Tuesday, March 9, 2010
[Crossposted from JStreetJive.]
According to the latest communication from Boston's Combined Jewish Philanthropies, in response to our discovery that that organization had funded such overly anti-Israel groups as the Unitarian Universalist Association and the American Friends Service Committee, a representative maintained that their vetting process was "sound." Considering an organization's mission statement as definitive in regards to its policy and activities vis a vis Israel is naive at best.
We beg to differ. There is nothing "sound" about funding groups that:
- Actively support Hamas support groups like The International Solidarity Movement (UUA).
- Actively support BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanction) campaigns (AFSC).
- Actively support Israel Apartheid Week (UUA).
- Refuse to allow pro-Israel groups and speakers a place at their events (UUA and the AFSC).
We do not believe that our CJP intentionally supports these anti Israel groups. The temptation of accepting funds earmarked for groups that routinely denigrate and de-legitimize Israel must be resisted. Donor Advised Funds (DAF's) must conform to the overall mission statement of the CJP itself: "Our Israel agenda will focus on advocacy, connection and impact."
Chaos engulfed the San Francisco Jewish Community Federation earlier this year when it supported the screening of the the intensely propagandistic anti-Israel film, "Rachel", by the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, which selectively recounted the life and tragic death of Rachel Corrie, an ISM member accidentally killed in Gaza while shielding weapons smuggling tunnels. Daniel Sokatch, CEO of the SFJCF and supporter of the film's screening, has since moved on to become CEO of The New Israel Fund and was a keynote speaker at last October's J Street Washington conference.
Daniel Sokatch of the New Israel Fund
Hoping to avoid such divisive controversies in the future, the SFJCF has since adopted governing support and funding of organizations that conflict with the organization's mission statement on Israel.
We believe that the Boston CJP must adopt and enforce similar safeguards against the support and funding of overtly anti-Israel groups, including donations via Donor Advised Funds.
These must include donations and support for organizations that:
- now, or in the past, have - through publications, speeches, films and other presentations - directly or indirectly supported the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state.
- have hosted predominantly anti-Israel speakers and failed to host a balanced number of pro-Israel speakers.
- have advocated the "one state solution" (which implicitly advocates the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state).
- have advocated and/or supported Boycott, Divestment or Sanctions (BDS) initiatives or petitions against Israel.
- presented or supported anti-Semitic speakers or events.
- have funded - directly or indirectly - individuals and/or organizations that support U.S. State Department designated terror groups such as Hamas.
- have depicted Israel as "an Apartheid state" and/or participated in "Israel Apartheid Week."
Considering the groups that CJP has funded recently who are clearly anti-Israel (as a Jewish and democratic state), adoption and enforcement of such guidelines are essential to maintaining CJP's mission of defending and supporting Israel at a time of unprecedented existential threats.
(Previous: Guess Who's Dining at CJP's Trough?)
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What We Should Expect From CJP [Hillel].
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/17611
When we did our original analysis of The Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Boston cash grants to organizations that demonstrated extreme animus towards Israel (Guess Who's Dining at CJP's Trough?, What We Should Expect From CJP) -- and in some... Read More
You've been reading it here and at JStreetJive. Now readers of Boston's print paper, The Jewish Advocate, are getting an eye-full of the news of CJP's funding of controversial groups (Once again, those previous posts are: Guess Who's Dining at... Read More
As if the Boston CJP/JCRC follies over their on again-off again support for Israel weren't bizarre enough (see here, here and here), we now have a story of unrequited love. In its inexcusable funding practices (via a CJP Donor... Read More
To whom was the CJP representative addressing him/herself? Should their response be understood as a blow-off, meaning they must be belabored if there is to be a change in the way they handle donor advised funds? Or now that a spotlight has been turned on this issue, can they be expected to take corrective action without further prodding, because they recognize it is the right thing to do?
How much money have they been directing to these anti-Israel groups? Does anyone know how much DAF money CJP has in all, and how much it generates in income for CJP?
Thank you for calling attention to this.
Admitting that one made a mistake takes some guts. Trying to justify such a mistake after the fact by asserting that one's actions or policies were "sound" is nothing but a knee-jerk reaction of a weak coward.
Weak people cannot admit having done something wrong, because they think this would make them look worse. This is also related to machismo, designed to conceal internal weaknesses - unless we're talking about a total moron of a redneck.
What such people fail to realize is that their clinging to such mistakes indeed makes them far look worse, whereas admitting an error - if this indeed was an error rather than a concealed intention - would restore their good name, as we all make mistakes as part of being human.
Now I wonder whether the choice of these despicable grant recipients was an intentional one, or a mistake ...
Unfortunately (or not, depending on which side of this issue you stand), and in spite of the legal disclaimer language that Hillel has pointed out and which all Donor Advised Funds are REQUIRED to post, it's almost unheard of for a DAF to refuse, return or redirect a gift that's within the limits of the law. And while it makes my skin crawl that CJP is allowing itself to be used to funnel money to these organizations, I see that every single one of those grants (except Workmen's Circle) was, in fact, via a DAF.
So the problem is, once you start drawing lines, where do you draw them? Where do you stop? Americans for Peace Now, OxfamAmerica and Seeds of Peace are on that list as well. I find those organizations offensive but not quite to the same degree as Haymarket and the Tides Foundation. Donors on the left would undoubtedly take issue with the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the ZOA. It's a slippery slope.
This is one of the problems with an organization like CJP offering DAFs. I've worked with Jewish Federations (including CJP many years ago) and I find it somewhat inconsistent with their mission as most general supporters tend to understand it. So, personally, I'd prefer they didn't but a) they didn't ask me and b) money is tight these days and most DAFs take a percentage off the top for themselves (and to cover their processing fees). I don't know if CJP does this or not.
Well, about half the Jewish Advocate this week is about the stuff Hillel's been writing about (1 editorial, 1 op-ed, 1 straight news item), so he's certainly having an impact...and that's before this latest Haymarket stuff.