The Ethics of Giving to Jewish Federation Campaigns

The following document was published by the Ethical Jewish Giving Project in the spring of 1991. The EJG Project was an activity of Ann Arbor New Jewish Agenda. Despite organizational changes in both the American Jewish community federations and the Jewish Agency, neither the essential nature of that relationship nor the ways in which funds are actually spent in Israel have changed. The information here remains essentially correct because the political nature of the Jewish Agency and its relationships with the dominant parties in Israel and with the state itself have not changed.

Introduction

The Ethical Jewish Giving Project encourages American Jews to become informed about their options for charitable giving and to choose those funds and projects that promote peace and social justice. This Guide focuses on the choices that we all face in relation to Israel. We recognize that ``social justice'' has different meanings for different people. Therefore, we provide information about a wide variety of organizations to which you can give, including some that are not well known to Americans.

This booklet includes (a) a listing and description of over thirty different progressive organizations that we recommend you consider for your donations; (b) an analysis of why the UJA does not satisfy our criteria for Ethical Jewish Giving; (c) four essays on aspects of ethical Jewish giving.

What Do We Mean by ``Ethical Jewish Giving''?

Though different members of our Project advocate different approaches to ethical giving, two principles guide our entire effort:

Beyond these two criteria, we recognize that different people will want to support different kinds of projects. Accordingly, we classify ethical giving into the following categories:

The UJA: To Give or Not to Give?

The EJG Project is a public education campaign established by the Middle East Committee of Ann Arbor New Jewish Agenda.

Part Two

Structural Ties Between Israeli Parties, the Government, and Philanthropic Agencies: The Case Against Giving to the UJA

Benjamin Mordecai Ben-Baruch

Benjamin Mordecai Ben-Baruch is a former Hebrew school principal and is currently a doctoral candidate in sociology and history at the University of Michigan.

Contributing to the UJA violates principles of ethical Jewish giving. This is due to its intimate relationship with the World Zionist Organization (WZO) and the Jewish Agency (JA), a relationship which is described in more detail below.

1. Contributing to the UJA (including Operation Exodus) is tantamount to placing money into the hands of Israeli politicians and underwriting their policies. The WZO/JA funds all the settlements in the occupied territories, supports clericalist institutions which further religious intolerance of non-Orthodox Jews, and bolsters the political patronage system which has allowed the clericalist parties to gain electoral strength.

2. Social services provided through the WZO/JA are available (with only very minor exceptions) exclusively to Jews. This has led to a discriminatory two-tiered social service system in Israel. Arab citizens suffer the most.

What is the UJA?

The UJA is the joint fundraising arm of the United Israel Appeal (UIA) and the Joint Distribution Committee (JDC). The JDC distributes American Jewish monies to Jewish needs everywhere except the US, Canada, and Israel. The UIA distributes American Jewish monies to the Jewish Agency. Approximately 85% of UJA money goes to the Jewish Agency via the UIA. Almost all UJA monies come from the campaigns of local Jewish communities. Almost all American Jewish communities give between 40-70% of their total collections to the UJA.

So what is the Jewish Agency?

The Jewish Agency was established by the World Zionist Organization in 1929 as a means of mobilizing non-Zionist support and financing for the Zionist movement's central institutions. After the establishment of the state, the Jewish Agency was formally separated from the WZO. Nominally the Jewish Agency became the representative of Diaspora Jewry to the State of Israel. In fact, the Jewish Agency is still controlled by Israeli parties through the WZO; the JA is the major fundraising arm of the WZO. The WZO receives its money from the JA and the Israeli government (and from the Jewish National Fund which is an agency of the WZO).

The UJA denies that the Jewish Agency is controlled by the wzo. why does new jewish agenda and the ethical jewish giving project say that the israeli parties and the wzo control the Jewish Agency?

When the Jewish Agency was "reconstituted" in 1971, direct WZO representation was reduced to 50% on the two chief governing bodies of the Jewish Agency -- thus giving the appearance of ending formal WZO control. However, approximately half of the remaining seats on both bodies are appointed by the Keren Hayesod and the American Zionist Federation, both WZO affiliates. Furthermore, the critical positions on the Jewish Agency Executive -- the body that actually formulates and implements policy and programs -- are appointed by the WZO and/or the Israeli political parties. The Chair of the Executive and of the governing bodies is appointed by the Israeli party which dominates the Knesset coalition and is ratified by the World Zionist Congress. At the present time, this is the Likud.

