campus either did not know about the divestment bill or did not see it as a serious threat. Either one of these situations is plausible, as a town like Berkeley is often flooded with ultra-liberal rants and suggestions (which, I should add, makes the town a lot like Boulder). The pro-Israel community certainly needs to pick its battles in such places, and this proved to be one such important battle.

Once it became obvious that this was an important fight, the Jewish community displayed a number of good organizing tactics:

Partnership with other organizations: it’s easier to get things done with more people on board. This is an issue that unites the pro-Israel movement and brings groups with disparate views on Israel together at the same table. Displaying a unified front against unfair discrimination is really important. Think about how effective this effort would be if it had become a platform for AIPAC and J-Street to squabble about policy principles.
Bring in the big guns: a letter from Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, among others, certainly had a huge impact. Wiesel is well-known inside and outside of the Jewish community, as his autobiographical Night is one of the most vivid and tragically beautiful accounts of being a young boy in the Nazi concentration camps. Using Wiesel to bring both wisdom and emotion to the debate was a particularly bright move.
Use education to empower: the distribution of talking points before the debate certainly changed the character of the pro-Israel response. Rather than letting emotion and anger win the day, the Berkeley students used truth as their ultimate weapon.

Pro-Israel organizations all over the world can learn these important lessons. If we’re going to fight the good fight, we need the tools to do so. Thanks to the Jewish community of Berkeley for teaching us something today.

Organizing Principles: Lessons from Berkeley is a post from: The Israel Situation

Anti-Semitism: Drawing Lines

Joel — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:00:01 +0000

In an ideal world, it would be easy to discuss Israel without the issue of anti-Semitism. I do not believe that the most serious issues facing Israel are about collective disdain for the Jewish people. Rather, Israel faces a host of problems from domestic issues of socioeconomic inequality to an affinity for international diplomatic crises. When I sit down with someone who disagrees with me about Israel, these are the issues I want to address:

How can Israel better serve its Sephardic, Muslim, and Christian populations? What can Israel do to protect the security of its citizens and address the root causes of terror in neighboring states? How can the nation with the most powerful military in the Middle East work toward a mutually beneficial and lasting peace?

Unfortunately, we don’t live in this ideal world. Enemies and friends alike characterize the issues facing Israel as “Jewish” issues. Opponents of Israel blend legitimate arguments about Israel’s policies with inappropriate statements about Jews. Some pro-Israel activists have a hair-trigger anti-Semitism detector and categorize all negative comments about Israel as racist.

Personally, I’m conflicted. As a friend of Israel and a Jewish person, I know that hate toward Israel and hate toward my people can be bound together. On the other hand, I recognize that Israel makes big mistakes, and the world has an obligation to call out Israel when it legitimately deserves criticism. As a result, I was relatively pleased with how carefully the ADL addressed anti-Semitism and Israel in their statement before Congress yesterday:

Expressing disagreement with Israeli action through violence against one’s Jewish neighbor or the Jewish community is untenable and a violation of rights. Yet, as Israel defended her citizens from Hamas’ missiles, Jews around the world also came under attack. Anti-Israel rallies and demonstrations were the scene of anti-Semitic rhetoric and imagery.

Notice that the ADL does not equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Instead, they carefully draw the line between what makes an anti-Israel expression legitimate and what makes an action anti-Semitic.

A couple of years ago, when I was still in school, I was working on an anti-genocide campaign for Darfur. A particularly disagreeable student came up and tried to systematically deconstruct the work we were doing. I moved him away from the main event and engaged him in a conversation about the event, which became a larger conversation about student activism. When I told him that I worked with Hillel, he said something along the lines of, “Well, then you must be a supporter of the apartheid regime and the war there.”

The look of disgust and confusion on my face must have been noticeable, for he immediately launched into a string of apologies for his comment. Of course, to assume that I support a war in a faraway land because of my religion, and then to attack me based on that assumption, is where he crossed the line between civilized political discourse and anti-Semitism.

Had he actually wanted to engage in a discussion about the merit of Israel’s military action or about social inequalities in Israeli society, I would have gladly sat there all afternoon and talked with him. However, since this was not the case, I cut our conversation short and went our separate ways.

I’m glad that the ADL recognizes this line, and it’s important that this discussion be part of public discourse. Only then will we be able to recognize and eliminate anti-Semitism while striving to make Israel a better place.

Anti-Semitism: Drawing Lines is a post from: The Israel Situation

Violence in Canada

Joel — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 16:07:39 +0000

Supporting Israel can be hazardous to your health. We tend to think of Canada as a pretty mild country (well, I do at least), so this story from ynet hadashot is even more surprising:

A student activist, supporter of Israel, and his friend, also known as an Israel supporter, were attacked Sunday at Carlton University near the Canadian capital, Ottawa.

They were subject to anti-Semitic curses and even threatened with a machete, and felt lucky to have survived the onslaught, they said. The incident was widely covered in the press and even reached national news channels.

Usually, when we’re talking about Israel-related violence, we’re talking about actions in the Middle East. Don’t get me wrong: the conflict certainly incites strong reactions globally. When I was a Jewish leader at CU, tensions ran high when Israel made controversial moves. Palestinian support groups took their message to campus, and they did not exactly hide their opinions of the Jewish state. Across the way stood a group of Israel supporters, angry at the characterization of our beloved homeland.

Both sides misunderstood each other. Extremists on each side shouted foul curses across the concrete. Not once, however, did someone cross that sacred line. Inappropriate exclamations are one thing; violence is entirely different. Though I was known as a leader on campus, never did I fear for my physical well-being as a result of my support for Israel.

Non-profit organizations, particularly religious ones, do a lot of Israel advocacy. The networking of these groups worldwide provides the backbone of popular support for the Jewish state. Many NPOs give us tools do deal with anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

For those against Israel, it can hardly be denied that a multitude of organizations exists by which these sentiments can be expressed. Even if we find some of their methods offensive (take “Israel Apartheid Week” for example), there is an understanding that, as advocates for one side or the other, we will not engage in the cycle of violence.

Even in isolated incidents like the one in Canada, we can see how thin the line between advocacy and felony is. When we take our message to the streets, whatever message that may be, we must remember this story. We can never get angry enough to become violent. We cannot advocate for a reasonable solution to the conflict in the Middle East by being unreasonable.

Violence in Canada is a post from: The Israel Situation

UNHRC vs. Israel: A Common Conflict

Joel — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:54:44 +0000

So far, it seems that my hopes about Israel’s inclusion in the UN Human Rights Council are not going to come true. Yet again, the UNHRC seems to be targeting Israel, and Israel is fighting back. The Jerusalem Post reports:

Israel strongly rejected on Thursday a UN Human Rights Council resolution calling for Israel to pay Palestinians reparations for loss and damages suffered during last year’s Operation Cast Lead. The 47-nation council did not call for similar payments by Palestinians to Israelis.

…

The proposal by Pakistan was backed Thursday by a majority of 29 to 6 in a vote by the Geneva-based body. There were 11 abstentions.

I wish I could say that this response is unexpected, but we know that UNHRC and Israel tend to conflict like this. Given that Israel is economically and militarily superior to its neighboring enemies, the Jewish state is often held to different standards. For Israelis, this is obviously a problem.

The international community cannot make these demands to Israel without also demanding similar accountability from the Palestinian side. Contrary to popular belief, Operation Cast Lead was not an unprovoked military attack. The IDF undertook Cast Lead in an effort to better protect Israeli citizens from rocket fire. Towns like Sderot have been continually threatened by projectiles from Gaza, and there is no question that Israel has a right to retaliate in a way that improves safety for its own people.

What this resolution reveals, therefore, is that the UNHRC is focusing on the wrong questions when it comes to the Israel/Palestine quagmire. There are a number of items UNHRC can and should identify as possible solutions to the human rights crisis that is constant violent conflict:

The root causes of terror in Gaza: lack of resources, governmental ineffectiveness, poor education, etc.
Hamas’ use of vulnerable citizens as human shields.
Addressing the issue of provocation (kidnapping soldiers, rocket attacks) and the extent to which Israel’s response is justified.

Instead, the council is chiefly focused on blasting Israel for its role in harming Palestinians. The fact that this resolution is merely one of many recent condemnations supports this argument.

