Member Articles

*********************************************************************************************
The following articles, written by AJCOP members, reflect the view of the author or authors. AJCOP does not endorse any points made in any articles nor does AJCOP take any position. This area is provided as a forum for membership only. Discussion of articles takes place in the Discussion Area for AJCOP members.
*********************************************************************************************

AJCOP sent four of its members to Israel during the summer of 2007 as Rodkin Fellows to attend the World Council of Jewish Communal Service 11^th Quadrennial and to make in depth site visits with JAFI, JDC and a myriad of Israeli social service agencies. The group met at the airport in New York on June 18th and returned home much enriched July 4th. To chronicle their learning journey, they decided to each take responsibility for certain days of the itinerary. And so, we bring you the 2007 AJCOP Rodkin Israel Experience......

Day 1 - Tuesday, June 20, 2007
Reported by Maureen Wise, Director, The Ewa & Dan Abraham Project ~
Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County

Still jet-lagged, we rose bright and early for a breakfast briefing with Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI) administrators Jeff Kaye, Director General of the Resource Development and Public Affairs Department, and Stuart Schrader, Director of Donor Relations, Unit for Resource Development and Public Affairs.

Jeff Kaye presented a three-pronged overview of the Jewish Agency, offering an historical perspective; a look at JAFI’s current structure and parameters; and an analysis of emergency campaign activities in the context of the war. He described the changing role of the Jewish Agency, which has been restructured many times to meet the needs of Israel and the worldwide Jewish community. What has not changed in Israel’s 60-year history is the importance of aliyah (immigration), klitah (absorption) and strengthening Jewish identity. Kaye delineated the transition of Israel from a socialist community to a capitalist society. Unfortunately, this economic growth has led to a dearth of quality leadership in Israel. With the most talented people moving into high tech industry, fewer people are entering public service. On the positive side, we are seeing the emergence of a class of wealthy Israelis, who are now beginning to contribute funding as well as ideas.

Judy Segal, Director of Development at The Israel Goldstein Youth Village of Hanoar Hatsioni, guided us on our visit to the boarding school. As we toured the facility’s beautiful grounds, she related the school’s remarkable 58-year history. After winning a major battle in the war for independence, General Zeev Schikler promised himself that he would establish a center for children who had survived the Holocaust. In the winter of 1949, he founded a boarding school on what had been Monastery Hill in the San Simon area of Jerusalem. Its first students were 40 orphans who were brought by boat from Europe.

Today, the Goldstein Youth Village is home to 450 residential students, with 200 more bused in each day for classes and activities. The students, who are aged 12 – 18, are in grades 7 – 12. They can remain in the program until they graduate, when they must enter the military.

The school’s demographic history echoes the state’s immigration history. The 50’s and 60’s brought an influx of émigrés from Arab countries. Soon, the school became a melting pot for Jewish kids from all over the world. As immigration slowed in 1970, the administration realized that they had to take in Israeli-born children from development towns and other culturally deprived environments.

Although the school began as an agricultural village, in the 1970s it became a vocational training school. To help eradicate the cycle of poverty, it became imperative to teach the students trades so they could find employment. Students studied applied arts, home economics, cabinet making, hotel management, fashion design and many other fields of interest.

In 1990, the Village took in the first group of Russian children from an area near Chernobyl. Two years later, 50 students – some as young as eight-years-old - were airlifted from Sarajevo. The first wave of Ethiopian students entered the program in 1994.

In 1993, the first Na’Aleh group of 80 students from the FSU were brought to live at the Village. This program continues, with 80 new students coming in each year. The teens come to Israel without their parents, and most choose to remain in Israel. About thirty percent of their parents eventually make aliyah as well.

The addition of Russian students, who are academically oriented, necessitated a major change in curriculum. The school no longer offers vocational training. Today, high level academic courses are the norm and the school’s music program is universally acclaimed. We were especially delighted to have the opportunity to meet and speak with several bright young Na’Aleh students, who came to Israel from Moscow, Ukraine and Kazakstan. They described their families, their interests and their reasons for coming to Israel.

Mevaseret Zion, which houses 1200 immigrants, is the largest of Israel’s 34 absorption centers. This and ten others have been adapted to meet the special needs of Ethiopian émigrés, according to Devora Gini-Malki, JAFI Absorption Division Director, who escorted us.

While most immigrants attend Ulpan language classes for 5-6 months, the program for Ethiopians runs 10 months. Among the Ethiopian population, 96% of the adults are illiterate in Amharic, their own language. Many come from remote provinces and have never used running water, electricity or gas. Because they experience culture shock, special counselors and social workers explain everything and offer assistance, support and inspiration.

The majority of Ethiopian Jews were airlifted to Israel through Operation Moses (1985) and Operation Solomon (1991). Israel is now home to 110,000 Ethiopian Jews, with 350 arriving each month. About 30,000 were born in Israel, and 3,500 are college educated.

It is estimated that 99.9 % of Ethiopia’s halachic Jews have already come to Israel under the Law of Return. The last remnant of Ethiopia’s Jewish population – close to 20,000 people – will be brought to Israel in the next three years.

At the absorption centers, each family receives a furnished apartment with a stocked refrigerator and pantry. Joint bank accounts are set up for the men and women. Classes are taught on computers, so adults and children can learn necessary skills. Children attend school and participate in after-school enrichment activities and summer camps. Most families live in the centers for 1 – 1 ½ years. After that, they obtain mortgages and buy apartments in development areas.

We were introduced to Kasi and Erez, two Ethiopian olim who were brought to Israel with their families as young children. Both became educated, served in the IDF and are now pursuing advanced degrees at Hebrew University.

Brenda Ganot, who is Project Manager for JAFI’s Economic Development Committee Partnership 2000 region in Beit Shemesh and Yehuda Plains, escorted us through one of the fastest growing suburbs of Jerusalem. She explained that the committee brings together local activists, professionals and volunteers to create and implement new business initiatives. It encourages networking and collaborative efforts among local artists and entrepreneurs.

The development committee selected several new initiatives to be funded for three years. Many focus on the area’s emerging identity as the “Cycling Capital of Israel” and its newfound prominence on the “Israeli Wine Route” (the area boasts some 30 vineyards). The cooperative projects include a “Tour de Beit Shemesh” bike race; a three-day Jewish Rock and Roll Festival; a Wine Festival; a Bible Festival and Quiz; an Artists’ Forum; and a Food Festival, featuring ethnic cooking demonstrations, wine tastings and art workshops.

A good deal of effort has been expended on the area’s Women’s Empowerment initiative. The government has provided classes and training in marketing, merchandising, budgeting, bookkeeping and other business skills for 12 local women. One of the participants is Tziona Levy, who cooks and caters delectable Kurdish delicacies in her modernized kitchen and serves lunches and dinners to visitors. Not only did we enjoy a sumptuous five-course meal at her dining room table, but we also explored the amazing “found-art” iron sculpture garden and museum created by her husband, Nissim Levy.

We capped off our visit to Beit Shemesh at the Ella Valley Vineyards, where we purchased wine for our Shabbat dinner at the Solomons’ apartment.

Responding to the need for a place where teenage girls and young women living in culturally deprived areas of Jaffa and Tel Aviv can find a safe environment, former criminologist Leora Kessel and social worker Mirit Sidi created the “Women’s Court” four years ago. The term “court” refers to the outer courtyard, which has become an extension of the renovated building that houses the center’s myriad of programs.

About 400 young women between the ages of 13 – 25 come through their doors annually. Everyone is welcome – Sabras, Russian and Ethiopian immigrants, Jews and non-Jews alike. Most come from families where men predominate and women are hidden away. They are largely uneducated, and many are victims of domestic violence.

Leora and Mirit convinced a leading Israeli hair stylist to partner with them. Together, they opened a small hair salon on the premises to attract the at-risk population. Young women can have their hair done and receive beauty supplies free of charge. The salon has accomplished its goals – building self-esteem, creating awareness and attracting girls to the Women’s Court.

They have created a non-threatening, welcoming environment where these women and teens can become comfortable enough to ask for help. They all come from different backgrounds and have different needs. They are encouraged to come in to chat, to have lunch, to use the computer room or to just “hang out.”

Once they are comfortable, the girls are given lists of classes, discussions groups and other available services and activities. They are presented with options to change the course of their lives. Women’s Court staff and volunteers can take the younger girls to social workers, schools and community organizations as needed. They can assist with medication, carfare to doctors and other services. They also offer crisis intervention and can place victims in sheltered environments.

Classes in group dynamics, writing CVs, basic computer and language skills help the young women prepare for employment. Activity groups enable them to participate in cooking, art, dance, theatre and other areas of interest. Next year, the girls will open a cleaning cooperative business.

Lily Engel, a former advertising manager, handles fund raising for the Women’s Court. The program operates with funding from JDC, several foundations, a government grant, and in-kind donations.

Together, Leora, Mirit and Lily are trying to affect social policy by working with government and community representatives. They hope to arrange for more funds to be directed to the plight of girls-at-risk who suffer from violence, poverty and hunger. Mirit’s doctoral thesis will provide data for the government to evaluate the needs of this community and, hopefully, to encourage attitudinal changes.

Participation in AJCOP’s Rodkin Fellowship program afforded me the opportunity to interact with colleagues from all over the world and to learn about the many amazing programs that are being implemented to meet the needs of Jewish people everywhere.

I returned to Florida brimming with ideas for new programs and imbued with a greater appreciation of all that we have collectively accomplished.

As Director of the Ewa & Dan Abraham Project, I am continually searching for dynamic speakers and performers to bring to the Palm Beach area. This journey to Israel brought me face to face with many distinguished scholars. Several of them, including Rabbi Daniel Gordis, will be speaking for the Abraham Project this year.

Our visit to Federation’s Partnership communities also opened the door to greater collaboration between Palm Beach and the Tzahar Region. This new network of personal connections will facilitate future Abraham Project programming – and provide ongoing access to many creative ideas.

Marcia Bronstein, VP of AJCOP, chaired a local Jewish Communal Professional Association (JCPA) program in Philadelphia on 3/30/06 . The featured speaker was Dr. David Teutsch, chair of the department of Contemporary Jewish Civilization at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and the director of the Levin-Lieber Program in Jewish Ethics and the Center for Jewish Ethics. His latest book, A Guide for Jewish Practice: Tzedaka speaks passionately about the shifting attitudes and practices in the Jewish philanthropic sphere. JCPA’s breakfast study session focused on how to motivate and educate volunteers and professional staff on this important topic. (A study guide was developed at the request of JCPA and can be obtained by contacting David directly.)

Our jobs as communal professionals often necessitate helping others to think through values and obligations on a variety of issues affecting the community. How then can we utilize an approach to thinking through tzedaka so that it has a profound impact on one’s personal life?

Ø Teach a Jewish vocabulary that explain Judaism as a lifestyle involving tzedaka

Ø Explain the steps to solicitation through becoming committed, connected and competent

Ø Raise issues such as determining how much to give, recognizing donors, protecting the dignity of recipients

Money plays a fundamental role in all our lives for the obvious reasons. (food, clothing & shelter) It also shapes how we see our selves in the world; allows us to meet the mitzvah of tzedaka and permits us to help people become G-dlike through their giving and their solicitations. Tzedaka allows us to reshape our sole, to open up our inner core and to share our desire to improve society by participating in Tikkum Olom. Its not only about the money, its about the process.

Interestingly enough, tzedaka is not a biblical word. Tzedaka as a word did not exist in the bible; the concept however was very ingrained as a daily action. Tzedaka was institutionalized after the decline of the agricultural era and the move to urban environs. No longer was the gleaming of fields and leaving the corners in tact enough. Nor was the harvesting of fruit trees just once to leave sustenance for the hungry. In urban environs, tzedak was just as necessary, but the way in which it was given was different. The Rabbis invented the word tzedaka to help the community move from an agricultural society to an industrialized society while still meeting the needs of those requiring help. A priority giving list was developed: Food, clothing and temporary housing. Poverty is not new. It was endemic, it still is and as Rambam noted, “The poor are always with us”.

What is different today, is the need for affiliation. In ancient times, affiliation was a necessary part of survival. Not giving tzedaka could sanction an individual. Therefore everyone could imagine himself or herself needing community help and support. Today, affiliation is voluntary and there is a real gap between the donor and the recipient of services. The empathetic connection is swept away as the social welfare system becomes more professionalized. It also creates a problem in getting people to understand needs and be responsive to them.