Real control of the Jewish Agency rests with the Israeli political parties. This control is exerted through the parties' control of the World Zionist Organization and also more directly. Department heads of the Jewish Agency are party appointments. Which party appoints the head of which department is part of the agreements worked out in negotiations between the Israeli parties following each Knesset election.

Israel's political system is dominated by the major parties, and the major political decisions in all spheres are made within the parties' central committees. This is true for the Zionist institutions as well as for the government bureaucracy.

Portfolios in the WZO and in the Jewish Agency are distributed according to the "Party Key System" whereby control and influence over governmental and quasi-governmental bodies in Israel are given over to the parties according to agreements between them.

Department head appointments are made by the party central committees according to the Party Key System.

The party central committees and the Knesset debate the Jewish Agency budget as if it were fully under their control.

The Jewish Agency is a quasi-governmental organization under Israeli Law.

Can the Jewish Agency, World Zionist Organization and State of Israel budgets be truly separated?

No. Here it is instructive to quote directly from the standard introductory economics textbook at the Hebrew University for over a decade:

"The national institutions are the Jewish Agency, the Keren Hayesod . . ., the Jewish National Fund, and the World Zionist Organization. They are usually considered, along with the central and local governments, to be an integral part of the public sector. The rationale for considering the national institutions as part of general government is that they were set up in order to undertake many government functions. . . . After 1948 . . . it was natural for [the government's] ministries to replace Jewish Agency departments (and for Jewish Agency department heads to become ministers . . .). But although some departments were abolished and others curtailed, not all activities were shifted to the government. . . .

". . . the Agency's activity's are by no means restricted to immigration and agriculture. Jewish Agency departments and firms (wholly or partly owned) are active in virtually every branch of economic activity, including the country's largest bank and national shipping line."

UJA monies indirectly fund settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. The settlements are supported by the WZO and the Israeli government. WZO funds come from four sources: the UJA, the Keren Hayesod, the Jewish National Fund, and the Israeli government. Both the WZO and the JA maintain nominally separate settlement departments. The WZO department deals with settlements in the territories, while the JA department handles Jewish settlements inside the "green line" (the 1967 border). However, both departments share department chiefs and facilities. In practice, they are really not separate at all!

Fungible funds are juggled so that the UJA can maintain that its monies do not go to the territories. To do this, UJA funds go to social services in Israel -- such as Project Renewal -- replacing Israeli government funds that have been shifted to support the activities of the WZO and the settlements.

UJA funds indirectly strengthen the clericalist parties (the so- called "Religious" parties). As mentioned above, Jewish Agency positions are distributed as patronage positions. The party in power, especially the Likud, has generally preferred to give the clericalist parties such positions rather than to make major ideological or legislative concessions to them.

The clericalist parties not only have increased their electoral strength by controlling larger numbers of patronage positions. Just as importantly, the privilege of filling these positions allows them to control educational and cultural institutions and programs and to impose their intolerant views within these institutions -- adversely affecting workers and potential beneficiaries.

Furthermore, the clericalist parties' major organizational footholds are in the settlements in the occupied territories. By increasing the number of settlements, the number of settlers, and the local autonomy of these settlements, this important base of clericalist party activism is also strengthened. We have been underwriting the expansion of their organizational base through our contributions to the UJA.

The UJA directly supports discrimination against Arabs in Israel. The Jewish Agency has formal agreements with the government to provide basic social services to Jews. These basic services include aiding and financing rural settlement and development, providing basic services such as sewage and water systems and connection to the national water and electricity systems, provision of housing and public buildings, etc.

The JA also provides "supplements" to the government's education budget. Approximately $60 million per year in "educational supplements" are provided to Jewish students and are unavailable to Israeli Arabs.

Jewish Agency services are, by statute, provided only to Jews. Exceptions to this are rare and minor. Arab agricultural and rural development has been stifled because credit, financing, planning assistance, and other services routinely provided to Jews is unavailable to them. Consequently there are Arab villages that are still not connected to the water supply and electricity grid and do not have proper sewage facilities.

Israeli Arab communities endure further forms of discrimination because of the WZO/JA's role in providing basic public social services.

"Arabs may not establish new agricultural settlements. This was brought home a number of years ago when a group of Negev Bedouin who, under government policy, were to be settled in specially built townships, applied to the Minister of Agriculture to allow them to establish a [cooperative] settlement on the lines of the moshav. Their request fell on deaf ears. When [Professor David Krezmer, one of Israel's leading jurists and a civil rights specialist] questioned a senior Lands Administration official on the matter, he replied quite candidly that moshavim are set up with Jewish Agency money which is meant for Jews and not for Arabs."

What about Operation Exodus? The UJA claims that no homes are being built in the territories with money from operation exodus.

Operation Exodus manifests all of the above problems. Operation Exodus monies are being used to build housing in the occupied territories. Furthermore, Operation Exodus monies are co-mingled with all other monies spent on new housing construction and are a key part of the master plans that include the expansion of settlement in the territories. Ariel Sharon is the key political figure in all of the decision-making. As chair of the Likud Central Committee he has great influence over appointments to the Jewish Agency committees. As Minister of Housing and Construction and as head of the "Aliyah Cabinet" he controls both policy-making and implementation. He has vowed to use his positions of power to advance the settlement of the territories.

Operation Exodus funds go directly to building housing in East Jerusalem. The UJA and the Israeli government claim that East Jerusalem has been annexed by Israel and that it is not part of the occupied territories. In fact however, this is the organizational and cultural center of the West Bank. Furthermore, Israel has expanded the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem to include many of the surrounding villages and lands. Much of the housing being built for Soviet immigrants with Operation Exodus funds is in these areas.

Since 1967 Israel has tripled the geographical area within the municipal boundaries (from 38,000 to 110,00 dunams). All of this expansion has been in the West Bank. In this way, Israel has unilaterally annexed the major urban area of the West Bank as well as its surrounding areas. Israel has intentionally created a ring of Jewish housing projects in these outlying areas (now defined as being within the municipal boundaries) for several reasons. (1) Israel wants to create a Jewish majority in (expanded) East Jerusalem. (2) Israel wants to create the conditions for separating Arab Jerusalem permanently from the rest of the West Bank. East Jerusalem contains 15% of the West Bank Palestinian population and most of the major political, cultural, relgiious and economic institutions of the Palestinians. (3) Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem are designed to bolster the infrastructure that supports Jewish settlement deeper in the heart of the West Bank.

Operation Exodus funds are fungible and are a major source of support of the government's overall housing and settlement policies. Israel's housing policies have artificially inflated all housing prices so that people are dependent upon government or WZO/JA subsidies (except in Arab neighborhoods where there is virtually no new construction). Soviet immigrants get subsidies to settle wherever they want (including the occupied territories). Other Israeli Jews can find subsidized housing almost exclusively in the occupied territories. The result is an increase in both housing construction and settlement in the occupied territories. Indeed, it is unfortunate that the present Israeli government has manipulated the issue of Soviet Jewry to advance its political agenda of expanding settlement in the territories.

Aren't these problems being rectified by the reforms being instituted in the Jewish Agency?

Indeed, some of the most vulgar manifestations of fiscal irresponsibility were being corrected -- at least until Operation Exodus began. But the basic problems remain -- they are endemic to the basic structure of the national institutions. Advocates of reform hope that it is possible to account for the expenditures of American Jewish contributions to Israel by implementing a variety of new accounting and management procedures. But these reformers insist on maintaining the current institutional arrangements between local communities, the UJA, the Jewish Agency, the World Zionist Organization and the Israeli government.

Proposed reforms do not address the issues we have raised. Indeed, the "reformers" deny that these problems exist. Many UJA supporters have deep emotional and organizational ties to the current system. Some admit that there are organizational problems _ but deny that these have any serious political ramifications. Other advocates of reform believe that there is no fundamental crisis in either Israel or the American Jewish community, that the apparent differences are superficial. All advocates of reform share the naive belief that problems caused by power struggles over the control of millions of dollars can be solved by better business administration methods.

But if everyone were to follow the advice of the Ethical Jewish Giving Project and stop giving to the UJA, wouldn't American Jewry lose the capacity to aid Israel in a crisis?