However, make no mistake: the international community still has an obligation to make sure everyone is playing by acceptable rules. The UNHRC does important work in this field, and their comments should not be lightly dismissed. It’s hard to argue that their findings are unbiased, but it’s equally difficult to argue that Israel makes moral choices 100% of the time. Israel ought to listen to and engage with its critics; it would be a mistake to blindly accept or deny international opinions. In the case of this particular NGO, Israel should take criticism with an awfully large grain of salt.

UNHRC vs. Israel: A Common Conflict is a post from: The Israel Situation

The United Nations: Let Us In!

Joel — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:18:10 +0000

It’s safe to say that relations between Israel and the United Nations are not exactly warm. Historically, Israel has a tough time gaining traction in that forum. Many countries have hardened their hearts toward Israel’s arguments about human rights; they have bought into Hamas’ propaganda and blame Israel for the suffering of the Palestinian people, ignoring the role that the terrorist network plays in oppressing the Palestinian population.

Therefore, when Israel and the UN have positive interactions, the event is newsworthy. The Associated Press reports:

Israel’s Foreign Ministry says it would enable the entry of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton into Gaza, following their requests to visit the territory.

Israel has routinely banned foreign officials from crossing into Gaza since Hamas’ violent takeover of the strip in 2007, maintaining that such visits bolster the Islamic militant group. Officials can enter Gaza from Egypt.

The United Nations is arguably the most influential NGO in the world. While the organization tends to produce and support documents like the Goldstone Report, it cannot be denied that warmer relations between Israel and the United Nations could be a powerful force for positive change in the region.

There have also been reports this week that Israel will allow a United Nations team of bomb detonators to enter Gaza and clean up explosives left behind by last year’s outbreak of violence. This work is absolutely essential for achieving peace.

Both of these instances seem like relatively small concessions for Israel (if they even look like concessions at all). However, it’s important to remember the context; Israel has not traditionally trusted the UN enough to allow these kinds of missions. At a time when indirect peace negotiations are resuming and Israel finds itself in more difficult diplomatic relations with its neighbors, opening up its borders to international NGOs can only help. Let us hope that this visit produces a more nuanced result than Goldstone’s.

The United Nations: Let Us In! is a post from: The Israel Situation

Nefesh B’Nefesh Hosting Mega Events in North America

Eric — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:04:54 +0000

The official aliyah provider for North America, Nefesh B’Nefesh, is planning to stage eight large mega events in North America this year. The events will take place in New York, Los Angeles, Montreal, Baltimore, Toronto, San Francisco, Chicago and Southern Florida.

NBN hopes to bring 5,000 olim to Israel this year and 100,000 over the next ten years, according to the Jerusalem Post. The first event is taking place today in New York City.

The events are planned “feature information sessions and one-on-one consultations for people preparing for life in Israel. The events also will promote the “Go North” program, which offers financial incentives to olim who move to Northern Israel.”

The “mega” events will feature practical seminars and workshops about education, real estate and financial planning; ministers from the absorption, health and development ministries will be on hand to answer questions, including Prime Minister’s Office director-general Eyal Gabai and Regional Development Minister Silvan Shalom, who will be promoting aliya to the Galilee or Negev.

If you live in one of the host cities, this is a great opportunity to learn about life in Israel. If you are planning to make aliyah in one year or twenty years, it is always good to get up to date information about life in Israel. It is often more difficult financially to live in Israel than the United States, but the emotional and spiritual rewards may far surpass those costs.

More Services

Links

Breaking News Teen-

Photo by: Sasson Tiram

Nefesh B’Nefesh to stage ‘mega’ events in 8 US cities

By E.B. SOLOMONT, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
07/03/2010 05:00

Aliya group aims for 5,000 olim this year, 100,000 in the next decade.

NEW YORK – Hoping to encourage 5,000 new olim this year, Nefesh B’Nefesh is holding eight “mega” aliya events in cities across North America this week.

Starting Sunday in New York, the events will feature information sessions and one-on-one consultations for people preparing for life in Israel. The events also will promote the “Go North” program, which offers financial incentives to olim who move to Northern Israel.

