For months, I’ve been following the plans for a possible new progressive alternative to AIPAC being formed within the American Jewish community. I was tremendously excited when George Soros was named as a possible supporter and funder. When he backed out (foolishly in my opinion), I thought the idea was likely dead. But good ideas don’t die easily and others have carried on the discussions:
Merger talks are heating up among three leading dovish Israel advocacy groups in a development that proponents hope will produce a new mega-organization with greater political clout and more money to push for a two-state solution.
Leaders of Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum and Brit Tzedek v’Shalom are weighing the idea and are expected to reach a decision by the fall. The discussions are being held within each of the groups and between leaders of the three organizations, under the auspices of several Washington-based activists who are promoting the idea of a pro-peace Jewish lobby.
…Some liberal observers are hoping that a new joint entity could emerge as a counter to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby that doves have accused of working against efforts to convince the White House to do more to advance Israeli-Palestinian talks. Organizers of the new initiative are publicly dismissing any talk of weakening or competing against Aipac; at the same time, they insist that the goal is to create a new voice for American Jews.
The Forward article notes a bold funding initiative for the new group which is impressive if they can bring it off:
Proponents of the merger aim to raise $10 million — double the combined annual budgets of the three organizations — to help launch the new initiative. Part of the money would come from contributors who already back the three existing groups, but most of the $10 million — if the goal is reached — is expected to come from donors who currently do not give to Jewish organizations or to other pro-Israel groups. Among the potential donors being targeted are Jewish figures in Hollywood, as well as young liberal Jewish philanthropists who currently focus their giving on non-Jewish causes
As a Jewish communal fundraiser, I’d hate to be dubious about such a potentially wonderful venture, but this sounds like the pipe dreams that lots of progressives have about finding funding. The truth is usually that the money comes from those who are committed and I don’t see Hollywood Jews or those who don’t currently give to Jewish causes as strong prospects. There’s a reason why they don’t give to Jewish causes (alienation and remoteness) and they’re not likely to make an exception for this one.
But hey, prove me wrong. It won’t bother me a bit.
One of the sticking points has been the structure of the new entity:
According to sources familiar with the talks, the organizations are being asked to choose between two options: instituting a formal merger that would create a joint pro-peace organization under which the three existing groups would continue to operate, or creating a separate new body that would raise funds independently and provide financial assistance and backing to projects directed by the existing groups.
This is confusing. How do you have a “formal merger” in which the three groups would continue to operate? Unless each of the three groups would focus on a single distinctive area of operation like research, lobbying and outreach, say–but all within one over-arching organization. I’m agnostic on the idea of creating a funding mechanism that would support the three separate groups. It seems a bit cumbersome to have 3 groups fundraising separately and then have a fourth raising money for all of them.
A friend who works for one of the groups gave it a 50/50 chance of ever getting off the ground. I’d say that’s still about right. But we need such a new venture. We need a bolder, stronger, better funded voice to combat the hidebound notions of AIPAC. Israel is in desperate straits and needs to hear a voice of encouragement and friendship, but also one of realism and pragamatism from the American Jewish community. Separately, these groups have had much success. But in a joint venture there is much more that could be achieved.
We aren’t doing enough. The situation is very bad. It calls for more from us. But can we give it? Do we have it in us?
In your previous thread, you present a poll that is supposed to show that the official Jewish establishment (i.e. AIPAC and the mainline American Jewish organizations) are badly out of step with American Jewish public opinion (I have already expressed my reservations about this poll). Yet, in this thread, you lament that the groups that supposedly voice these positions that the majority holds find it difficult to merge and to tap into new sources of money from the very Jews who are supposed to hold these positions. To what do you attribute these difficulties?
You clearly have absolutely no fundraising experience in the Jewish community nor do you understand very well how power is utilized in the American Jewish community. I urge you once again to read Michael Massing’s dissection of the leadership structure of AIPAC to understand the tight circle of 4 wealthy individuals who hold the reins of power in that group. If you don’t read this piece then you will have little credibility in attempting to defend AIPAC here.
In our community, money trumps the grassroots almost every time. AIPAC, even if you include all its volunteer leadership, is a very small, self-selected cross section of American Jewry. But at $60 million in annual budget it far surpasses any other member of the Israel lobby. The combined budget of the 3 peace groups is $5 million.
Wealth is a top down phenomenon in the Jewish community. THere are a few who stand at the top & use their largess to fund conservative groups like AIPAC. The vast majority of the rest of Amer. Jews have nowhere near the wealth of the top echelon. They hold views far more liberal than those top tier, yet do not have the wherewithal to support those views financially.
You don’t appear to realize how long it takes to build a strong non profit organization. AIPAC has existed since the 1950s. The oldest of the 3 peace groups has existed for around 10 years. These are growing pains. Even AIPAC has faced organizational & financial crises before.
I think you missed the point I have been trying to make. You used this poll to claim that the large majority of American Jews do not generally support the Israeli government’s overall security and political platform…..i.e. the onus is on the Arabs to stop the violence (i.e. “occupation” is not an excuse for carrying out rocket attacks on Sederot, suicide bombings, etc), not on Israel, the HAMAS gov’t is illegtimate and should be boycotted, Israel is not obligated to withdraw to the pre-67 lines, Jerusalem should remain united under full Israeli rule and sovereignity, etc. You are deducing from the poll that the majority of American Jews think the US gov’t should use maximum pressure to get Israel to give up these basic positions in order to advance the peace process (e.g recognize the HAMAS govt’, stop targetted killings and other security operations,etc) , and this is something that the Bush Administration is not doing. You say that AIPAC more or less supports the Israeli gov’t position on the issues I outlined above. You say that by doing this, AIPAC is not representing mainstream American Jewish opinion. I maintain that the poll is not accurate and that AIPAC does, more or less, reflect mainline American Jewish opinion.
I then asked, that if indeed, AIPAC was out of step with American Jewish opinion, why hasn’t the groups who oppose them been able to merge and get funding to create an alternative to AIPAC. You stated that the rich Jews (e.g. the “rich Hollywood Jews” who are supporting Obama, for example) who agree with your positions do not contribute money, and neither do the mainstream, which you claim opposes AIPAC’s positions. WHY NOT? If they felt it was important to mobilize the Administration to force Israel to do what you and other want, why are they not doing anything practical? These “rich Hollwood Jews” don’t have much sympathy for the Israeli gov’t position, so why don’t they contribute? The $60 Million a year you mentioned is small change for these people. Yet they don’t give. But, if you could get 1 million Reform and Conservative Jews to contribute $60 a year to the cause, that would also solve the problem. Yet, they don’t give , even though you say they definitely don’t view AIPAC as representing them. WHY NOT? To me this is proof that most American Jews DO view AIPAC as representing them, even if they don’t directly contribute to it. If they felt passionately the way you feel they would contribute. They don’t, so that says a lot, either that the don’t really think they way you claim they do, or even if they do, they don’t think it is important enough to take any positive action.
My view is a little more nuanced & complicated than that. I’m saying that AIPAC’s hardline positions disagree w. the more liberal positions of American Jews on the I-P conflict. But some, perhaps many of these same Jews aren’t aware of AIPAC’s hardline positions. They view AIPAC much the way that some Jews view Chabad, as a frontline in preserving Jewish life & identity. Those same people who contribute to Chabad may not be aware of the hardline right wing views this group has about both religious & political issues. But because they think maintaining Jewish identity is important, they don’t look to hard into other more problemtic aspects of the group’s mission.
My goal is to make American Jews aware of just how out of synch AIPAC is with their views. It isn’t that hard to do as AIPAC sails into ever more extreme political territory advocating military action against Iran and such.
As for the issue of giving, funding for Jewish peace groups is increasing every yr. just as funding for AIPAC increases every yr. The longer history an effective organization has the more donors are drawn to funding it. So the $5 million raised by the 3 groups will keep increasing as they continue to have succeses fighting against AIPAC’s draconian message. I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t do a better job of fundraising & reaching out to those Jews who agree w. their views. This is imperative. But they’re in the midst of doing that & succeeding gradually.
That doesn’t make sense. If I’m in favor of abortion but don’t give to NARAL does that mean I support Right to Life? Of course not. It just means I’m lazy or not motivated enough to give to NARAL. It means that NARAL perhaps isn’t doing a good enough job of motivating people who shoud be supporting it. It has nothing to do with support for the other side of the debate.