No! Contrary to popular myth, fundraising activities are not actually carried out by the UJA. Autonomous local Jewish communities carry out the various fundraising drives. The UJA is essentially passive; it is a recipient of funds, not an active fundraising organization. If American Jews stopped giving to local federation campaigns because 50% of the funds raised go directly to the UJA, local communities would stop channelling their funds through the UJA. However, the actual ability to run local campaigns would not be affected. Moreover, the ability to coordinate local efforts would similarly be unaffected. Cooperation between local communities is facilitated by the Council of Jewish Federations (CJF) -- not by the UJA.

So what would happen if the UJA simply disappeared?

Local communities would continue to raise funds as they have been doing. Through the CJF, they could organize a system for allocating funds earmarked for needs in Israel. However, they would have to find recipients for these funds outside of Israel's political bureaucracy. Most likely, they would either shift their support to the New Israel Fund or replicate the strategy of the New Israel Fund _ i.e. give grants for specific projects and/or for general support to worthy not-for-profit organizations and groups.

Indeed, there is a growing movement in Israel to abolish the Jewish Agency and transfer all of its functions to the Israeli government. This movement is supported by the Civil Rights Movement and by social service professionals in Israel. Various government committees and officials have also recommended dismantling the Jewish Agency. If this were to happen _ and a proposal to abolish the JA is presently before the WZO Executive _ the UJA would cease to exist.

We urge American Jews to stop supporting the UJA now and to begin to support those funds, organizations, and programs which do constructive work in Israel.

But if I do not contribute to the local campaign, how do I contribute to the local Jewish community?

This is, indeed, a problem. Virtually every Jewish community has tied support of local needs to support of the UJA. Unfortunately, there is no ideal solution at the present time to this problem. Fortunately, there is a practical solution. Choose one or more local groups, programs or projects and give directly to these rather than through the community campaign.

The EJG Project does not advocate reducing support of local needs. We do however recommend that at the present time people should contribute through channels other than the local federation campaigns.

Couldn't I earmark my contributions?

No. First, earmarking is discouraged or not allowed in many communities. Secondly, earmarking has no practical effect upon the actual allocations procedures. "Earmarking" is a fundraising gimmick meant to assuage the consciences of potential contributors who have reservations about -- or are uncomfortable with -- some aspect of the local UJA campaign. Although "earmarking" allows contributors to indicate their preferences to community leaders, it does not affect the actual amounts allocated. "Earmarking" has no real effect.

REFERENCES

Akzin, Benjamin, "The Role of Parties in Israeli Democracy", in G. Mahler (ed.), Readings on the Israeli Political System, Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1982. Akzin, a political scientist and past rector of Haifa University, develops the thesis that "[political parties] occupy in Israel a place more prominent and exercise an influence more pervasive than in any other State, with the sole exception of some one-party states" [p. 51].

Blum, Lisa, "Funds From the Diaspora -- and Citizens Rights", report published and distributed by the Citizens Rights Movement, 1988. (The author is a member of the CRM Executive.)

Brecher, Michael, The Foreign Policy System of Israel: Setting, Images, Process, London: Oxford University Press, 1972

Chinitz, Zelig, A Common Agenda: The Reconstitution of the Jewish Agency for Israel, Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 1985. This book was written as propaganda for the UJA and Jewish Agency by the former director-general of the Jerusalem office of the UIA -- and it needs to be read with this in mind. One of the more interesting aspects of this book is the authoritative documentation of secret agreements between the State of Israel and the WZO and JA regulating the amount of control that can be exerted by diaspora Jewry over the actual operations of the WZO and JA. See pp. 43ff and 61ff.

Elisha Efrat, "Geography" in Jerusalem, (compiled of materials originally published in the Encyclopedia Judaica), Jerusalem: Keter, 1973, pp. 216-220.

Eventov, Yakir; and Rotem, Cvi, "Zionism in Many Lands: The United States", in Zionism, (compiled of materials originally published in the Encyclopedia Judaica), Jerusalem: Keter, 1973, pp. 209-222.

Foundation for Peace in the Middle East, Report on Settlement Activity in the Occupied Territories (bi-monthly), January 1991 (forthcoming).

Gross, Nachum; Halevy, Nadav; Kleiman, Efraim; Sarnat, Marshal, Banqai le-umah be-hithadshutah: Toldot Bank Leumi le-Israel, Ramat Gan: Massada, 1977. This volume discusses the operations of Bank Leumi, and its predecessor, the Anglo-Palestine Co., Ltd. from the time of its establishment as the bank of the Zionist Organization until the present era. It also discusses the operations of the other national financial insitutions and the cooperation between their interlocking directorates.

Halevi, Nadav; Klinov-Malul, Ruth, Hitpathut ha-Kalkalit shel Israel (The Economic Development of Israel), Jerusalem: Akademon, 1968; English language version published by the Bank of Israel and Frederick A. Praeger, 1968.

Hoffman, Charles, The Smoke Screen: Israel, Philanthropy and American Jews, Eshel Books, 1989. Charles Hoffman is an American-born Israeli journalist who has done extensive research on the WZO/JA and Diaspora-Israeli relations. This book is a serious treatment of the relations between the UJA, American Jewish community federations, the WZO/JA and the Israeli political system. Hoffman takes a "reformist" position, calling for radical transformations of the UJA and WZO/JA and the creation of a radically new relationship between US Jewry and Israel based upon non-philanthropic mutual support.

Hoffman, Charles, "Where Have All Our Dollars Gone?", Baltimore Jewish Times and Detroit Jewish News, May and June, 1985

Horowitz, Dan, and Lissak, Moshe, Origins of the Israeli Polity: Palestine under the Mandate, tr. by Charles Hoffman, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Also published in Hebrew as mi-Yishuv la-Medinah: Yehudei Erez-Israel ba-Tqufat ha-Mandat ha-Briti ke-Qehilah Politit, Tel-Aviv: Am Oved, 5738/1977.

Jaffe, Eliezer David, "The Crisis in Jewish Philanthropy", Tikkun, 2:4 (September/October 1987), pp. 27-31, 90-91. This article prompted responses from Jerrold C. Hoffberger (former chairperson of the JA Board of Governors) and Gottlieb Hammer (former vice-chair of the JA and UIA in New York and former chair of the executive committee of the WZO/JA's bank, Bank Leumi) -- and, of course, a final response by Jaffe. The responses by Hoffberger and Hammer are classic examples of obfuscation, misrepresentation and sidestepping of the central issues. See "Current Debate/Has Jewish Philanthropy Gone Astray?", Tikkun, 3:2 (March/April 1988), pp. 76-82. Jaffe is an American born Professor of Social Work at the Hebrew University. He advocates transferring JA functions to the Israeli government. He also contends that American Jewry should devote more energy tending to its own educational, cultural and communal institutions and less energy worrying about social services in Israel.

Krezmer, David, The Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel, Tel-Aviv, 1988

Lustick, Ian, Arabs in the Jewish State: Israel's Control of a National Minority, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1980

"ha-Mimshal ha-ameriqai: trumot le-shtahim yuqru le-zorkhei mas" "The American Government: Donations to the Territories are Recognized for Tax Purposes", Kol ha-Ir (Jerusalem local), November 9, 1990. A news article update on the suit in the New York courts brought by a group affiliated with the right-wing Tehiyah party against the Jewish National Fund of America (JNF). The right-wing group wants the JNF to publicly proclaim that it uses money in the occupied territories. (The JNF in Israel, known as the Keren Kayemet Le-Yisrael, or KKL, is an agency of the WZO and does support settlements in the territories.) The JNF claimed that it had to maintain the fiction that JNF funds from the US do not go to the territories so that contributions would be tax deductible. The State Department and the Treasury have issued legal opinions refuting this. Meanwhile, the court has ruled that the JNF may continue this fiction but it cannot use the map of Greater Israel (which includes all of the settlements established with the aid of the KKL) in its advertisements. The court case has revealed many interesting aspects about the legal fiction maintained by both the JNF and the UJA as well as their reasons for maintaining the fiction that they do not directly support projects in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, the case has now been appealed to the federal courts.

Pick, Walter Pinhas; and the Editorial Staff of the Encyclopedia Judaica, "The Six-Day War and After Runification", in Jerusalem, Jerusalem: Keter, 1973, pp. 193-214.

Rabinovich, Abraham, "Inside the New Green Line", Jerusalem Post, September 28, 1990.

Sager, Samuel, The Parliamentary System of Israel, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1985

Shragay, Nadav, report on settlement in the territories in Ha'arez, June 22, 1990, p. B2.

Shragay, Nadav, "ba-Derekh le-rov be-mizrah Jerusalem" ("On the road to a [Jewish] majority in East Jerusalem") in Ha'arez, October 16, 1990.

Shapira, Yonathan, ha-Demoqratiyah be-Israel (Democracy in Israel), Ramat Gan: Massadah, 1977. The theme of Shapira's work is that the leader) of Israel's dominant party(s) exert pervasive political control over all public and national institutions. Since these political leaders are not accountable to the public, democracy in Israel has to do more with form than with substance. Shapira is a distinguished professor of sociology at Tel-Aviv University.




FOOTNOTES

(1)Officially, the UIA deals with Israel and the JDC deals with Jewish communities elsewhere. Actually, about one-third of the JDC's budget now goes to institutions in Israel. JDC projects in Israel include social welfare programs and support of ultra-Orthodox yeshivoth, including those in the occupied territories. See Hoffman, Smoke Screen, pp. 234, 237, 268, 313, 323n.11.

(2) In recent years, the UJA has received about 50% of the total amount collected by federation campaigns. With Operation Exodus, this share is expected to increase.

(3) The politician who presently wields the most influence over WZO/JA policies and expenditures is probably Ariel Sharon because of his positions as chair of the Likud Central Committee and as Minister of Housing and Construction and head of the Ministerial Committee on Absorbtion and Immigration (the "Aliyah Cabinet").

(4) Sager, pp. 206-207; Hoffman, Smoke Screen, pp. 40ff., 203ff.; Hoffman, "Dollars?", p. 4.

(5) On the "Party Key System", see Lissak and Horowitz, chs. 1,2,6. Also see Sager, pp. 206-7; Shapira, p. 137; Jaffe, pp. 27-29; Hoffman, Smoke Screen, p. 203; Hoffman, "Where do our dollars go?", pp. 4,13. On the general pervasive influence of Israeli parties over most public and national bodies, see Akzin, esp. p. 51.

(6) See, for example, Brecher, pp. 141-144.

(7) The legal basis for the JA's quasi-governmental status was set in the 1952 "Law of Status" and in subsequent published and secret treaties between the WZO, JA, and Israeli government. See Chinitz, pp. 13, 15-16, 35, 98-99; Krezmer, pp. 68-74; Hoffman, Smoke Screen, pp. 291-295.

(8) Halevi and Klinov-Malul, Hitpathut, pp. 32-33. Blum, Hoffman, Jaffe, Krezmer and Lustick all document some of the problems created by having hundreds of millions of dollars controlled by the Israeli parties but outside of the normal government institutions -- and consequently lacking any real accountability.

(9) Blum, p. 4.

(10) Hoffman, Smoke Screen, briefly discusses the issue of why the UJA officially maintains this "legal ficition" that its funds do not fund settlements in the territories. See pp. 75ff. A recent court case in New York by a right-wing group of donors against the the Jewish National Fund has shed additional light upon the reasons for this "legal fiction". See "ha-Mimshal ha-ameriqai: trumot le-shtahim yuqru le-zorkhei mas" ("The American Government: Donations to the Territories are Recognized for Tax Purposes"), Kol ha-Ir (Jerusalem local), November 9, 1990. This "legal fiction" had its origins in 1960 after a US Senate committee on charities doing overseas work criticized practices of the UJA. In response to this criticism, the JA and UJA established the Jewish Agency for Israel, Inc., which formally accounts for the expenditure by the JA of all monies raised in the US. See Eventov and Rotem, p. 218.

(11) Labor generally limited its involvement to one of the clericalist parties. Since 1977 new clericalist parties have been able to emerge and grow -- largely because of these patronage positions and WZO/JA subsidization of settlements in the territories.

(12) Blum, p. 3.

(13) Krezmer, pp. 74-75. Lustick, Blum and Krezmer extensively document how the national institutions (i.e. the WZO, JA, and the Jewish National Fund) have fostered a two-tiered discriminatory social service system in Israel and the social consequences of this discrimination.

(14) Even much of the housing being built within the 1967 borders of Israel for Soviet Jews is being purposely linked to plans to expand settlement in the territories. Because the US conditioned its housing loan guarantees to construction within the 1967 borders, Ariel Sharon has called for building settlements just inside the Green Line from Jerusalem north to the Galilee. This construction will include extending the infrastructure of highways, electric lines, water, etc. to the very edges of the occupied territories thereby decreasing the amount of the budget for settlement in the territories that would otherwise have been necessary for this portion of the new construction.) See Rabinovich, Jerusalem Post, September 28, 1990, p. 11.

(15) The "Aliyah Cabinet" is a select group of ministers with responsibility for all matters regarding immigration and absorbtion.

(16) Sharon has often repeated his intentions. At the last Likud party convention he promised his supporters he would use his position as chair of the Central Committee to push his extreme right-wing agenda. More recently he told an American audience on October 26, 1990 that he is planning a massive construction plan involving Operation Exodus participation and which would include large scale projects in the territories. See Ha'arez, June 22, 1990 and October 16, 1990. Also see Foundation for Middle East Peace Bi-Monthly Report on Settlement Activity in the Occupied Territories, January 1991 (forthcoming).

(17) See reports by Nadav Shragay in Ha'arez, June 22, 1990 and October 16, 1990; Foundation for Middle East Peace bi-monthly Report on Settlement Activity in the Occupied Territories, January 1991 (forthcoming); Abraham Rabinovich in the Jerusalem Post, September 28, 1990, p. 11. Also see the following material which was originally published in the Encyclopedia Judaica: Walter Pinhas Pick and the Editorial Staff of the Encyclopedia Judaica, "The Six-Day War and After Runification", in Jerusalem, Jerusalem: Keter, 1973, pp. 193-214; and also Elisha Efrat, "Geography" in ibid., pp. 216-220.

(18) Upon arrival in Israel, Soviet Jews can get one of two forms of help from the Jewish Agency. They can request absorbtion assistance which includes provision of subsidized housing, or they can request "direct absorbtion". Soviet immigrants requesting direct absorbtion receive a single lump sum from the Jewish Agency which they may use in any way they choose. This mechanism of "direct absorbtion" is used by those wishing to settle in the territories and allows the UJA and JA to maintain the fiction that they do not directly subsidize settlement in the occupied territories. And, as described above, Operation Exodus also supports settlement in the Jewish ring around East Jerusalem.

(19) Charles Hoffman, in Smoke Screen, takes a different "reformist" position. Hoffman argues that the present institutional arrangements are outmoded and unhealthy for both Israel and the American Jewish community. Therefore he argues for a "radical transformation from within" even as he also presents the reasons why Israeli politicians are unlikely to allow this to happen. Members of the EJG Project argue, however, that (1) under the present circumstances, giving to the UJA does not meet the criteria of ethical giving, and (2) contributing to organizations such as those presented in this publication is a better strategy for bringing about the desired transformation.

The following was originally published in the Michigan Daily, Friday, April 7, 1989.

ETHICAL SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL AND THE JNF:
A STATEMENT BY ANN ARBOR NEW JEWISH AGENDA

Ann Arbor New Jewish Agenda believes that, at the present time, supporting the United Jewish Appeal (UJA) or the Jewish National Fund (JNF) is tantamount to placing money directly into the hands of Israeli politicians and underwriting their policies. The UJA and JNF are both controlled by the World Zionist Organization which is controlled by the two major parties of the Israeli parliamentary coalition. UJA and JNF funds are fungible and are co-mingled with government monies.

As progressive Jews, many of us have very warm associations with the Jewish National Fund (JNF). From its establishment in 1901 it has been an important link between world Jewry and the practical projects of the Zionist social movement. Many of us grew up with the blue-and-white collection boxes in our homes -- a symbol of popular participation in the Zionist movement. The JNF fostered the practical program of the socialist Zionists and made it possible for kibbutzim to emerge as a uniquely Jewish contribution to twentieth century socialism. Finally, the JNF is associated in many of our minds with the romantic stories of the early Zionist pioneers.

Like most Jews, few of us paid attention to the details of JNF policies and activities. We were in general sympathy with the goals of the JNF.

We can no longer ignore the particulars. To be honest with ourselves, we must admit that our vision of what Israeli society can and should be is not compatible with the policies and goals of the JNF.

In November 1987 Ann Arbor New Jewish Agenda established the Ethical Jewish Giving Project. We established two main criteria for "ethical giving" to groups in Israel: (1) the distribution of funds should not discriminate between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel, and (2) the money should not support Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The JNF fails on both counts. We believe that it is unethical to support the JNF.

The JNF discriminates against non-Jews. Practices (some of which made sense before the establishment of the state) are unacceptable in a society based upon democracy and equality. The JNF owns 17% of all "public" land in Israel and participates in the administration of over 90% of Israel's "public" lands. Before 1948 the JNF acquired large tracts of land by violating or circumventing Ottoman and British laws. In particular, the JNF frequently broke the law by dispossessing peasant cultivators from their customary lands. Most of the lands acquired by the JNF since 1948 are lands which belonged to the refugees forced to flee in 1948 or lands expropriated by the government from Arab citizens. Once acquired by the JNF, land becomes an inalienable part of the Jewish national heritage -- that is, it may not be sold or leased to non-Jews.

The JNF has the right of first refusal when any public lands not owned by it outright are sold or transferred. The JNF has exclusive responsibility for land development. Non-Jews, regardless of their citizenship status, are not eligible for JNF services. This means they cannot lease or sublease JNF-owned lands and cannot work as hired laborers on these lands. They are not eligible for development funds or services. Land development in the Palestinian sector of the economy must be privately financed whereas Jewish agricultural settlements receive large grants and loans as well as continuous technical assistance. Jews who have never lived in Israel have more of a claim on these "public" lands and development funds than do Palestinian citizens of Israel.

The JNF supports the occupation and helps to finance the illegal settlements in the territories. Since 1978 most JNF activities have been involved in acquiring and developing land for Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. The JNF has collaborated with the Israeli authorities in expropriating Palestinian lands, razing cultivated fields and bulldozing orchards, and denying equal access to water sources.

New Jewish Agenda calls upon all those who, like us, want to politically or financially support Israel to contribute to organizations that promote peace and justice. There are many progressive alternatives. For example, the New Israel Fund supports projects such as the Development Committee of Kfar Salem, Association for Progress and Thriving -- Lagiya, Local Committee for al-Kamane, Association for the Defense of Bedouin Rights in Israel, Center for Jewish-Arab Economic Development, and the Committee of 40 for Recognition of Arab Villages. All of these projects work to undo years of damage caused by discriminatory practices by the state, the JNF and the Jewish Agency (which is funded by the UJA).

As Jews who support Israel and who are committed to a prophetic vision of peace and social and economic justice, we call upon our communities to shift support away from the JNF and the UJA and stop underwriting policies that are destroying the social and moral fabric of Israel. New Jewish Agenda upholds the Jewish tradition that all Jews are responsible one for another. Our histories, traditions, values and sentiments have created a special bond between us and Israel. Israeli and North American Jews share a concern for each other's secure future and ethical character. Contributions to the JNF and the UJA jeopardize both by actively discriminating against Palestinians and by supporting the occupation.

This statement was approved April 5, 1989 by the Middle East Committee of Ann Arbor New Jewish Agenda. The issue of ethical Jewish giving to Israel and the roles of the UJA and JNF are discussed in a booklet published by Ann Arbor New Jewish Agenda in January 1991. The second edition of this booklet, entitled "Ethical Jewish Giving and Israel" is available for $4.00 (including mailing costs) from the Ethical Jewish Giving Project, PO Box 7185, Ann Arbor MI 48107-7185. (Discounts for bulk orders are available. Phone 313-769-5680 or 313-434-7432. Email: aanja@aol.com)

Benjy's Home Page
StarWorks, Inc. Society for Applied Sociology Panel Session on Non-Traditional Sociology
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation Congregation T'chiyah Ann Arbor Reconstructionist Havurah
Praying for Peace -- Commentary & Prayer Tashlikh (poetic reading) Abou Ben Adhem, by Leigh Hunt
Guide to Reconstructionist Curriculum Development Alternative Day School Model
Rice for Passover Campaign Responsum on Qitniyoth Passover Reading