But Nefesh B’Nefesh officials, who say they hope to reach 100,000 olim over the next 10 years, will also use the “mega” event as a major push toward that goal. “We’re cautiously optimistic,” said Danny Oberman, Nefesh B’Nefesh’s vice president for Israel operations, who noted there has been an uptick in aliya because of economic reasons in the past year.

Organizers expect some 2,000 people to attend events in New York, Los Angeles, Montreal, Baltimore, Toronto, San Francisco, Chicago and Florida. “The vast majority of people attending will be making aliya, if not this year, in the next two or three years,” Oberman said.

The “mega” events will feature practical seminars and workshops about education, real estate and financial planning; ministers from the absorption, health and development ministries will be on hand to answer questions, including Prime Minister’s Office director-general Eyal Gabai and Regional Development Minister Silvan Shalom, who will be promoting aliya to the Galilee or Negev.

Nefesh B’Nefesh Hosting Mega Events in North America is a post from: The Israel Situation

Not Enough

Joel — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:27:12 +0000

Being both liberal and pro-Israel, I sometimes feel like the only Jew on Christmas. The situation between Israel and its neighbors violates the traditional ethical and political boundaries within which I’m accustomed to understanding politics. Israel seems to have an impossible balance to strike. Israelis have the right to be free from fear of rocket attacks and suicide bombings; Palestinians have the right to live peacefully without being used as human shields by terrorists.

One key advantage of a democratic government is that such conflicts can be addressed by people of various opinions, and a consensus can be reached that benefits the most people. In theory, the fact that Israelis pack the Knesset with a multitude of parties and ideologies should promote better compromises that have positive impacts on the majority of Israelis. Without getting into the gory details of the real-world functionality of Israeli politics, we can content ourselves knowing that good compromises are far too infrequent occurrences.

If good government is made from compromise, then it seems the likelihood of bad government increases when fewer ideologies take part in the process. When a large percentage of people with similar views stop participating, their opinions no longer weigh as strongly into the debate; opposing ideologies then have disproportionate influence on policy. As Israeli liberals steadily lose their influence on politics, Israel begins to look, at least externally, disproportionately conservative and uncompromising.

One factor funneling liberals away from the Israeli political process is non-profit and NGO involvement. It’s easy to see why frustrated politicians would turn to this world. Many of these groups advocate exceedingly controversial positions. Proposals of Israel losing its identity as a Jewish state might be laughed out of the Knesset, but there are certainly independent groups that would entertain such notions.

If liberals turn their attention too far away from politics, they’re going to find that they have done more harm than good. NGOs are great places to kick around ideas, find issues that concern people, identify societal necessities, and pressure the government to enact certain policies. These groups have no actual decision-making power, however. This means that liberal views, even moderate ones (that don’t include Israel losing its Jewish identity, for instance), can be grouped together and excluded from policy discussions. While it’s great for NGOs to be able to find smarter, higher-quality candidates to produce policy papers, it’s of equal importance that people of varying ideologies get to debate and vote on policy measures.

It may be easier for left-leaning Israelis to feel at home in a non-profit or NGO environment, and the work that these groups do is important. However, NGO involvement from the left is not enough. If they really want Israel’s actions to contain liberal values, then lefties need to stand up and fight at the polls and in the halls of government. Otherwise, a useful and important ideology might end up in the gutter with the rest of the radicals.

Not Enough is a post from: The Israel Situation

Oren Smiles at J-Street: So?

Joel — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:51:57 +0000

Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, is making nice with J-Street. Good for him, I guess. Given that Oren snubbed the group’s inaugural conference, this is a big deal for J-Street, but the action indicates that the organization has some severe problems to overcome.

So far, much of J-Street’s rhetoric has been used to set themselves up in opposition to the mainstream Israel lobby, chiefly represented by AIPAC. By labeling themselves “pro-Israel, pro-peace,” they have freed themselves to take almost any position they want about Israel except a pro-war stance. The very reason that Oren is now showing signs of willingness to engage with J-Street is that the group is becoming more “mainstream.” Because the organization disagrees with Iran and Goldstone, J-Street is gaining credibility among more powerful Israelis.

The argument can easily be made that this is a good sign for those who take a more liberal position about Israel. Since J-Street is actively recognizing Israel’s security needs and the UN’s rather harsh treatment of the embattled country, they could gain enough clout to actively lobby for better diplomatic alternatives to war. Indeed, the positions the group has adopted are not highly controversial. You don’t need to love Israel to think that Iran is governed by dangerous people. Additionally, it’s hard to deny the benefit that J-Street would gain from becoming a little bit less radical.

However, the homogenization of J-Street’s message might harm the group. The organization is jumping on the bandwagon on easy issues to support; they do not necessarily present an actual alternative to more powerful groups like AIPAC. Since J-Street is a grassroots organization, this could be detrimental. From a donor’s perspective, there’s no reason to pledge support to a new group that holds essentially the same positions as the current, more powerful lobby. Moreover, J-Street’s basic philosophy contradicts Israel’s position on Iran. The safety and continued existence of Israel might one day depend on IDF action in Iran, which is something that J-Street cannot legitimately support.

The issues with Israel and J-Street are highlighted by Oren’s statements. Because the group needs to concentrate more on expanding its coffers than on good philosophy, they take positions which contradict each other; a time may come in the near future where advocating a diplomatic solution to the Iranian conflict is absurd. Furthermore, the idea that a group would have to tout a specific line in order to be recognized by Israeli diplomats is disturbing. It’s easy to disagree with J-Street’s methods, but to ignore them until they kowtow to a specific set of beliefs reveals that Israel may not be all that interested in honest ideological struggles.

Oren Smiles at J-Street: So? is a post from: The Israel Situation

Goldstone, Oy!

Joel — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:04:30 +0000

It is, apparently, impossible to follow the news about Israel without encountering the (in)famous Goldstone Report. The news this week has to do with Goldstone’s connections to NGOs which opposed the war in Gaza before Goldstone conducted his “fact-finding” mission. It would be impossible, and relatively useless, to go through the various problems and inconsistencies in the report; you can’t throw a stone in the blogosphere without hitting someone who has done just that.

Instead, it is worthwhile for us to examine how Goldstone’s connections with certain NGOs would end up in the news. This piece claims that the judge’s association with so-called “anti-Israel groups” proves that his report is not trustworthy. There must be some truth to this claim; if Goldstone is frolicking in the fields with organizations that preach in favor of Israel’s destruction, then maybe he is not the most qualified person to lead a human rights investigation. Furthermore, Im Tirtzu suggests that much of the evidence found in the Goldstone report comes from Israeli organizations commonly supported by the New Israel Fund.

There is no question that the collection of organizations with which Goldstone is affiliated affects his ability to do an unbiased investigation. An objective report about any armed conflict is an impossible thing to produce. One’s loyalties to either the Israeli or Palestinian cause determine how one views the history and conflict of the region; the two sides tell very different stories to defend their actions and claims to the same land.

However, some of the organizations in question are internationally recognized groups like Amnesty International. While the agenda of these NGOs may not exactly be flattering (or even fair) to Israel, the allegation that someone who supports Amnesty absolutely cannot support Israel is absurd. Intelligent people learn to take ideologies with a grain of salt; neither Amnesty’s radical positions nor an “Israel can do no wrong” attitude stand up to the test of logic.

Unfortunately, the response from center-right or right-wing groups like Im Tirtzu has been a blanket dismissal of all criticism as “slander.” This response serves a political purpose but may not help improve Israel. In a democratic system, dissent plays a central role. Where there is disagreement in a democracy, different sides of a debate should listen and internalize the arguments of opposing groups. Instead, many take the easy way out: ad hominem attacks or closed ears.

The important thing to realize is that NGOs on both sides of the political fence are working toward the common goal of a more secure and prosperous Israel. A supposedly unbiased report cannot take a significant amount of evidence from a number of politically-aligned organizations (who, not coincidentally, take their money from the same coffers). However, the report’s unreliability does not mean that we should not engage with it; instead, Israel should listen to and debate with its critics from all sides of the issue. It may be long past the time for extremists in all camps to listen more and talk less, but this is often not the way of extremism.

Goldstone, Oy! is a post from: The Israel Situation