When I first read of the coup taking place in the midst of the World Zionist Congress just weeks ago, and being an observer of its World Zionist Organization up close and personal for decades, I sighed, realized that this was just "business as usual" for the professional Zionists who make up both the WZC and WZO "leadership." And, then, I wrote about this latest fiasco that leaves many of us with a really bad taste in our mouths.
Yes, we here in the States are in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic which, after some early success, has laid our extended family in Israel lower than low. None of this, however, distracted these professional Zionists, who have slurped at the public trough from, seemingly, time immemorial, from pursuing their latest political putsch with an avarice heretofore unknown. After all, this WZC/WZO thing is all about jobs and money...and no accountability -- other than to each other and the Israeli political parties.
First, some history.
Back a quarter-century, American Jewish leaders had determined that the accusations of "politicization" at the Jewish Agency needed to be confronted. The great JAFI Board Chair (and past Chair of the Council of Jewish Federations), Corky Goodman, called a meeting in New York among those American leaders and the leaders of the World Zionist Organization, led at the time by our great friend and leader, Sallai Meridor, JAFI's Chair of the Executive, later to serve as the Israeli Ambassador to the United States. All of those holding Zionist portfolios within JAFI were there -- many still are. The meeting was without rancor but the discussions grew passionate at times. The Americans demanded reform, proposing/demanding that the WZO give up its ownership within the Jewish Agency for significant transition funding.
We met together and then in separate rooms -- we were making what appeared to be significant progress. Sallai asked if he, alone, could meet with us. He was our friend and partner in the truest senses. He made a plea: the World Zionist Congress would meet in a matter of months. If this deal went through, Sallai believed (and convinced us) that he would be ousted and the deal would never be implemented. He pled with us to retain the status quo through the WZC and, thereafter, we would dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" of the deal. It never happened.
A few years later, a few of us, led by Richie Pearlstone, then the Jewish Agency Board Chair, and mapped out a plan that would assure the Agency's independence from the WZO while recognizing the need to incorporate the roles of, e.g., the religious streams within JAFI -- roles then and now offered these Rabbis through the WZO. We worked our constituencies and had the support of JFNA's lay and professional leaders. And, then, it all fell apart. Richie called a meeting with JAFI's rabbionic leadership. Our presentation had hardly begun when these Rabbis and lay leaders, almost to a person, objected -- who will guarantee our jobs, positions as did the WZO? As we attempted to respond, from the corner of my eye I saw the JFNA leaders leave the room. We were on our own and we went nowhere...again.
Many continued to push for separation. Shortly after the last failure. Richie reached out to two JAFI leaders and a Large City Executive to negotiate a separation from the WZO. Shortly thereafter, the JAFI Executive was presented with an agreement that effectively and innocently did nothing more than recite a separation that required millions in short term payments to the WZO which retained its ownership of Keren Ha'Yesod and its 50% ownership of JAFI itself. We were told that this was the deal, "not a comma could be changed;" there could be no discussion.
Effectively, this horrible "deal" set up the WZO as a competitor with the Jewish Agency while continuing to own most of JAFI itself. One can only assume that "conflict of interest" doesn't translate into Hebrew.
And, here we are. After internal negotiations among the Zionist "lifers" within the World Zionist Congress, jobs were distributed and redistributed (as at JFNA most of the names and faces stay the same, only their titles differ). The handing out of these jobs and positions became so fierce that litigation is now on-going. For a blow-by-blow read Haaretz Judy Maltz's excellent detailed reporting in Battle over control of key Zionist fundraising organization pits Jewish donors against Netanyahu. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-battle-over-control-of-zionist-fundraising-group-pits-jewish-donors-against-israel-1.9285069 (Hysterical, at least to me, is that the article states that KH "...raises an average of $200 million a year for causes in Israel." I can assure all of you that that "average" may be over a decade, if that.and almost none of the amount "raised" is available for JAFI's core.) Yet, the litigation was filed by three great leaders and philanthropists, Steven Lowy, David Koschitzky and Mark Leibler -- I wish them well.
And, so it goes. I have been told by so many that the incoming Chair of the WZO, Yaakov Hagoel, is a terrific guy, a wonderful leader. He will be tested in his new leadership position while being under constant scrutiny from his predecessor and others in this terrible internal competition for status and jobs. The Lawsuit above is but one example.
Friends, as a system (if in North America we are still a "system"), as we've pointed out on these pages, we now allocate about $70 million to the core budget of the Jewish Agency. Our influence over JAFI is far greater than our allocations would suggest. That influence ought to be used now; for this is not a time for business as usual.
Rwexler
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-defund-the-wzo-defund-the-jnf-defund-uia-defund-jafi-1.9291657
ReplyDeleteThe JNF referred to is KKL-Israel, totally different than JNF- USA
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the article in Haaretz calls for the he defunding of the Jewish Agency as well as the WZO. The Jewish Agency continues to suffer from the fact that the WZO was only partially separated from it. As you correctly point out in your post, the WZO was allowed to keep its governance role which was probably a fatal mistake. They indeed continue to compete with the Agency and to sabotage it by doing so, as well as by simply being a part of it. Excuse the analogy, but it is like a surgeon only partially removing a cancer and leaving the rest to continue doing its damage from within.
ReplyDeleteThe Jewish Agency should have then and still should now reconstitute itself and set itself free from the political machinations of the WZO which only weigh it down and are totally irrelevant to its still impoortant mission.
After 72 years there remains an unfinished agenda to sustain the Jewish state. The question is what are the specifics of that agenda and how best can we, as Diaspora activists and philanthropists,contribute to the agendas success. It therefore behooves us to develop the rudiments (and more) of a targeted agenda before we defend or dismantle structures. In my mind two issues lend themselves to diaspora focus and involvement: the growing divide between the "tribes" of Israel and the embarrassing near world leading gap between Israel's haves and have nots.What before how.
ReplyDeleteFor a pittance of $70 million the Americans think they own JAFI.
ReplyDeleteThe WZO should take back ownership and together with Keren Hayesod run JAFI and exclude the Americans from the decision making of the national institutions with out them allocating JAFIs fair share.
Richard, you've taken on yourself the blame for many failures in modern Jewish life i which you played a part. You have been kind in not telling us which so-called lay and professional leaders, in the guise of "protecting JAFI" really empowered the WZO, actually paying that pit of corruption to become a competitor of JAFI. We deserve to know.
ReplyDeleteThe UIA at the time had an alternative plan that would have prevented the current situation.
ReplyDeleteThe self appointed committee led by Jane Sherman declared that there could be no discussions or negotiations whatsoever.
It was not just about not listening to the very people who represented the Federations, it was about an autocratic leadership style at its worst.
The proof is in the ensuing disaster.