16 thoughts on “New Israel Fund Caving to Im Tirzu Pressure? – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. As you point out, NIF has to decide whether its commitment to democracy and social justice will survive or whether it will become the latest victim of Jewish McCarthyism.

  2. Richard, thanks for bringing this story early and in the accurate perspective.

    It’s a very simple game of chicken: play by the bully’s rules – you lose. Break his rules – and you have already scored a victory before the battle technically starts.

    NIF, Meretz, Peace Now, etc., play mostly by the bully’s rules. Hence they have become shadows of their former selves.

    Ilana Hammerman doesn’t. So now, one woman’s eccentric personal adventure is becoming a powerful movement.

    It also seems like Israel’s dissident theater professionals aren’t going to suck up to the bully. And so everyone else – from Ariel, to the cowardly theater managements, to the govt. itself whose “Brand Israel” project is now completely shattered – are already losing.

  3. Im Tirzu has a total staff of 5.

    NIF has a staff of 5 in NYC alone and that’s not even their headquarters.

    A US-headquartered organisation is being ‘bullied’ by a much smaller Israel-headquartered organisation?

    Somebody is spinning to get more donations.

  4. “The New Israel Fund…is discussing the possibility of specifying in its guidelines that grants will be given only to groups that accept the idea of Israel as a Jewish homeland.”

    Can this be possible? Is this what things have come to? That the NIF, under enormous pressure from the Israeli right, determines that it must compromise with its values in order to appease its enemies?

    I’m confused. I thought you very profoundly view Israel is a Jewish homeland. Wouldn’t it make sense for an Israeli organization which endroses Israel as the Jewish state (something that’s in our Declaration of Independence) not to give grants to groups which oppose this idea?

    And since when is the Israeli right “the enemy”? I’d say groups that do not accept Israel as a Jewish homeland are the enemy by definition.

    1. Viewing Israel as a Jewish homeland is one thing (I also view it this way). Demanding that everyone else view it the same way is quite another thing (thought police, anyone?). When I, for example, go to a doctor, I don’t care one wit how he views Israel; I want him to treat me the best way possible, complying with the standards of the medical profession. When an organization (NIF) gives grants to other organizations promoting the well-being of Israeli citizens, it should focus, well, on how much those organizations promote the well-being of Israeli citizens, whether those citizens be Jewish or not. I can accept refusal of funding to organizations who are actively engaged in anti-Israeli campaigns (no, the Goldstone report is not a campaign, and it is not anti-Israeli). What I consider unacceptable is demanding the grantees to declare in advance their allegiance to certain ideological principles, which are not necessarily related to promoting social justice in Israel and the well-being of Israeli citizens.

      1. The fallacy in your analogy is that unlike a doctor, NIF is not treating a single person or a specific group of people, but the shape of the state itself. And in this case, I very much care about their ideology. Besides, what one organization may deem good for your well-being, another will entirely contradict (Im Tirtzu comes to mind); so you should care, too.

        Also, there’s a great difference between demanding acceptance of Israel as a Jewish homeland and treatment of Jewish or non-Jewish Israeli citizens. Much like a state can be Islamic but give full rights to non-Muslim citizens.

        1. NIF is not treating a single person or a specific group of people, but the shape of the state itself. And in this case, I very much care about their ideology.

          I haven’t the remotest idea what this means. The NIF has nothing to do with the “shape of the state” (don’t know what this means either) & its “ideology” has nothing to do w. its mission within Israeli society. In fact, the only ideology it should have is promoting democracy and social justice within Israel. To the extent that it adheres to any specific set of ethnic definitions like the ones proposed is the extent to which it diminishes its effectiveness among its grantee constituency.

          Frankly, neither I nor NIF should care whether you care about its ideology. You’re not being benefited by its grants nor do you contribute to the group.

          Im Tirzu is an entirely diff. type of organization than NIF. You frankly don’t understand what NIF is. It is not a political organization.

          1. In fact, the only ideology it should have is promoting democracy and social justice within Israel.

            You’re not being benefited by its grants

            Isn’t that contradictory? Unless you’re suggesting Israeli social justice and democracy has no effect on me. I am not being directly affected by its grants, but their ideology may result in giving grants to groups that in turn affect Israel’s democracy and social structure and thus affect me personally. So what you’re saying is that neither you nor NIF should care about me or any other Israeli citizen.

          2. their ideology may result in giving grants to groups that in turn affect Israel’s democracy and social structure and thus affect me personally

            I have no idea what you’re talking about. How would you claim that aiding groups supporting abused women, the poor, promoting ethnic & religious tolerance, etc. will “affect you personally” in any way that would be harmful to you or Israel??

            I didn’t say NIF shouldn’t care about you. I said NIF shouldn’t care about you if you’re attempting to define it’s mission or ideological agenda. Essentially, you’ve conceded that you neither benefit from or donate to NIF. You want a say in something where you don’t deserve to have one.

          3. Essentially, you’ve conceded that you neither benefit from or donate to NIF. You want a say in something where you don’t deserve to have one.

            …Seriously!?!?? How many times have Israelis (and some others) told you you don’t have a say in Israeli policies because you aren’t directly affected by them. And each and every time you told them off. And you were right. God forbid we can only criticize the actions of groups we we are directly associated with.

            If I think NIF supports groups that I find harmful (e.g groups that don’t recognize Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people), I can and should voice my opinion about it. I am not trying to define their agenda, I am expressing my opinion about their policies.

          4. You have no right to determine the agenda of NIF. I have every right to have a voice in Israel’s affairs. They are 2 entirely diff. situations. One involving an NGO, another involving a major philsosophical Zionist tenet that all of world Jewry is invested in Israel. No connection whatsoever.

            Express yr opinions all you want. But they’re hardly relevant. Give some money, then yr opinion is relevant.

    2. Did you not read my post, or did you miss the passage in which I very specifically noted my strong criticism of the fact that NIF was not discussing a provision which would allow groups to view Israel as a homeland for its Palestinian citizens. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander. If it isn’t, then why bother?

      I’d say groups that do not accept Israel as a Jewish homeland are the enemy by definition.

      Would you equally say Jewish groups which reject Israel as a homeland for its Palestinian citizens are the “enemy by definition?” If not, then you’re a hypocrite or simply don’t understand the logical progression of yr own beliefs.

      1. Would you equally say Jewish groups which reject Israel as a homeland for its Palestinian citizens are the “enemy by definition?”

        Yes, I would say the same.

  5. Regarding the seamantics of ‘recognition’. I think that a more agreeable formula, one which is based on the present and future, rather than the creation of Israel, would be: “We recognise the right of Jews to be born into and live in the land Israel”. It’s simple, no historic baggage, and Hamas have pretty much said the same thing but never clearly.

    Not that peace making should depend on such statements, Israel uses ‘recognition’ if anything to delay peace making.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *