Recent Article on Nonprofits’ Gaza Statements Draws Ire

To the Editor:

A recent Chronicle of Philanthropy article about organizations losing funding for pro-Palestinian positions, unfairly presents funders’ reasonable objections to antisemitic speech as nothing more than opposition to criticism of Israel (“Nonprofits Are Taking a Stance on Gaza — and Paying the Price,” June 18).

Most grant makers and donors aren’t punishing nonprofits for statements critical of Israeli policies, as the article implies. Anyone interested in hearing criticism of Israel government policies and its leaders should stop by a major mainstream Jewish conference these days. Instead, donors are reacting to genocidal and eliminationist language used by grantees, such as “from the river to the sea,” which implies the disappearance of the state of Israel and the likely extermination of its population.

It may be true that some donors have cut funding to organizations calling for a cease-fire. But most members of the Jewish Funders Network, which I lead, primarily object to calls for a unilateral Israeli cease-fire. In other words, blaming only Israel for the conflict, not demanding the immediate release of hostages, and allowing Hamas to stay in power. The article failed to capture that nuance.

Moreover, calling Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide, as one nonprofit leader quoted in the piece does, violates the basic standards of accuracy that nonprofits should apply to their work. Jewish donors and funders can — and do — argue about whether Israel’s actions are excessive or even criminal, but the term “genocide” has a clear academic and legal definition. The International Court of Justice has not determined yet whether the criteria for genocide has been met in the Gaza war.

One thing is clear: Jews are the only minority that isn’t allowed to define what constitutes bigotry against them. When Jews say that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, it’s not only contested but attacked as a “weaponization of antisemitism.”

Funders are duty-bound to stand by their values. Antisemitism is on the rise, with 73 percent of Jewish students saying they’ve faced or witnessed antisemitism while a third hide signs of their Jewish identity. Without intervention from grant makers such as the Russell Berrie Foundation and philanthropists like Robert Kraft and Marc Rowan, campus antisemitism would continue, unchecked. It’s unacceptable for nonprofits to pretend that demonization of Israel plays no role in antisemitism. Funders are right to call that out.

The lack of viewpoint diversity among grantees on the Israel-Hamas war also highlights a larger problem. The situation is complicated and requires a nuanced discussion. But when nonprofit staff all feel compelled to express similar views about a complex issue, diverse perspectives aren’t heard, and potential solutions are pushed aside. Nonprofit management should be encouraging ideological diversity — not squelching it.

Watching out for mission creep among grantees is sound philanthropic practice. Yet when organizations whose mandates have nothing to do with Israel devote time, energy, and resources to the issue, they expect funders to essentially shut up and write a check.

Conversations about the nature of donor power and influence are valid. In this case, however, philanthropies and individual donors who stand up against antisemitism are using their power wisely and ethically. I salute them for being a rampart against further attacks on Jews.

Andres Spokoiny
CEO
Jewish Funders Network

###

To the Editor:

Some Jewish grant makers undoubtedly view any criticism of Israel as antisemitic. But from my experience working in Jewish philanthropy and talking to other Jewish grant makers about the Israel-Hamas war, that is a minority position. Sara Herschander’s recent article missed that crucial point.

Most Jewish funders who support Israeli organizations understand and acknowledge the country’s flaws and complexities, including its discrimination against Arab Israeli citizens and Palestinians who live in the West Bank. They accept that such criticism of the Israeli government and its policies — like criticism of any government and its leaders, including the United States — is fair game.

Here’s what does concern many Jewish funders: Statements issued by nonprofit leaders and board members about the war that effectively absolve Hamas of responsibility for its actions on October 7; do not acknowledge the widespread and well-documented occurrence of gender-based violence, including rape, committed against Israeli women during the attack; and calls on Israel to initiate a cease-fire without simultaneously calling on Hamas to release the hostages.

Some organizations also issued statements or social media posts that not only criticized Israeli policy, but also denied the very legitimacy of the state of Israel and the right of Jews to self-determination. Most Jews view such positions as antisemitic given that Israel is home to most of the world’s Jewish population, and a safe haven for Jews who have been forced out of almost every country they have ever lived in over the millennium.

Had a nonprofit organization released a statement or taken actions that were generally viewed as homophobic, racist, or sexist, no one would be surprised if grant makers decided that the organization no longer aligned with its values. It’s naive to think that Jewish funders wouldn’t similarly decide that they cannot support organizations they believe are expressing antisemitic views.

Rabbi Ellen Flax
Former Independent Philanthropy Consultant

New York, New York