So today, professionals are faced with creating a funding case of needs that forms a sense of attachment and creates empathy. Volunteerism is a critical part of creating understanding and anchors charitable giving. Without the compassion, the whole system breaks down. Done correctly, a solicitation with a donor can be a transformative experience. It is an intimate experience which builds relationships and creates a web of mutuality.

This book can be used as an aid in launching board discussions, doing leadership development, training solicitors and calling attention to Jewish principles and values that underlie Jewish communal decision making. For information about the book, or to set up a speaking engagement contact teutsch@RRC.edu.

A snapshot in time that looks at the programs, challenges and opportunities that exist within Israel regarding Ethiopian Israelis and attempts to provide some recommendations on how to improve the situation for the future.

By Amy Wasser-Simpson,
Vice President for Planning and External Affairs, Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle

Amy Wasser-Simpson used the 2004 AJCOP Bernard Rodkin Israel Experience Award to study the resettlement of Ethiopian Jews in Israel.
Here is her report:

Bari Elias was presented with the 2004 Edell Fellowship Award by Elaine Steinger, Edell Committee Chair. (L-R): Danny Allen, Bari Elias, David Edell, Elaine Steinger and Lou Solomon.

Bari Elias is originally from Lawrence, Kansas, and moved to Minneapolis-St. Paul at age 12. After attending Camp Ramah in Wisconsin and Alexander Muss High School in Israel, Bari earned her BA in Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University. She subsequently made Aliyah to Israel and worked for JAFI while pursuing her MA in Contemporary Jewry at Hebrew University. She returned to Minneapolis-St. Paul in 2002 to become the Young Leadership Director and Director of Israel Programs at the United Jewish Fund and Council of St. Paul. She is married to Eytan and has a son Yoav.

Attending the UJC General Assembly as an Edell Fellow was undoubtedly one of the highlights of my career in Jewish communal work, not only because what I experienced in the sessions and meetings, but also because it solidified my career choice and gave me my first real in-depth opportunity to concentrate fully on my professional development. Although I had attended other UJC sponsored conferences as staff through my position as a Young Leadership Director, this was the first time that I had really been able to concentrate on bettering myself as a professional and absorb the wisdom and thoughts of others.

Among the sessions I found to be most enlightening was the discussion on Gender Equity and Organizational Effectiveness. While unfortunately I did not find it surprising to hear that men tend to dominate the “top” of the Jewish communal pyramid, it was inspiring to hear that this was not the case in Israel, and that in fact, many Israeli nonprofits are headed by women—yet another of the many lessons that Americans can learn from Israelis. Now that we as professionals are becoming more aware of this issue, I look forward to being a part of making improvements in our own “system.”

Another session, on “branding”, which I attended with the intention of hoping to make improvements in my federation’s marketing, was especially important to me, as one of my goals as a professional is to raise awareness among my peers of the important work of federation. This session was one of the most practical of the sessions I attended, and provided me with many ideas of how to enhance our outreach, education, and ultimately, our fundraising techniques. Upon my return from the GA, I immediately put the knowledge I gained from this session into practice through presenting what I had learned to our marketing committee, who enthusiastically accepted many of the suggestions, such as staying with a campaign theme for several years in order to be consistent, rather than changing it every year.

A different session on the subject of the generational gaps that are so profound in the areas of fundraising and recruiting volunteers, I attended because I had recently read the speaker’s book and found it fascinating and extremely relevant to both my professional and private life. Having this background, I went into the session anxious to learn more. Although I did take away several new ideas, I also presented some concepts that have been successful in our community. It was this experience in particular that confirmed the innovation and strength of the St. Paul community, and how we can be a model for others, as our current programming is consistent with best practices throughout the country.

In addition to the interesting sessions and the extraordinary people, what became one of the highlights the conference took place after a session on the last day of the GA. I was speaking to a colleague following one of the final sessions when the waiter who had served dinner approached us and asked: “Could you tell me what Hillel is?” He proceeded to reveal that although he was Jewish, he had grown up almost completely disconnected from the Jewish community. Immediately we encouraged him to take part in Birthright Israel, an idea to which he was quite receptive. This encounter really affected me, as it put a face on the work we do as Jewish communal professionals—reaching and influencing unaffiliated Jews to make sure we don’t lose them. I hope that our conversation with him encouraged him to look into the possibility of going to Israel, or at least try to become affiliated with the Jewish community. Finally, I want to express my deep gratitude to AJCOP and especially to the Edell family for their foresight and generosity in establishing the Edell Fellowship and enabling me to have this incredible experience. I am proud to have the privilege of honoring the memory of Norman Edell, who from my conversations with his colleagues and family, I came to understand was a wonderful man who was truly dedicated to his profession. It was especially meaningful to be the recipient of such accolades in such a public forum, since I have found that recognition for professional accomplishments is the Jewish world not commonplace.

Additionally, just to be a part of a ceremony honoring two giants in the Jewish world, Shoshana Cardin and Ralph Goldman, was both humbling and awe inspiring. They are the embodiment of the famous words of Pirkei Avot, “It is not your responsibility to finish the work [of perfecting the world], but you are not free to desist from it either”, and they certainly have done more than their share of the work. After returning from the GA with these incredible experiences, I aspire to rise to the many challenges before us and am confident that I will be able to do my part to contribute to the betterment of the present and future of the world Jewish community.

It is no more preposterous to think that such a campaign might have made a difference then to have suggested in the mid-1950s that widespread sit-ins in the South would turn around national attitudes on civil rights.

It is easy for American Jews living in the comfort and security of 21^st century America to attack the previous generation for their failure to take bold action. No one should doubt that the leadership in those years was tormented by Hitler’s persecution of the Jews. Even with their anguish, they could not bring themselves to risk initiating activities that might exacerbate anti-Semitism in the United States. Bear in mind, they as well as the government of the United States could not imagine in the late 1930s that the Jews under Hitler were destined for annihilation. The Holocaust was unimaginable.

The stubborn refusal of the agencies to cooperate was the fundamental reason the General Jewish Council failed to achieve joint action of its member agencies. Thus the CJF struggled for years to create a functional central agency for defense. The CJF might have earlier success had they pursued an agency built on both pluralism and Jewish unity. These twin concepts, obverse sides of the same coin, reciprocally reinforce each other. Jewish unity fosters Jewish cohesiveness; pluralism fosters vitality. Professor Horace Kallen described his conception of pluralism as analogous to a symphony orchestra. Each member plays different parts of a single composition under the direction of a single leader.

Kallen’s conception of pluralism became a motif of the field of the Jewish community relations and shaped its goals and vision in the decades following World War II. When NCRAC was created in 1944, it embodied pluralism and unity and it also brought together for the first time national and local agencies within the same body. The marriage of national agencies and CRCs as equal partners -- while without tensions conflict -- has enormously enhanced the efficacy of the field of Jewish community relations since the end of World War II. Within NCRAC they have brilliantly debated difficult and contentious issues from their own particular agency perspectives. With few exceptions they have been over course of a half century reach agreement on a broad range of policies, strategic goals, and priorities before adopting each year the NCRAC Joint Program Plan. Each agency carried out the Joint Program Plan, the “score”, so to speak, in its own way in concert with the other agencies.

Clearly, NCRAC was not a single agency in the sense that Stephen Wise envisioned. The cooperative process that has been the NCRAC experience has demonstrated that national and local agencies without surrendering autonomy have worked together with results of historic dimensions in such areas as church/state, immigration, civil rights, and U.S. policy on Israel and Soviet Jewry.

Joey Selesny, Community Development Associate with the Jewish Federation of Metro Detroit
AJCOP SteveFRD Award Winner for 2003

In November, I had the opportunity to attend the United Jewish Communities General Assembly in Jerusalem as the recipient of the Steve Rose Financial Resource Development Award. I was very privileged to have been selected to receive this award and the opportunity to attend the GA, and I am very proud to be a member of AJCOP, where Jewish Communal Professionals can get support, mentorship and a general atmosphere of camaraderie.

The GA was an incredible experience that all Jewish Communal Professionals should avail themselves of, not only for educational reasons, but for networking opportunities as well. From the day that I arrived at the GA I was truly inspired. Everywhere I looked, there were Jewish men and women, both lay and professional, all there for one common purpose: to meet and discuss the issues facing the Jewish people.

Upon check-in, I received a book, not a simple brochure, but a 250 page book of lecture options and other GA related material from “safety” to “sites to see”. As the recipient of the Steve Rose FRD Award, I focused on the FRD related lectures and planned accordingly. There were options from 7 o’clock in the morning through late at night, with of course, some quality schmooze time built in. One of the things that really fascinated me about the GA was the diversity. Virtually every stream of Judaism was present. There were booths from corporate Israel like ELITE Chocolate, Bank Ha’Poalim and EL AL to every charity and organization known to the Jewish world. In the same area, there were “Peace Now” and YESHA groups; groups focusing on youth at risk and next to them were groups focusing on eldercare services. The diversity was truly amazing, and heartwarming to see such a wide spectrum of Jews in one place.

I loved the “GA Experience”, and I would like to relate some of the information and experiences that I got from the FRD lectures that I attended. The first lecture I attended, “Make Fundraising Meaningful” started my GA lecture experience on the right track. The lecture basically brought us back to the basics of fundraising. Why do we do it? How do we do it? Each member of the panel answered these questions in a different way, and from a different perspective. While one mentioned that Israel was the anchor to Jewish fundraising, another mentioned that it is all about three main emotions: passion, meaning, and inspiration. The third panelist approached the question as a business plan: he called it “Businesslike Philanthropy”. His point was that the donor of today is not the same as the donor of yesterday. Today’s donor is not giving the “Jew Tax”, he is giving Tzedakah and wants accountability for it. The idea of “No taxation without representation” is a strong theme in the world of philanthropy. There are more educated donors now than ever before, and we as the facilitators of Tzedakah have to be prepared when we speak to our donors with information about the donor’s interests and the options for his Tzedakah dollars. It is critical to the future of Jewish philanthropy to make the donor aware of their options as well as for the professional fundraiser to educate them.

I attended many lectures, but one piece of information stood out from the National Jewish Population Study lecture that bothered me the most: the fact that so many Jews are unaffiliated, and many that consider themselves affiliated are only affiliated in a small way. Couple that piece of information with the fact that 1/4 of all philanthropy in the United States comes from Jewish donors, and of those philanthropic dollars, only ten percent goes to Jewish causes. That is extremely disturbing. We are facing two battles ahead of us. First, we are losing Jews, and second is that the Jews we have are not giving to Jewish causes when not long ago, they primarily gave to Jewish causes. What can we do? Who do we rely on? The Jewish Communal Professional? The Lay Leader?

The answer is both. We must both become leaders. We must both be involved in creating the solution. We must identify what needs to be done, and do it. We must influence others to be involved in the community. We must motivate and inspire the next generation. We must be models that our colleagues, our friends and our children will want to emulate. We must lead. If we do not, Jewish involvement in non-Jewish arenas will increase. Jewish donors will send their philanthropic dollars elsewhere. Jewish communities will no longer be able to support themselves. This cannot happen, and it will not happen as long as we ‘gird our loins’ and prepare to fight this biblical battle. The Jewish communities of America cannot wait. We must lead. Every Federation and other Jewish charity is in the same predicament, we face this challenge together. I charge you, the reader, to go to the GA next year in Cleveland. To those of you who have the ability to avail yourselves of Continuing Professional Development courses, take them. Be educated. Be motivated. Be Productive. Be proactive. Lead!

Hasbara and HaMatzav: Perceptions and Realities
forJewish Community Relations Professionals

Sam Sokolove, Executive Director American Jewish Committee San Diego Chapter
AJCOP Bernard Rodkin Israel Experience Award Winner for 2003

Perhaps you’ve met Harry Abelson: a retired septuagenarian industrialist living in Los Angeles, Harry lives and breathes Israel, declaring “Israel IS REAL!” and displays his love for the Jewish state by bedecking himself in Magen David buttons and by showing off the somewhat mangled results of his weekly Ulpan. Although Harry has no interest in making Aliyah, he feels that his annual multi-million dollar contribution is as sure a demonstration of his Zionist commitment as an Israeli passport.

In actuality, Harry is an invention of Rabbi Benjamin Levine of Gesher, whose one-man performance, "The "Four Faces of Israel", toys with the cartoonish image of the American Jewish community as Israel’s rich American uncle: devoted and loving, but only from a distance.

Such an unflattering depiction of vicarious Zionism, portrayed most scathingly in former Ha'aretz editor Matti Golan’s With Friends Like You: What Israelis Really Think about American Jews, belies – or underscores -- the fact that throughout the now nearly four-year old al-Aqsa Intifada, the organized American Jewish community has seen its primary function to be that of performing “hasbara ” or public relations on behalf of the beleaguered nation. Between rallies, media campaigns, and a flurry of “We Stand with Israel” coalitions, there are few community relations committees or synagogues that haven’t actively lent their support to the cause.

In the field of Jewish communal service I have been a “hasbara provider” for a number of years, almost immediately upon returning from my first visit to Israel in 1993 when the Federation-operated Jewish newspaper in my hometown profiled me as an example of the transformative effect of a Israel experience on a young adult. As a former Federation campaign staffer and current Jewish community relations professional, I have spent the better part of the last decade “making the case for Israel” to lay leaders and the media, soliciting financial and political support for the Jewish state.

Increasingly, however, I have felt that the language involved in so much of American hasbara work has grown superficial, and is often received as simplistic and one-sided by the intended audiences. Moreover, I felt that my own effectiveness has been undermined by a matter of proximity, or namely the fact that I hadn’t been to Israel since before the outbreak of the current violence in September of 2000, and therefore could not accurately gage how my own efforts reflected what life is really like in Israel today; whether or not American Jewish hasbara accurately conveys the situation; and how Israelis view American Hasbara efforts.

Seeking answers to these questions, in August of 2003 I participated, with support provided by the Association of Jewish Community Organization Professional’s Bernard Rodkin Israel Experience Award, in the program titled, HaMatzav: Understanding the Current Situation in Israel. Presented by Livnot U'Lehibanot and Muss Israel Seminars with Alliance and a coalition of Israel experience programs, the HaMatzav program offered young professionals a ten-day overview of the “matzav,” (“situation” or “condition,” the term that Israelis use to describe the events in Israel since 2000) the program was created as an opportunity for participants to see beyond the “edited sound bites and media coverage (that has) only blurred the issues ”and meet with government officials, journalists, performers (including Rabbi Levine) municipal employees, and visits to the “Seamline” separating Jerusalem from the Palestinian town of Tulkarm.

While the program succeeded in providing insight into Israeli’s current dilemmas, the experience proved, in an expectantly Jewish fashion, to raise as many questions as it answered.

Sadly, for most Americans, Israel has become synonymous with terrorism. It is rare that a week passes without reading of a bus bombing or violent assault, and the fear of harm has all but crippled Israel’s once-vibrant tourism industry. Therefore, it was all a sad inevitability that I would hear the dreaded sirens, which I did en route to the Dan Jerusalem hotel around 9 p.m. on August 19^th. A few minutes later a fleet of ambulances went by and the radio confirmed our fears: a bus had been bombed, with many riders dead or wounded. A woman in our cherut burst into tears and panic set in. Badly shaken at the front desk, an American asked the hotel clerk how she could bear such horrors week after week. She shrugged and continued typing away at the keyboard. “If you can’t take it, don’t live in Israel.”

I expected the city to shut down, but no such thing happened. Within an hour after the bombing, as bodies and body parts were being cleared from the wreckage of Egged bus No.2, the cafes were crowded, the pizza restaurant across the street from the hotel packed with diners. For those who can take it, life in Israel goes on. And meanwhile, the local news footage featured an appalling loop of a dazed, blood-soaked teenaged girl being carried away on a stretcher. In our hotel room I watched images of the unfolding carnage and listened to the wailing sirens through an open window.

Citing the previous evening’s bombing, at breakfast Eve Harrow, a member of the Efrat council, blasted the remaining members of the Israeli peace camp. “The future of our people depends on recognizing what we’re up against,” she said. “We did not come to the Middle East to make peace – we came here because this was home!”

Turning her anger towards “American Jews (who) think that we (Settlers) are the Hitlers,” Harrow declared that Hasbara needs to, “start with the Jews.” “We’re always out for everybody’s rights, but we’re blind to our side,” she said. Although religious, Harrow stressed how few friends Israel has left in the world, and urged her American audience not to ignore the support Christian Evangelicals have shown Israel, a particularly troublesome issue for many Jewish communal professionals and lay leaders. “We both believe in the messiah of peace,” Harrow explains. “So we’ll ask him, ‘is this your first time or a return trip’?”

Less interested in theological and political matters than in making sure that the adults and children she counsels who have witnessed terrorism are able to cope with the trauma of their experiences, Dr. Donna Katzir is one of the one hundred and fifty psychologists in Jerusalem who are regularly called to serve a stressed-out and often despairing city. Katzir’s techniques include, for her adult clients, putting events in context, as in reminding them more Israelis are killed every year in automobile accidents than in terrorist attacks. For children it’s the reassurance that, “we went through this before and we’ll get through now.”

She was once called to a kindergarten near the site of a suicide bombing. With the windows shattered, and the classroom in ruin, Dr. Katzir had the children express themselves by painting a mural on the schoolhouse wall, or, as she tells it, “painting away their fears.”

With the Israeli response to terror generally an immediate clean up of the site of the horror, such as when the Sbarro’s Pizzeria in Jerusalem was rebuilt in several weeks, Dr. Katzir was asked whether this kind of coping is actually a form of denial. She answered, “We couldn’t survive without some kind of denial. The abnormal is normal in Israel.”

She finds strength, however, “In our ‘truth,’ in our right to be here, the fact that there’s something worth protecting. The desire for revenge takes a back seat to, ‘how am I going to get on with my life?’” Conversely, I met a woman in Tzfat, a mother of a teenaged daughter, told me that Israeli society has become more fatalistic, recounting how she and her daughter had “laughed all the way” during a bus trip to Tel Aviv, expecting at any moment to be blown up in a suicide bombing. “What choice do we have but to laugh?” she asked. Another Israeli I met in Tzfat dismissed the suggestion that there could ever be a clear-cut solution to the turmoil. “America is all about fixing its problems,” he told me. “Israel is about having the strength to deal with its problems.”

Addressing the HaMatzav group at the Jerusalem campus of Livnot U’lehibanot, Rabbi Seth Mandel, Director of Camp Koby, a therapeutic gathering place for Israeli victims of terrorism named in memory of his murdered son, Koby, personalized the general sense of both resignation and resolve in Israeli society. Recounting his and his wife’s initial agony and shock of having unwillingly joined the “exclusive club” of parents having lost a child to terror, Rabbi Mandel told how he answered his wife’s question, “how are we going to get through this?” by responding, “We’ll get through this because we have three other children, and we won’t let Koby’s murder ruin their lives.”

From my perspective, the comments of Eve Harrow, Donna Katzir and Rabbi Mandel personalized Israel’s societal turmoil, putting a human face to the seemingly constant images of gutted busses and bloodied victims that have become almost visual clichés to American Jews. As organizational fundraising and advocacy for Israel tends to focus on garnering an emotional or visceral response, there is often little room for the resolved-but-fatalistic sentiments of Dr. Katzir and others that realistically capture the peculiar tone of what it means to live in Israel today without urgent sloganeering.

In August of 2003 revenge was on everyone’s mind as IAF helicopters fired four missiles into a station wagon traveling through Gaza City, killing Hamas kingpin Abu Shanab. Amid this tense background, back at the Pardes Institute Rabbi David Levin-Cross led a discussion on the responsibilities of power, stimulated by a Jerusalem Post article on the IDF loosening it’s legendarily complicated open-fire regulations. Citing Chulin 89a as a counterpoint to the policy, Rabbi Levin Cross cited the words of Rabbi Ilai, who said, “The world endures only because some restraint themselves during conflict.”

Another passage was offered for discussion: “When one is willing to let their rights pass without insisting on them, all their sins are forgiven.”

An Israeli reservist responded to this passage with disgust. “This is the most pathetic statement I’ve ever read,” he spat. “It’s like we’re begging to be an eternal victim.” a heated exchange followed within the group, with some Americans making recommendations for how “we” should deal with Israel’s enemies. The pronoun choice didn’t go unnoticed, and provoked a discussion on the appropriateness of American Jews using “we” when referring to the actions of the Israeli government or military.

It was a discussion that I particularly welcomed, having observed for years how American Jews (particularly those with vivid memories of Israel’s birth and the Six-Day war) unhesitantly make suggestions about what actions “we” – i.e., Israelis – should take in response to hostilities (cf., a recent letter to the editor, written by an author in a tony San Diego neighborhood, published in the San Diego Union Tribune: “Israel would be the first to welcome peace and be the first to help the Palestinians build their state…because we are a compassionate people who believe in social justice.”) One Israeli informed the group that, “When you Americans say ‘we’, Israelis feel that we’re not alone, but people who don’t serve in our army have no right to say that Israel should or shouldn’t do anything.” A HaMatzav participant agreed that, “I don’t think that we have the privilege to use the word ‘we” (in regard to Israel) because we don’t put our lives on the line.” However, this opinion wounded another participant, who defensively responded, “I say ‘we’ because if Israel falls, we all fall.”

I found it fascinating how this particular discussion, perhaps as much as a discussion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, generated tension amongst the participants. For a generation of Jews educated with the Hebrew language, Israeli music, culture and a general fandom of Israel that could be analogous to rooting for one’s home team, the suggestion of a nationalistic disparity between American Jew and Israeli Jew was clearly jarring to some. “I’m a Zionist because my parents were Zionists and their parents were Zionists,” one participant emotionally explained in defense of his own sense of solidarity with the Israeli people, but an earlier comment from Seth Mandel, explaining his reason for making Aliyah, argued against parity: “(I was living) a second-rung life as a Jew in America.”

Hasbara viewed by the Intelligentsia

On a clear day you can see the Dome of the Rock from the patio of Yair and Bambi Sheleg’s Harmon Ha’nasi apartment. Everyday, however, you have an unobstructed view into the Arab village only a few hundred yards away, and despite the growling of the stray cats and dogs lurking through their streets below, and the chatter of their three young children inside, it’s a quiet Sunday evening in Jerusalem.

The Shelegs are important voices in the world of Israeli journalism: Yair is a member of the Editorial Board of the daily newspaper Ha'aretz, the author of two books, and a scholar with the Israel Democracy Center, a think-tank where he currently researches the policy implications of settlement dismantlement. His wife Bambi is the founding editor of the groundbreaking Israeli magazine Eretz Acheret (“A Different Country”), which deals with issues of Jewish and Israeli identity. Theirs is a religious home, with thick, opened volumes of Talmud in view, and I fear that my visit has disrupted their study. But the discussion this Sunday evening is of HaMatzav, and the heaping bowl of grapes and plums that Bambi has laid out is a sweet counterpoint to the bitter subject.

Yair senses that Israeli society has been taken over by “a quiet despair.” “People are not talking about it,” he says, “but they’re asking themselves, ‘what will be the future of Israel’s place in the Middle East?” To Yair, Israel has two options: continue with the current situation, and deepen control of the territories, or unilaterally separate from them, which is what he believes most Israelis would support, as well as the closing of some settlements. But he fears that unilateral withdrawal would give Palestinian terrorists the courage to continue with their campaign of bloodshed.

The options are all bleak, and politicians, he says, prefer to maintain the status quo than to deal head-on with problems. “The desire of most Israelis is to separate, but it’s easier to just continue along the same line.” Bambi agrees, opining, “Israeli society is much better than its leaders and know better then them.” Bambi disagrees, however, with her husband’s “quiet despair” assessment. She concedes that Israelis are troubled, but thinks despair is more likely to be found among intellectuals, or the “desperate part (of Israeli society), which lost its identity.”

“We appear ourselves to be weak,” she said. “Rabin said he signed Oslo because Israel didn’t have enough strength to go another year (living with terror).” But Bambi thinks Israeli society has proven itself to be far stronger than even the Israelis themselves expected. Still, “Israelis love life, especially the good life, and for a Western society to get into such a situation is no piece of cake.”

Yair is careful to explain that “quiet despair” doesn’t mean that Israelis are not ready to fight or are going to leave the country in droves. What he means is that people are, “looking into their hearts and asking questions about the future that they cannot answer.” Bambi agrees with her husband, but thinks that Americans, post September 11^th, are also asking the same questions, “Because the world is no longer a safe place.”

Despite the situation, Chilean-born Bambi, the daughter of German survivors, is resolute in her commitment to the Jewish state, and insists, “Most of the Jews who live in Israel couldn’t imagine living in the Diaspora. This is our place, we did not come here to leave, and the Arabs have to deal with it.”

When the discussion turns to the Israel advocacy efforts of North American Jews, Yair expresses his opinion that Diaspora Jews unfairly blame unflattering media portrayals of Israeli actions on the failure of Israeli hasbara. He felt this acutely when a mission from the Los Angeles Federation came by at the beginning of the Intifada and blamed Israel for not doing more “damage control,” and demanded better public relations, which he thinks spoke to the mission participant’s “own feelings of shame.” Still, Yair emphasizes, “It has been very important to Israelis to have American Jewish support, especially at the beginning of the uprising, because at that time we didn’t have the support of the Clinton administration, which condemned Israel following images of Palestinian children being ‘oppressed.’” Although he doesn’t know if this appreciation is the feeling among average Israelis, he is confident that the importance of the Diaspora, specifically the United States, is clearly understood.

Yair is also sensitive to the fact that many Americans view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a battle between a Palestinian David and Israeli Goliath, to which he responds, “The fact that the Palestinians are the weaker side doesn’t make them the right side – (although) in a Christian society, the weaker side is always right”

As an observer of the sometimes strained dynamic between Israeli identity and the Jewish character of Israel, Bambi is convinced that the deepest issue of the Matzav is indeed that of identity: “We have to fight for our lives,” she says, “but what the Matzav does is force us to deal with the most important issues of our times.” For example, for one issue of Eretz Acheret she invited Israeli Arabs to write about their identities within Israeli society, which exposed the dichotomy between a Jewish State with Western values existing among Arab countries. “Israel’s major problem is that it doesn’t share common values with the Arab world,” she says. “This is why Oslo didn’t work: it was a Western solution. Peace must come from them. We cannot force it.”

But for Bambi, the impact of recent history weighs heavily on the Israel conscience as much as the current terror. “I believe that Jews have not overcome the Shoah, “ she says. “We’ve not dealt with it because we couldn’t do it. We’re just survivors. We haven’t had the time to reflect on it and deal with it philosophically…I think that it’s important because we can’t go on with the internal quarrel that started 2,000 years ago. I think that the Shoah has a certain energy that eats us up to this day.”

Israelis have to create a new philosophy for the nation, Bambi insists. “We are at the end of the stage of building the land. Now we have to decide what will it be. And when we know where we want to go, we’ll have energy again.”

Rejecting the influence of academics and pundits who claim Israelis live in a “Post-Zionist” era, Yair asserts, “If you ask most (Israelis) if they would like to do without the Zionist Character (of Israel), most would say no.” As for the charge that Israelis have discarded the patriotic zeal of the Zionist founders, Yair responds, “Most people are talking about the ‘fact level’, that Israelis are less committed to the ‘Biblical’ meaning of Israel, and more concerned about their security, political issues…but there is a strong sense of solidarity around the situation, “ he affirms, and that, “after the Holocaust, many Zionists looked at Israel and said, we don’t have any other place.” Therefore, Israel remains a refuge for all Jews, despite the ongoing troubles.

As I prepared to leave, I remarked to Bambi how much Israel has changed since my last visit. You can feel the weight, I told her, the enormous heaviness of everyday living.

Hasbara and the Media

Paramount to hasbara efforts has been the monitoring of local and international media for evidence of bias in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In cities including Los Angeles, Chicago and New York, protests and boycotts have been organized following some incident of alleged bias, and watchdog organizations such as CAMERA and Honest Reporting have been active in responding to community dissatisfaction.

The efforts have gone beyond America’s Jewish community: while in Israel I came across a blurb in the Jerusalem Post announcing that the Glasgow Jewish Representative Council has created a website with the mission of, “countering unfair and factually inaccurate statements which are detrimental to Israel.”

As the author of a bi-weekly “Media Watch” column in a San Diego Jewish newspaper, I was particularly interested to see how the news from Israel compares with the actual situation. While watching BBC News in a Jerusalem hotel, I learned that one experiences a strange disconnect between their Middle East coverage and what’s actually happening on the street below: doom and gloom reporting from the BBC predicting the apocalypse to come as a result of some Israeli “aggression” in Gaza, while outside you’ll find a bustling, sun-drenched market packed with chattering shoppers and people on their way to and from work.

Dan Diker thinks he knows why the news coming from Israel is almost always so bad, and why perception so frequently doesn’t match reality. Speaking at the Hadassah Youth Center on Mt. Scopus, Diker, a Knesset and economic affairs reporter for Israel Broadcasting Authority's English News and media affairs consultant at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/Institute for Contemporary Affairs, has been keeping a close eye on how the international media never misses an opportunity to portray Israel in the worst possible light.

“Ha Matzav is top news both locally and internationally,” Diker, a resident of Efrat, says. “ ‘The Israel Story’ for the international press is basically the conflict, whereas something like the recovery of the Israeli real estate market would be ignored.” The coverage that greeted Christopher Reeve’s recent visit, he notes, was an anomaly, as it was a positive human-interest story set in Israel. And “The Israel Story” in the international media invariably evolves around the Palestinian narrative, which is essentially, “Occupation. And if Israel would move from the territories we would have peace.”

“Context and perspective doesn’t exist in the international media,” Diker explains, using the media’s coverage of the brief Hudna as an example; according to Diker, Hudna is an culturally-specific Arabic term which means a temporary cessation of battle before the next round can begin, like a seventh inning stretch, rather than a ceasefire, as it was widely portrayed.

Interestingly, Diker thinks that some of the bias comes from a purely aesthetic place. “99% of foreign reporters hang out at the American Colony Hotel, which is Austrian owned and Arab staffed, and which gives a romantic sense of what Jerusalem was a hundred years ago,” he says. “At five o’clock you’ll see reporters coming ‘off safari’ reporting on ‘the revolution’.” The accessible, idealized and Israel-free image the American Colony provides journalists is disturbed by the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which makes it easier for them to simply resort to the Occupier vs. the Occupied paradigm.

Also, Diker believes that reporting the complexities – the lack of human rights in the Palestinian authority, the indoctrination of Palestinian youth – is ignored in large part due to the Palestinian Authority’s close control over who gets to speak to the press. And in the non-democratic Palestinian society, foreign reporters are afraid that if they offend the Palestinian Authority with unflattering reporting, their access to official sources will be cut-off, thus leaving them unable to get “the Palestinian reaction” for a story.

As a worse-case example of Palestinian media control, Diker recounted the story of the Italian journalist who attempted to document the October 12, 2000 lynching of two Israeli reservists in Ramallah before receiving threats from the Palestinian Authority. Amazingly, his network later apologized to the Palestinian Authority for filming the murderers.

Countering the Palestinian restrictions imposed on the press, Diker describes the access afforded by Israeli authorities to journalists as evidence that Israel truly is a “Hyper-democracy.” Abu Dabi television, for example, has full access to the Knesset even though it has been labeled as hostile to Israel. In the interest of accuracy, Diker tries to speak to Israeli elected officials themselves, rather than their spokespersons, which in Israel’s informal political scene, is possible, and journalists frequently approach MK’s directly, sometimes by just calling them on their cell phone rather than wading through a sea of aides.

Despite this access to a wide variety of Israeli viewpoints, Diker laments how the foreign press will often seek out someone whose views most closely meet those of the reporter – which are generally very left of center -- to speak on behalf of the Israeli people. “(Former Justice Minister) Yossi Bellin represents six percent of the Israeli opinion,” Diker says, but he is frequently quoted as speaking on behalf of all Israelis. Diker fears that a “peripheral” voice like Bellin’s doesn’t accurately reflect to the world the key concerns of the majority of Israelis, which come down to, “show me security and give me a job.”

Diker views much of Israel’s media drubbing as a public relations war, and acknowledges that the Palestinian Authority were wise to hire Ed Abington, a former US State Department Council General in Jerusalem, as their media advisor, whereas the Israeli government secured the services of Howard Rubenstein, a public relations maven with no real experience in government, which puts, Diker feels, Israeli hasbara at a crucial disadvantage.

As for the charges that Israel perpetuates the “cycle of violence” by targeting Hamas members, Diker points out that suicide bombings take weeks of preparation and are never spontaneous responses to Israeli actions, which is how the Israeli public correctly understands such horrors as the Aug. 19^th suicide bus bombing in Jerusalem that killed 21, including several children. But as this more complicated picture doesn’t fit into the simplified and largely inaccurate narrative that the international media has relied on throughout the last three years, Diker expects that the rare fair journalists – such as Peter Herman of the Baltimore Sun, whom he singles out for praise – will continue to be outweighed by those far less informed.

Diker’s analysis confirms that even though community is an intangible thing, there is something mooring in the way that, for the last four years, Jews have been exchanging, via e-mail or jagged newspaper clippings, a John Leo article that captures the justness of the Israeli cause, or a particularly moving profile of a young victim of the nightclub massacre in Tel Aviv. Our collective sensitivity has been sharpened to the point where we detect a contemptuous tone in a Peter Jennings’s voice that seems to escape other audiences; for example, when I mentioned to a Jewish friend a story I had heard that morning on NPR, she sneered, “you mean National Palestinian Radio?” and I doubt that you would hear such a response from a friend who was not beholden to what historian Jonathan Boyarin labeled, “the Politics of Jewish Memory.”

Changing Images

Aubrey Issacs, Education Director of the WUJUS Institute in Arad, recalled that the message he received from the Israeli Consul General in his native Ireland during the Yom Kippur War was, “don’t come; send us your money.” Today, Issacs feels that the image Israel projects to Diaspora Jewry is, “we’re strong and we don’t need your help, so don’t come.”

Yet, in a recent article for Ma'ariv, Natan Sharansky wrote, “Israel has few strategic assets as critical as American Jewry. The fact that the world's leading superpower is a steadfast ally of Israel is due in large measure to this proud and activist community.”

Michael Jankelowitz, the Jewish Agency for Israel’s media liaison, believes that Israelis are very much aware of American Jewish activism on behalf of Israel. Over coffee in the Jewish Agency cafeteria, Jankelowitz acknowledged that the diminishing number of American Jews visiting Israel over the years has been noticeable, with the exception of the fully subsidized Operation Birthright programs for college-aged first timers, which were the majority, even though the number of participants had decreased significantly. But Israelis don’t blame Americans for not coming, Jankelowitz insists. “They don’t expect them to come in the thousands…it’s hard to make a demand of (American Jews) to come to Israel when it’s not safe.” Although solidarity missions were succeeding in bringing already-committed lay leaders to Israel, “Joe Jew,” to use Jankelowitz’s terminology, chose to stay home.

Jankelowitz expressed concern that even among Jewish organizations, staffers, however well meaning, were largely ill informed of the Matzav and therefore unqualified to make policy reccomendations. “Israelis don’t like when Americans get involved in internal Israeli politics when their necks aren’t on the line.” As for the much-reviled security fence, Jankelowitz invites Americans to, “come and learn, but don’t condemn (from afar).”

Tzippi Barnea, the Assistant Director of the American Jewish Committee’s Jerusalem office, disagrees with Jankelowitz’s assessment, “In general Israelis don’t know anything about (American Hasbara efforts) and don’t care about it,” she says. “The average Israeli knows nothing about what American Jews are doing to help.” The AJC’s Jerusalem office sees one of its responsibilities to teach Israelis about the American Jewish community, and annually sends Israelis from the political left and right to learn about American Pluralism, which, according to Barnea successfully imparts, “how influential the American Jewish community is (which most) Israelis do not know.”

A close observer of how the pro-Israel message is stated in America, particularly on college campuses, Jankelowitz feels that focusing on the “moral message” that Israel is a democracy is insufficient. “We have to explain the Jewish historical connection to Zion,” he insists. Evangelical Christians are a major block of support because they know the history. “In today’s world, you have to think about the PR effect,” Jankelowitz acknowledges. “However, there’s a limit to the extent that you can do PR and ignore history.”

Noting that Palestinian public relations tries to break the emotional ties between American Jews and Israel, Jankelowitz fears that American Jews don’t understand the nuance of what’s being communicated by Israeli officials. In his opinion, American Jews are missing the true culture of contemporary Israel, which no longer is influenced by an Ashkenazi majority, and has transformed into an “Oriental” country. “(Foreign Minister) Silvan Shalom doesn’t speak perfect English, but he’s the model of the new Israeli”, Jankelowitz stresses. “American Jews don’t know enough about these Israelis, and (should) have more patience with them.”

The charge that too many Israeli governmental representatives in the United States are unable to effectively articulate and defend Israel’s positions was heard by HaMatzav participants in a discussion with Arthur Lance from the Foreign Ministry Department, who dismissed the criticism, citing Dore Gold as an example of an articulate spokesman. “Israeli Hasbara is more effective than Americans think,” said Lance. “We made two points at the start (of the second Intifada) that were initially not accepted: Arafat was not a partner for peace and there will be no negotiating without peace. This is (now) exactly what the Roadmap says.”

However, Steven Mazie, a political scientist and HaMatzav participant, expressed dissatisfaction with both the Israeli government officials and the internal American Jewish community discussion that Hasbara engenders. “I crave an Israeli spokesman who can explain Israel’s position with as much clarity as Hanan Ashrawi explains the Palestinian position. At the same time, I crave more internal Jewish debate. You have the Right and Left camps, but we need more nuance…I want more of that Jewish spirit of debate and diversity that I think is sorely lacking in contemporary discussions about Israel.”

Neil Lazarus a Tel Aviv-based Israel Advocacy trainer feels that hasbara is simply the wrong paradigm to use, and should be replaced with “Havna” or understanding and “Shiruk” or marketing, i.e., selling Israel as a product. Citing diminished attention spans among young people who absorb knowledge through entertainment mediums, Lazarus recommends laying off the lectures.“(Younger Jews) feel before they remember facts,” he says. Lazurus’s stance is shared by Frank Luntz, who contends in his controversial report, Israel in the Age of Eminem: A Creative Brief For Israel Messaging that Jewish organizations are “not connecting effectively with young Jews. Indeed, the messages, messengers, and mechanisms we are using for our advocacy and fundraising campaigns may even be turning them off.”

Still, among the HaMatzav participants a fear was expressed that all the efforts, however well intended, were failing to resonate. One participant said, “In New York during the (start of the) Intifada, there were a number of opportunities to speak up for Israel, but the majority of Jews don’t care about the situation because they don’t know enough to care. And we’ve been bombarded with so much information that it’s easier not to care at all.”

Another participant expressed his belief that too much of the pro-Israel advocacy material he had read simply comes off as “Zionist propaganda.” This charge rankled an observant member of the group, a social worker from Borough Park, Brooklyn, who felt that among “Generation X ” Jews, having a leftist or progressive position was congratulated, whereas coming across as stridently pro-Israel was frowned upon.

Recommendations

The “Israel booster” that Rabbi Benjamin Levine parodies is an American with memory the epochal events of 20th century Jewish life: the Holocaust, the Birth of Israel and the Six-Day War. As these individuals pass away and their numbers decline, they will be replaced by a post-Holocaust, post-Zionist generation in which more than half are choosing not to engage in Jewish life. The rate of unaffiliation among young Jews in our urban population centers of New York and Los Angeles is now nearly 75%. Declining affiliations resulted in weakened attachment to Israel among Jews under age 45.

In his book Irreconcilable Differences: The Waning of the American Jewish Love Affair with Israel, Steven Rosenthal writes, “the great heroic days have passed, fractious normalcy has replaced the emotional high points of the founding of the state, the Six Day war and the Entebbe raid.” The result, according to Rosenthal, is an American Jewish community that finds the, “purity of her cause less strong,” and to continue using the message that “the Apocalypse is just around the corner” to mobilize political and financial support is neither warranted, despite the current situation, nor effective. Hasbara work, therefore, must be sensitive to the audience’s resistance to, as the one HaMatzav participant called it, propaganda. What was once considered axiomatic – that an American Jew should feel deep loyalty for the Jewish state – is no longer a given, the relationship becoming more nuanced and complex as Israel’s role as a primary source of identity and pride for American Jews decreases.

As a result of my experience as a HaMatzav program participant, I have come to accept that avoiding these complexities is ultimately to the disservice of hasbara work. Indeed, Israel is a messy, divisive country rife with conflicting narratives, a truth that rubs against the United Jewish Appeal’s slogan, “We are One,” and a highly educated, affluent and acculturated American Jewish community has limited patience for rhetoric. Instead, there is a hunger for a far less monolithic and effusively celebratory portrayal of Israel than what has long been presented, and although, as Michael Jankelowitz acknowledges, American Jews are not visiting Israel in even less numbers than before, Jewish communal professionals wishing to enrich their efforts should not allow themselves to be counted among the ranks of those staying at home.

During the course of the last decade, the Federation system, conscious of the changing dynamics between Israel and the American Jewish community, has represented the relationship as a “partnership” built on the recognition that Israel is a self-sufficient nation that can longer be treated with patriarchal head-patting by Diaspora Jewry. Based on the remarks of the officials and HaMatzav participants, however, this partnership appears to have broken down around the matter of hasbara , with the American Jewish community doing the lion’s share of the work with seemingly limited interest from Israeli representatives in more incisively defending or explaining Israeli positions to the media or opinion makers. Having the morally correct position – as Israeli governmental representatives are oft to claim – does not diminish the veracity of Neil Lazarus’s position, that Israel must be more keenly marketed to an audience with only a vague sense of history and a short attention span. Israelis must be more fully engaged in hasbara efforts, and less inclined to allow American Jews to laboriously present their history when the emotional, first person testimony of a Seth Mandel or Donna Katzir is more likely to influence hearts and minds.

Even a short trip to Israel offers a host of “marketable” moral truths far more resonant than a litany of platitudes and slogans that reflect outdated American Jewish ideals for the Jewish State rather than the actual Matzav, in all its poignancy. The substance of meaningful hasbara lies in the words of Eve Harrow, Michael Jankelowitz, Bambi and Yair Sheleg, Israelis with different views of the situation that collectively tell the story of a damaged nation still worthy of Harry Abelson’s – and more importantly, his grandchildren’s – support and affection.

New Study Shows Hiring of Fundraising Professionals Continues at Strong Pace, Even in Down Economy.
By David Edell and David Hinsley Cheng

NEW YORK, NY – July 9, 2003 – The hiring of fundraising professionals during the past 24 months continued at a strong pace, even during the economic slowdown, according to a recently released study by DRG Inc., a 15-year old national executive search firm working only in the nonprofit sector.

DRG today released the results of their 2003 Trends in Hiring Development Professionals Survey. In their findings, 67% of respondents reported hiring a fundraising professional even though 57% of respondents indicate that their organization faced hiring and wage freezes or merging of positions. By comparison, in a 1997 DRG study conducted at the height of the economic boom, 86% of respondents reported hiring new fundraising professionals.

“These numbers confirm that even in a down economy, nonprofit organizations cannot and do not stop recruiting fundraising talent and investing in fund producing programs” says DRG President David E. Edell. To further illustrate that point, the study found that 41% of respondents actually hired to fill new created fundraising positions. Again, that number contrasts to 56% of respondents hiring for new positions in DRG’s 1997 study.

Other findings suggest that quality of life concerns have emerged as a significant issue among fundraising professionals when making career decisions. Factors such as the decision to only work part-time, devote time to family, relocation, or continuing education/graduate school, accounted for 46% of voluntary staff departures. The study also shows that only 28% of employees leaving positions did so for higher paying jobs.

According to Edell, “I am constantly asked ‘what’s going on out there?’ This study tells me that even with the current challenges presented by the economy and government budget constraints, nonprofits continue to be both strategic and aggressive in providing the resources to support their work.”

KEY FINDINGS

· 67% of those responding hired new development professionals in the past 24 months. (In our 1997 survey, 86% reported recent hires in 1996 and 1997).

· Hiring of development professionals occurred even though 57% of the respondents reported that their organizations experienced hiring or wage freezes, staff reductions and/or merging of positions.

· 41% of those hired by the respondents filled new development positions. Other hires were to fill openings for existing positions created by resignations (39%) and termination (14%). By comparison, in our 1997 survey, 56% percent filled new development positions.

· The fundraising experience that was sought most in these new hires was major gifts (35%) followed by events/annual fund (20%) and corporate/foundations relations(16%).

· Most of the new hires were junior level professionals, 41% (3-5 years experience) and entry level, 30% (under 3 years experience).

· When considering education backgrounds of candidates for senior and junior development positions, executives expressed strong preference for candidates with a Bachelor and Master degree in liberal arts or humanities. For senior positions, there was some interest (12%) in candidates with MBAs, CFRE/ACFRE credentials (12%), or a Master in Nonprofit Management (10%).

· Development professionals are staying in their organizations longer. It was reported that development staff typically stays with their organization 5-6 years (19%). 3-4 years (49%), 1-2 years (16%). That is considerably longer that the 18-20 months reported in earlier surveys.

· Nearly half (46%) of the professionals who left development positions did so for quality of life reasons such as seeking part-time work options, family relocation, leaving the work force, or continuing education/graduate school.

· An increase in pay or responsibility has not been the primary motivators in professionals’ decisions to leave their position. Only 28% reported that professionals left their development departments for new positions with increased pay. 17% left for positions with increased responsibilities.

· There has been a 6% decline in hiring corporate professionals for fundraising positions since DRG’s 1997 survey. In our current survey, 24% of the respondents reported hiring a professional from the corporate sector

· Only 16% of the respondents report that they interviewed a corporate professional but ultimately did not hire that person. (In our 1997 survey 60% reported interviewing but not hiring corporate professionals seeking to change careers into the nonprofit sector.)

· Corporate backgrounds in marketing (31%) and sales (24%) were most successful in transitioning into development positions. Public relations skills were also noted in 18% of these hires.

This survey was mailed to 3000 senior nonprofit executives in the Boston to Washington, DC corridor in the Spring of 2003. There were 164 respondents.

Of those responding, 48% served as their organization’s chief development officer or director of development. 23% of the respondents were the Executive Director.

Of the responding organizations, 20% were organizations dedicated to social services, 12% to the arts, 10% hospital/healthcare and 9% higher education. 36% of these organizations had budgets between $1-5 Million. 18% had budgets in excess of $50 Million and 14% had budgets from $6-10 Million.

Created in 1987, DRG is an executive search and recruitment firm who has partnered with more than 350 nonprofit organizations and institutions throughout the United States and Canada. Since then, DRG has successfully conducted over 650 searches for CEOs, Chief Development Officers, CFOs and other senior nonprofit executives.

CONTACT:
David E. Edell, President
David Hinsley Cheng, Managing Director DRG, Inc.
104 East 40^th Street
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 983-1600
Email: dcheng@drgnyc.com
Website: www.drgnyc.com

Karen Taylor is the second of the two recipients of AJCOP’s Bernard Rodkin Israel Experience Award to complete her project in Israel. A natural outgrowth of my current work with NYLAG and as a member of the UJA-Federation Eshel Professional Exchange, which provided an opportunity for agency professionals working with seniors to travel to Israel and meet with colleagues to discuss programs and identify potential models of collaboration or replication, Karen chose to use the Rodkin Award to identify models of programs that help the elderly remain independently in their homes and communities.
Development of Programs Serving
the Elderly Remaining in Their Communities

By Karen Taylor
January 17, 2003

Introduction

In 2002, I received a $5,000 Bernard Rodkin Israel Experience Award from the Association of Jewish Communal Organizational Professionals. The purpose of this award was to provide me with an opportunity to increase my knowledge, experience and understanding of Israeli society and her social welfare system through participation in a 2-3 week Professional Development Experience in Israel that was pertinent to enhancing my Jewish community organization skills.

I chose to use this award to identify models of programs that help the elderly remain independent in their homes and communities. This is a natural outgrowth of my current work as a member of the UJA-Federation Eshel Professional Exchange, which provided an opportunity for agency professionals working with seniors to travel to Israel and meet with our colleagues to discuss programs and identify potential models of collaboration or replication. (I became initially involved with the Eshel Exchange when I was on staff at UJA-Federation in the Caring Commission, and my portfolio included aging services. I continue to participate in several professional task forces at UJA-Federation on aging-related issues.) This interest is based on the following assumptions:

Converging Priorities. Despite the differences in service delivery, the priorities in Israel and North America in caring for older adults are the same: keeping seniors living in their own homes, and active in their communities, to the best of their capacity for as long as possible.

Similar Special Populations. Israel’s senior population is composed of 40% Holocaust survivors, a significant percentage compared to the estimated 3% of New York’s elderly population (and less than 15% of New York’s elderly Jewish population). Nevertheless, the issues facing this vulnerable population have more in common than differences. Likewise, cultural differences, language barriers, loss of family and neighborhood ties, and other issues affect the Russian immigrant population in both Israel and North America, even though the percentage of Russian olim is significantly higher in Israel than in either the United States or Canada. An exchange of professional information, as well as potential model programs would be enormously beneficial for both of these populations.

Specifically, I was interested in doing the following:

expand information base by meeting with policy and programming professionals to test hypotheses in assumptions of commonalities and differences in populations, service delivery,

identify best practices and models for replication, and

encourage possible collaborations between aging service programs in Israel and in North America

Given the limited amount of time I had available to visit Israel, I focused my energy on two types of programs that keep seniors independent: supportive communities and warm homes.

Results

Expanding Information Base

While several agencies in Israel provide services for elderly, both public and private (nursing homes, senior housing, etc. etc.), a significant number of programs designed to keep people independent in their homes and communities are developed through JDC-Israel's Eshel program. Eshel provides an array of pilot projects after research and planning, and then upon evaluation, identifies methods of replication of services.

Given the limited amount of time I had available to visit Israel, and my focus on supportive communities and warm homes, I utilized my time with Eshel to learn more about the planning and development of these programs, and the relationship between the JDC and the government in institutionalizing these program models.

JDC professionals I met with included:

Dr. Yitzhak Brick, Director of JDC-Eshel
Tammy Barnea/Randi Gover, Director of Supportive Communities for the Handicapped
Yosefa ben Moshe, Director of Health Promotion
Jenny Bronski, Director of Research for Brookdale
David Cahn, Director of Day Care Centers
Yakov Kabilo, Director of Homes for the Aged
Tuvia Mendelson, Director of Publications
Dror Rottem, Director of Research/Program Development
Moshe Yoness, Director of Video and Visual Media
Tali Zuk, Director of Education and Training Programs

Many of these interviews provided me with a much stronger knowledge of the Israeli social welfare system and how the elderly participate with the various Ministries (Health, Insurance, and Social Welfare), as well as knowledge of the activities and partnerships developed on the local level by the various municipalities. This background was especially useful during my site visits, as I sorted out the various "partners" in each of the supportive communities and warm home projects.

These interviews also confirmed a first impression I had during my brief visit to Israel in 2001: there is a much closer relationship between research and program development In Israel than in the United States. While most North American Jewish senior service programs do not have the staff capacity or expertise to do applied research, Israeli professionals incorporate this more comprehensive approach, and show a willingness to test models based on research and need, rather than funding and marketing interest. JDC-Eshel programs are excellent examples of research, development, implementation, and evaluation best-practices models.

The integration of training into service development for senior service programs is also different in Israel than in the United States. The JDC-Eshel Training Institute provides a gerontologically-specific series of education programs for professionals at all levels who are working in Eshel -developed model programs. Some training programs are linked with local universities; others are basic education models to teach entry-level staff members about basic issues affecting seniors. The result of this comprehensive approach to education and training was very clear in my on-site visits: case workers, day center directors, nursing home aids, community fathers and warm home hosts all seemed to have a strong grounding in the basic approaches to aging.

Identifying Best Practices and Models for Replication

SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITIES

The "Supportive Community" is a program designed to help improve the quality of life of elderly living in their communities, by helping them maintain their independence and providing specific services to needs that otherwise may not be adequately addressed. Created in the late 1990’s, these programs offer four basic services: a Personal Emergency Response system; emergency ambulance and physician house calls; social activities, and a neighborhood facilitator (community father). These programs require some fiscal participation by the clients (averaging $20-25 monthly), which is matched by a partnership usually comprising the Ministry of Welfare, the Ministry of Health, and the local Regional Council. Other partners may provide additional services (e.g., the Ministry of Insurance supports health prevention programs such as hearing and sight testing in some supportive communities; some municipalities will offer computer equipment and space), and JDC-Israel’s Eshel Project provides seed funding until the communities have 200 households subscribed. There are now nearly 70 supportive community programs in Israel. Approximately 50% of the programs in medium in small size cities, followed by 35% in urban metropolitan areas and the rest in rural communities, including a Supportive "Village" comprised of 22 moshavim in Beer Tuvia. Some of these programs are now Emergency Supportive Communities, and providing additional reassurance to the elderly who live in neighborhoods under attack. During my trips over the last year to Israel, I have visited supportive communities in all three settings including Emergency Supportive Communities.

The Community Father

An essential component of the program is the neighborhood facilitator, or "community father." The profile of this person is generally a man from a "blue-collar" background in his 50's or 60's who is physically active. (This does not mean that women, or people from other backgrounds are not also chosen, but the most typical facilitator in the program meets this profile.) The reason for the age is to address the concern of the elderly that as they lose capacity to do for themselves, they are not turned into children, or forcing their children to become their parents. Thus, a man who is physically active but older is the most comfortable match for the programs.

Benyamin is such a man. A large strong man with a shy smile, he is clearly loved by his community. Benyamin also immediately provides a presence that is strong and comforting for someone who is fearful. His lifeline is a cell phone and a car. The catchment area of his community is most of central Hadera, a city of approximately 80,000 with a 14% elderly population. There are two existing supportive community projects (a third is under development).

Benyamin received orientation and information training through the JDC-Eshel Center for Continuing Education and Training on the special needs of the elderly (all community fathers are required to undergo this training), as well as practical application of this information. He enjoys working with the residents, and can also articulate many of the basic concerns and needs of elderly in general, as well as his own role in the provision of services. He can give the histories of almost all of the residents, with sympathy and practical application. He remains informed on various activities, and in touch with the social workers. We visited one home where a homebound man and his wife lived. While we were there, Benyamin told the wife of an upcoming community activity and gently invited her to attend; later, he told me later that the supportive community social worker has been encouraging the wife to attend some of the community’s social programs while her husband is attended by the home care attendant. At another home, he laughed and joked heartily with a woman who had moved to Hadera only a month before her husband died; she was clearly delighted to see him. In both instances, the residents were very familiar with the array of services their supportive community offered and gave me examples of physician house calls, social programs, and active demonstrations of the PERS system.

In Beer Tuvia, the community father is in a different situation. The community includes 15-20 moshavim, and covers 50 square miles. The Community Father drives 200 km/month to help 91 subscribers (the project is still growing). In some moshavim, only 1 or 2 households currently participate. As a result, the supportive community here places larger emphasis on telephone re-assurance (often staffed by subscriber/volunteers) and utilizes senior centers throughout the district in order to provide regionalized services that can be accessed by the seniors.

The Moshav Supportive Community/Village is heavily Tunisian, Moroccan, and Yeminite, and has a very different feel than a city-based supportive community. The difference is exemplified by Ora. Ora moved to Israel in 1948, and helped to form a kibbutz in a border area. She later moved to a moshav, also on the border, where she has lived for 50 years. Ora joined the supportive community not because of any perceived frailty, but because the concept reflects her own ideals. Since joining, she has received telephone reassurance calls, and is planning on volunteering time as well.

The one concern Ora shared about the supportive community is how best to serve the elderly on a moshav. Unlike their city neighbors, the residents on a moshav are not likely to have a pension. In addition, with the current economic situation, their social security is very low, putting many of them over the poverty line. There is not much of a safety net on a moshav, where a multitude of other issues are also facing the Regional Council as fewer and fewer individuals are farming, and the land is being purchased for bedroom community living near major urban centers. With security an added issue (Ora’s kitchen window looks out onto the fence that divides the moshav from Palestinian territory), the basic needs for the elderly – many of whom joined the moshav even before the establishment of the State of Israel – can be lost in the shuffle.

Starting a Supportive Community

This program has several established parameters, all of which were outlined above. JDC The model, however, is still flexible, and is being explored for additional communities’ needs. Eshel is developing a supportive community for the disabled in Gilo. This supportive community (chosen because it has a high percentage of disabled due to a local institution serving this population) is in an "emergency" area, and in addition to the increased level of fear and uncertainty, certain tangible needs of the disabled must also be addressed. For example, home care workers were unable to get to their assignments because of roadblocks, leaving disabled residents without necessary aid for activities as simple as getting out of bed. A second model is being planned in Hadera, as well. Different needs and ways to address these needs are still under development.

The flexibility of the Supportive Community model, as seen by this exploration of serving a disabled community, may prove to be helpful in developing similar programs in the United States. Seed funding has been provided to start a supportive community in Brooklyn, where there is a high percentage of elderly immigrants. The partners needed to achieve a successful model are still being explored, but can prove to be a helpful model for other urban communities with a density of seniors, but for whom a NORC Supportive Service model may not be optimum. Likewise, a horizontal supportive community in a suburban or small town community may be a helpful model to identify for local area agencies on aging, as a way to bring together a basket of services in a cost-effective way to serve local residents.

WARM HOMES

Warm Homes are small, house-based programs that grew organically out of the Joint’s Chesed projects in the Former Soviet Union. The Warm Home offered elderly Russian Jews an opportunity to socialize and participate in Jewish ritual activities in the privacy and comfort of a neighbor’s home. The groups are, by their nature, closed in order to allow for a sense of safety and emotional intimacy to develop.

The first Warm Home project in Israel was attempted in Rechava, with a group of elderly Israelis. It was unsuccessful. On its second attempt, the Warm Home project was attempted with elderly Russian olim with the hope that some of them might recognize the model from the Chesed projects. These programs were far more successful. After visiting several Warm Homes for both Russian and Argentinian olim, it becomes clear why these are more likely to be successful programs:

common immigrant experience
difficulty with assimilation
cultural background of small-group entertainment

Common Immigrant Experience

One of the common reactions with attempting a Warm Home project with settled residents was the fear that that others might notice that the host was "coming down in the world," i.e., being house poor. With a group of recent immigrants, all of whom are sharing similar changed living circumstances, this worry is reduced – the comparisons of living space are less likely to produce anxiety or fear.

Difficulty With Assimilation

Many elderly have difficulty learning a new language and feeling comfortable (and safe) in a new environment. The Warm Homes permit both an opportunity to speak in the language of origin, and to practice conversational Hebrew with peers, which also reduces stress. The gatherings also provide participants to share neighborhood information and experiences (i.e., friendly shopkeepers, nearby conveniences), which can ease fear of the unknown.

Cultural Background

There is a possibility that cultural components play a significant role in the success of a Warm Home for a variety of reasons. For example, attempts to create a Warm Home for immigrants from Ethiopia were less successful than their counterparts from the FSU because Ethiopian culture has a different set of expectations regarding home entertainment – there is greater comfort in gathering in a neutral communal space, for instance. JDC-Israel’s Eshel program is considering a "Warm Tea House" modification for immigrants from Central Asian states that will center on communal spaces (in or near synagogues) to feel like the familiar tea houses that were often gathering spaces in neighborhoods.

Starting a Warm Home

JDC-Israel’s Eshel Program identifies communities in which there are large populations of low-income elderly, and locates potential Warm Home hosts. These hosts are usually peers (or slightly younger) who are naturally gregarious, and friendly neighbors. They receive training through the Eshel Center for Continuing Education and Training on basic needs of the elderly. The hosts are then responsible for identifying (sometimes in conjunction with the local municipality’s social worker) isolated seniors in their neighborhood who are invited to participate. The groups take place 1-3 nights a week, and are generally 12-20 people total. A budget for food and materials (e.g., Shabbat kits, video rental) are provided to the host through the municipality or other partners.

All Warm Home projects have a significant self-directed component, to further allow for socialization and organic relationship-building. For example, a group in Belarus is working on a memoir-writing project together. In visiting Warm Homes for Russian olim in Israel, the groups tended to have strong educational components, utilizing the professional expertise of the participants themselves, who often created lecture programs for their fellow Warm Home participants. The Argentines, on the other hand, used their time together to practice conversational Hebrew and to study the history of the State of Israel.

There is a Warm Home program for Holocaust survivors in the FSU, but not one in Israel. This is probably because one-third of the elderly population in Israel are Holocaust survivors, which makes them less of a "special population" than they are in other countries. In the United States, however, this may be a special "non-immigrant" population that could benefit enormously from a Warm Home model.

ENCOURAGING Possible Collaborations

While visiting programs, and upon my return to New York, I was active in identifying potential models of collaboration and beginning the partnership process. As mentioned above, a supportive community model is already under development in Brooklyn’s Bensonhurst community, and my intention is to further study the model’s development in the United States in order to compare, contrast, and identify methods of replication.

I am also actively working with UJA-Federation to identify potential agencies that may find the "Warm Home" a manageable model to attempt with minimum seed funding.

Finally, I have also developed two other collaborative opportunities for Israel-diaspora partnerships which further connect New York City organizations with similar agencies in Israel. Those projects are:

a proposed collaboration for my current agency (The New York Legal Assistance Group) and Yad Riva, a legal services agency providing assistance to the elderly in Israel, which has been favorably received by UJA-Federation for consideration in an upcoming Eshel Professional Exchange and for future support;
a proposed Israel-Diaspora partnership between two organizations serving tenuously connected Jews in order to strengthen their Jewish identity and build a sense of commitment to Israel and its people. This collaboration, between Congregation Beth Simchat Torah (New York City’s lesbian and gay synagogue) and Jerusalem Open House (the only gay community center in Jerusalem), is designed to strengthen Jewish identity in the population served by these two organizations, which are the only Jewish organizations with which the population they serve may have any affiliation. A proposed Partnership 2000 grant is under consideration after several meetings with the New Grants Committee, and CBST is already planning a congregational trip to Jerusalem in 2003.

CONCLUSION

The Supportive Community and Warm Home programs each provide an innovative model to consider in community planning for the elderly in New York, and the United States. They are programs that are community-based, and of two different sizes, providing great flexibility for community planners and agency professionals. In addition, they offer two important, but different levels of engagement for seniors who are living in isolation. The Supportive Community model, like the already existing NORC Supportive Community models, require a substantial professional and financial investment with partners that can provide the initial and on-going work required to build the community participation. The Warm Home model, on the other hand, requires a much smaller financial investment, and may be attractive to agencies seeking cost-effective methods to support their aging clients. It may be possible to create these programs with fewer partners than the Supportive Community model. This model is clearly worth investigation in the United States. In continuing my work with the Eshel Professional Exchange, I hope to help create Warm Home models in New York, and evaluate their success for replication in other communities, as well.

ROUGH BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berg-Warman, Ayelet. "Supportive Community" Program: an Evaluation Study, 2000-2001. JDC-Brookdale/Association for the Planning & Development of Services for the Aged (Eshel )
Brodsky, Jenny, Kapln, Eileen & Tamara Barnea. "Experience Counts: Innovative Programs for the Elderly in Israel that can Benefit Americans." JDC-Brookdale/Association for the Planning & Development of Services for the Aged (Eshel ), published by American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, 1995.
Thein, Shalom. "Supportive Communities – Aging in Place in Israel." ESHEL , June 2001.
"Emergency Supportive Community Gilo" and "Supportive Community" – two videos produced by ESHEL "Golden Aging: Exhibition and Catalogue" produced by ESHEL , 2000.
"Israel Report to United Nations Second World Assembly on Ageing (Madrid, Spain)," prepared by the Government of Israel with the assistance of JDC-Brookdale and JDC-Eshel . Also "Israel’s Elderly: Facts and Figures," a special edition prepared for the Second World Assembly
"JDC-Eshel ’s Seventh Five-Year Plan: 2001-2005." JDC-Eshel .
"People with Disabilities in Israel: Facts and Figures." JDC-Israel Unit for Disabilities and Rehabilitation.
Various brochures on projects, health promotion, training, and other JDC-Eshel programs.

The following article by Gary Wexler, appeared in the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles on 10/18/02. A marketing consultant to non-profit organizations, Wexler is working with AJCOP to better serve you, our members. Bob Hyfler, Chief Operating Officer of The Jewish Federation of Greater Washington, has been dialoging with Wexler on this topic. I am sure you will find their articles food for thought. If you would like to respond, please send your responses to Marlene@ajcop.org.

Professional-Lay Relations Need Examining
by Gary Wexler

When people query me as to who our clients are, if the person is Jewish, I often answer, "Half our clients are Jewish organizations. And the other half are people who treat us really nicely."

Almost always people laugh at the response. Once, however, at a Jewish event in San Francisco, someone told me I was anti-Semitic. My answer to her? "Being realistic about our organizational issues doesn’t make me an anti-Semite."

Jewish organizations have many issues. But after having worked with more than 100 of them, in the United States, Israel and around the world, I have come to the conclusion that among the top priority issues is how we interact with one another. In the process of pursuing tikun olam (repairing the world), I have seen more Jewish organizations destroy the Jewish spirit of the individuals involved. While they are busy saving the people "out there" they are chopping up the ones close to them.

This is no secret. Any of us who has been involved in organized Jewish life has witnessed this reality, if not personally been subjected to it. Yet, it is like the elephant in the living room that sits heavily in the midst of everything, and everyone wants to tiptoe around it, ignoring its presence. No one wants to publicly speak of the obvious.

I do.

And it is time the rest of us do, too. We must put the issue of inter-personal relations within organized Jewish life on the public agenda. I realized this on Yom Kippur. At one point in the service, our astute young rabbi opened up a public discussion from the bimah about business ethics in view of Enron, Tyco and Global Crossing. After a few minutes of discussion, I raised my hand and said, "We have an issue of business ethics in the Jewish organizational business — the ethics of how we treat one another." For the rest of the day, people, many of them prominent in the community, continued to approach me, commenting on how correct I was, or asking me to explain further what I believed the issues were. I realized there is a great collective need in our community to explore this matter.

With all the exposure I have had to this issue and all the trans-continental and international airline seats I have occupied after meeting with my clients, I have given this a great deal of thought and weary reflection.

Where does it begin? At the core of Jewish organizational structure is a very particular professional-lay relationship. Notice I have turned its common parlance around and have not called it the "lay-professional relationship." Describing it as the lay-professional relationship basically states the problem.

In Jewish institutions, as opposed to my non-Jewish clients, the lay people have a lot more hands-on day-to-day involvement with the organization. In many cases this is extraordinary and bespeaks a very heartfelt level of commitment. We would not be the community we are today without this level of lay involvement. Yet, it is not without its problems. And we cannot be afraid or intimidated to approach those problems.

Lay-professional means the lay people are primary. Primary over those who devote their studies, professions and career goals to Jewish life. It says that who gives the money or sits on a committee is more important than who builds a lifetime of service, giving 18 professional hours a day, weekends and holidays (yes, even Jewish ones) servicing what that money actually does.

People will say I am splitting hairs, that it is an equal relationship. But in most cases, we know this is simply not true. The question this begs is: Who really holds control?

When we work with a Jewish organization, there are four words that we most often hear from the professionals throughout the working relationship, as we approach the decision-making process. "But the lay people...." It is a constant mantra. The professionals shake with fear and uncertainty when they say these words. I have come to realize that these four words stifle their creativity, their leadership, their thinking, their self-confidence and their professionalism. I cannot count how many meetings I have sat in where the professionals, who possess the most knowledge, sit silently while their lay counterparts "run" the meeting. This fear and absence of control by the professionals inhibits the Jewish enterprise from being all it can be. There must be important decisions which professionals are allowed to guide, and in some cases are left alone to make.

This issue rarely arises in non-Jewish organizations.

These thoughts are in no way to discount the importance of lay people in Jewish organizational life. It is a partnership. Lay people fund the existence of this enterprise. Good lay people understand the issues, are committed, knowledgeable and integral to the vision, flourishing and survival of the enterprise. However, like in any partnership, roles must be clearly defined. If one partner is shorn of his or her decision-making responsibilities, particularly when he or she understands the issue or situation at hand better than anyone in the room, the partnership is not healthy.

In a changing world, where the Jewish enterprise is threatened on many levels, it is time that the partnership be examined, restructured and publicly addressed. There needs to be respect for the professional’s professionalism, insight, knowledge and vision. The schools training the professionals must meet the challenge of professionals trained to actually lead, not just follow and serve.

From this partnership flows the nature and culture of Jewish organizations. If we begin tikun olam at this level, then we can begin to repair what else needs to be fixed.

Torah values of how we treat one another must be integrated into this restructuring process. There needs to be a code of conduct. Professionals need to be trained in this code as to how to treat fellow professionals, employees and lay counterparts. Lay people need to be trained in this code as to how to treat the professionals as well as each other, including those lay people who are not major funders. In some cases, we actually need to civilize and Judaize our organizational behavior.

We need to call for a conference to address the issue.

Papers must be published in both professional and general Jewish publications which begin to create a new organizational culture. We must open the discussion for robust and healthy debate. Respectfully.

We must create manuals and codes. We have to establish training sessions. How we treat one another is as important as how we save one another.

I am certain someone will ask why, if I find this relationship so distasteful, do I continue to pursue Jewish organizations as clients? I am them. And they are me. I am bound at the hip to the Jewish enterprise. From our perch as marketers, delving deeply into their souls and operations I see Jewish organizations as nothing short of extraordinary, paving the path for daily miracles. I am proud of these organizations and to be playing such an integral role.

I just want to see us be all we can be.

Gary Wexler is an advertising executive and consultant to Jewish agencies.

RE: Article on Lay/Professional Relations-- Response to Gary Wexler
by Robert Hyfler

The strength of our communal system is precisely in the passion for excellence of all engaged, the full empowerment of laity in setting communal policy and the specialized empowerment of the paid professional in policy formulation and implementation. At its best, (which I have seen consistently over the past 21 years in this work) the system comes closest to the Jeffersonian notion of citizen leadership. This concept also bears close resemblance to the biblical vision of leadership prior to the anointment (against Samuel's and God's best advice) of King Saul. (Read Samuel I, VIII for the nightmare of overpowering the professional -- better yet look at United Way!)

While a clarification of role is clearly needed, what is also needed is greater discernment in avoiding mediocrity and promoting excellence and accountability. No one, lay or professional, deserves a free ride in our system. All of us need to be better trained, more greatly aligned, more professional and more appreciative of respective skills and roles. I know you would not disagree with this last comment.

Paid professionals who work hard at protecting the dignity and logic of the partnership will never "quake with fear and uncertainty" in working with their volunteer counterparts, are never "followers" ,and can "lead and serve" most effectively and professionally without having to go back to school to learn to create a culture dominated by the financially remunerated.

A last word on civility. Jewish meetings and decision making processes are fueled by the passion and urgency inherent in our work. We are also a people of great intimacy and familiarity. While sometimes we cross a boundary or two and sometimes we fall short of our own standards of respect and derech eretz, this is not in my mind an issue that requires conferences and protocols... In fact, I kinda like it. Maybe that's the difference between Brooklyn and LA!

Robert Hyfler
Chief Operating Officer
The Jewish Federation of Greater Washington

Thanks to an honor accorded to me by AJCOP, the Bernard Rodkin Israel Experience Committee, its chair Herman Markowitz, and AJCOP’s executive director Lou Solomon, I spent four weeks in Israel during the summer of 2002. My time was spent gaining a greater understanding of the social service system for the disabled. I chose to begin my study with an overview of the system and then, as a case study, to investigate the services available for the Israeli Deaf.

I began by visiting a variety of organizations that assist the disabled in Israel and receive support from either the Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) or the Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI) for this work. Additionally, my initial investigation included several meetings with professionals at the JDC and JAFI who are responsible for coordinating the work of those organizations with the disabled.

JDC and JAFI

Tamara Barnea, director of Disability and Rehabilitation Services at the JDC, was eminently helpful in describing the changes that unit has seen since it was restructured in 1989. Ms. Barnea introduced me to several disabled Israelis with whom they currently fund projects for the disabled community. One revolutionary example of the JDC's partnership is its project with the Women's Forum on Disability and its disabled founder and leader, Nili Broyer. This group not only works on the crucial issues of accessibility to medical services in the area of women's health, but it also engages in creating a generation of female leaders who are disabled to assume positions of power throughout the business and political sectors. Avital Sandler Loeff, Senior Project Manager of the JDC unit for Disabilities and Rehabilitation, has been a driving force behind the JDC's unique policy of encouraging participation of disabled adults at every level of a project. A notable example of this is JDC’s work at clinics for the newly blind. This project places social workers that are also experts in the area of disabilities in eye care clinics to advise those who are losing their sight or who are newly blind. These social workers offer information about assistive technologies, government policies and services, and community resources. Indicative of the JDC's unique policy, the social workers employed in these positions are blind. This creates both vocational opportunities in the disabled community as well as an opportunity for the newly blind to understand the potential and power of blind individuals.

General Disability/A Model for America to Adopt

In the best cases, many of the organizations and institutions in Israel closely mirror their America counterparts. Often, the professionals who serve the disabled community in Israel identify the level of service and the philosophy as fifteen to twenty years behind the United States. One outstanding exception to this is Shalva. Shalva, established by Kalman Samuels in 1990 is a seven-story center for children who are physically or mentally challenged. The center is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by therapists, activities directors, resource experts and volunteers trained to work with the disabled. Shalva offers more than 50 services and activities for the disabled.

Some of the services Shalva provides are similar to services provided in America, such as art therapy, music therapy and home economics training. However, some of the services Shalva offers are absolutely revolutionary. The hydrotherapy pool with its underwater speakers, wheelchairs lift, and reflective mirrors for viewing underwater physical therapy are unparalleled in the United States. Furthermore, the multi-sensory room at Shalva utilizes the most recent technological advances in interactive therapy from around the world. The room boasts a biofeedback mirror of pulsating lights (for stimulating brainwaves), "soft lights" (strands of rope lights durable but flexible enough for children to wrap around themselves), and many other unique activities.

Finally, Shalva offers something that most parents in America only dream about: once a week, 36-hour, ongoing respite care. Every day of the week, including Shabbat, children with physical or mental handicaps are enjoying Shalva's video room, touch-sensitive computer room, theater space, and 10 hand-painted Disney-themed bedrooms with matching bedspreads and decor. Each day of the week a specific a group of children is transported to Shalva. The group on Thursday, which is picked up after-school courtesy of Shalva and transported for an afternoon and evening of fun, comes to know each other as peers, friends and role models. Friday morning the "Thursday group" is delivered to school with freshly laundered clothes and a bag lunch, again courtesy of Shalva. In the United States most facilities offer one of three options: no respite care whatsoever; full-time residential care; or respite care on a limited and temporary basis (i.e. one day, one week, etc.). The concept of creating a chevre of disabled children who come together once a week while relieving their parents for 36 hours every week, 52 weeks a year, is virtually unknown.

Disabled in Israel

The JDC's Brookdale Institute estimates that there are 600,000 people in Israel who suffer some form of physical, sensory, emotional or cognitive disorder. 350,000 of these people are disabled adults between the ages of 21-65 and potential workforce members. In Israel there are 160,000 children suffering from disabilities or chronic conditions. Of this number, 65,000 suffer from more than one disability (such as physical disability and mental retardation). Furthermore, 57% of families with disabled children in Israel live below the poverty line.

According to the JDC's Brookdale Institute, "the gaps between needs and provided services are particularly large in the Arab sector." The rate of children with disabilities in the Arab community is higher than the rate in the Jewish community (8.3% as compared to 7.7%). The majority of those identified by Brookdale as "under-served" are Israeli Arabs residing in areas outside of the West Bank, Gaza Strip or territories.

The Deaf are an unusual subset of what is often referred to as the "disabled community." This is because unlike the blind or someone with cerebral palsy, the Deaf maintain a culture separate and different from the hearing world. This culture is not merely comprised of an inability to hear the spoken word. The Deaf community has a rich tradition of storytelling, poetry, theater, and history that is unique to its members. In America, Deaf culture is centered around American Sign Language (ASL). This method of communication has been recognized as a language, with all of the idioms, complexities and regional variations that one would expect.

Many people are surprised to discover that sign language is not universal. In fact, sign languages vary widely from country to country. The understanding that ASL is a language akin to English allows one to begin the basis of comprehension for this wide variety. For exactly the same reasons that we have not yet been able to achieve a universal spoken language (Esperanto, for example), it is almost impossible to convince 70 million Deaf worldwide to adopt a single means of expression. In Israel, Deaf individuals use Israeli Sign Language, which is quite different from American Sign Language. Additionally, in Israel there are some regional differences in signs between Jewish and Arab Deaf.

In America a distinct division is made by the disabled themselves between the "culturally Deaf" (those who prefer to communicate in ASL), the Hard of Hearing, and

those deaf who communicate through speech (often referred to as oralists). This differentiation is not always maintained by the social service system that tends to view the three groups as comprised of individuals who share the same needs.

Within this article the term Deaf (capital "D") is used here to denote those individuals who are hearing impaired and who have chosen to utilize sign language as a primary means of communicating. The term oralist is used to indicate those who are hearing impaired and have chosen to utilize lip-reading as a primary means of communication. An infant or child who has not identified a primary means of communication for her/himself is referred to as hearing impaired.

It is estimated that 5,000 people in Israel are hard of hearing. 30% of those above the age of 65 are hard of hearing. Bekol, founded in 1997 by three hard of hearing individuals, is the central organization for the hard of hearing in Israel. This group encompasses those who are hard of hearing from birth, people who gradually lose their hearing, late deafened people as well as a small number of Deaf. The group focuses on issues of advocacy and accessibility. What is uncommon about the group is that about half of the members are able to communicate orally and in Israeli sign language. In general hard of hearing individuals who are able to communicate orally frequently distance themselves from the Deaf by insisting on spoken communication and not learning sign language. This often accords them, in the view of the hearing world, with a greater deal of "normalcy" and distance from the label "disabled." Bekol constitutes an unique bridge between the hard of hearing and Deaf worlds.

The unusual nature of Bekol (in its use and acceptance of sign language) may be due to the preponderance of members under the age of 45 who have been hard of hearing for a significant portion of their lives. These members have been struggling with their identity as "disabled" for a greater portion of their lives than late deafened individuals who lose their hearing due to advanced age. This lengthy struggle may have left them more open to exploring avenues of communication that are not considered part of the "norm". Thus, younger members of Bekol who have been hard of hearing for most of their lives have adopted sign language without the fear of stigma that prevents late deafened adults from doing so.

It is estimated that Israeli Sign Language is used by close to 10,000 individuals (Institute for Advancement of Deaf Persons in Israel). In Israel, as in America, 90% of Deaf children are born to hearing parents. This often means that the journey from silence to communication is an arduous and halting process. At birth, most Israeli parents of hearing impaired infants hope that their child will be able to approximate as closely as possible the appearance and communication methods of the hearing. In this way they are not dissimilar from their counterparts in America.

In America the approach to the education of hearing impaired children has been dichotomized. The majority of students in the 1980's and early 1990's attended public schools under the auspices of a variety of "mainstreaming" initiatives. The greater the oral ability of a hearing impaired pupil, the greater the chance that that pupil would succeed under these mainstreaming initiatives. In contrast, a small but highly visible percentage of hearing impaired students attended Deaf residential schools. These schools offered classes and activities in sign language and frequently employed Deaf teachers and administrators. Culminating in the early 1980's, the Deaf adult population in America strongly advocated for hearing impaired children to attend "Deaf schools." Advocates fought for the opportunity for children to be taught sign language as a primary means of communication in an environment "among their peers" (other Deaf children and adults). This led to a sharp divide in education among the Deaf in America. Galludet University, the only Deaf university in the world, and most of the Deaf adult population advocated for Deaf residential education, while oralists, hearing educators and many parents demanded mainstreaming in public school classrooms. The effect was cacophonous.

By the late 1990's the militants had softened on both sides of the debate. Many Deaf children today receive instruction in a combination of Deaf and mainstreamed settings. Interaction with Deaf peers has been acknowledged as a key objective by those on both sides of the debate. Thus while the communication methods in the academic classrooms remain somewhat under contention, hearing impaired children who do not attend Deaf schools are being exposed to a wider array of interaction and education by Deaf adults than ever previously achieved. This is due to the now prevalent view that cultural exposure, pride and empowerment of hearing impaired children to Deaf culture is of paramount importance.

In Israel, the debate has played out in a diametrically opposed manner. Instead of mainstreaming being viewed as a loss of cultural identity, Deaf advocates in Israel are actively engaged in seeking increased opportunities for hearing impaired students to join mainstream classrooms. Many Israeli advocates argue that "deaf schools" are dumping grounds for those children who "can not make it" in mainstream classrooms. There is a stigma placed on children who attend these schools and expectations for some of their graduates are low.

It seems clear that this startling divide in philosophy and approach is the result of a lack of higher education in a Deaf setting for Israeli hearing impaired. Israel has no comparable university to America's Galludet University. In order to pursue higher education, the Israeli hearing impaired pupil must be able to successful integrate into a mainstream/oral classroom because the only opportunity for continued study is in a classroom that does not utilize sign language.

The difference in approach to education between America and Israel may seem esoteric or minute to some. However, it actually informs every aspect of an Israeli Deaf person’s life. From birth, hearing parents, social workers, educators, and medical professionals work hard to increase the oral ability of an Israeli hearing impaired child. Speaking and lip-reading are emphasized to the virtual exclusion of sign language. Children attend special gan (pre-school) classes to help them prepare for oral instruction at public schools in mainstream classrooms. Children with exceptional oral skills (highly prized) will attend first grade in a classroom where all information is delivered orally. Children with average oral skills will be placed in special "contained classrooms" that offer instruction both orally and in other manners. These contained classrooms are located within public schools and hearing impaired students are integrated into mainstream classes as their ability permits. Finally, children with poor oral skills are sent to special Deaf schools, located physically and philosophically outside of the public school system.

The instruction at these three levels varies widely. While it is, of course, unfair to state that no advanced instruction takes place at the special Deaf schools or that no mainstreamed student is ever discouraged from achievement, there are some valid generalizations. Because there is no higher education in Israel that delivers instruction in sign language, those students with poor oral skills are not generally encouraged or expected to seek further study in a university. Those students with fair oral skills have only recently begun to seek admittance to institutes of higher education. They are fighting with great difficulty to receive adequate interpreters, text translators and other accessibility tools from the universities. Those few with excellent oral skills are by no means assured a place in higher education. However, of the three groups, it is this group that is most likely to continue their education post-high school.

In the hearing world one’s educational degree affects one’s occupational opportunities. This is true even more so in the Deaf world. The vast majority of Deaf adults in Israel have a high school diploma or lower level of education for reasons clearly stated above. These adults are often offered the most menial employment, if any. Due to frequent economic hardships in Israel, most Israeli Deaf in this group never find steady work. Instead they continue to live at home and are cared for by their parents for the rest of their lives. This causes a tremendous crisis as these parent/caretakers begin to age and their own health fails.

A small minority of Israeli Deaf attend university classes. Of this number an even smaller percentage matriculate. However, even those individuals who do not complete a degree receive benefit from exposure to technological assistive devices and the creative occupational opportunities that are available at the universities. Through voice-to-text programs for the computer, mentoring by disabled professionals, and a wide array of international resources, Deaf Israeli university students are able to view and access a world that the majority of their non-university peers can, literally, not even dream of. Many Deaf adults who do not attend university classes are unaware of a larger context of Deaf culture, opportunity, and success. They live, isolated and removed from any sense of shared experience, for the entire span of their lives.

This summer I volunteered in a summer camp for Israeli Deaf children. The summer camp is an outgrowth of a Deaf school known as "Kol Israel Chaverim." The counselors at the camp are teachers from the school. In essence, they educate the children year-round; though during the summer the formality and pace of the instruction is relaxed.

70% of the school is Israeli Arab. These children come from the wealthier Arab families inside of the green line and are, mostly, bused from local neighborhoods. The children, Jews and Arabs, are kept separate at all times. Classrooms for the Arab students are located on the top floor of the school, while Jewish students attend class on the first floor of the school. Arab classrooms are staffed by hearing Arab teachers and hearing Arab aides who teach Israeli (Hebrew) sign language and Arabic speech. The Jewish classrooms are staffed by hearing Jewish teachers and hearing young religious women doing their national service for the army through teaching the Deaf. Even on days when the entire school went on a field trip, the two groups took separate buses to the same location and, invariably, chose meeting places as far as possible away from each other.

Many of the teachers and several of the aides had received training at either Hebrew University’s or Bar Ilan’s newly formed special education training programs. However, few had degrees in education or special needs. All of the teachers were hearing. None had Deaf children or Deaf parents. Many knew no Deaf people outside of the children and parents at the school. The focus, both in the Arab and the Jewish classrooms, was oralism. This does not mean that the majority of communication took place verbally. In fact, most teachers used what is known as total communication (T.C.). This method emphasizes the spoken word and follows the grammar of the verbal language, but augments the receiver’s understanding by glossing key words in sign language as they are spoken. It is widely believed by its practioners to be a method of focusing one’s attention on oral communication while permitting a greater level of understanding than is possible by lip-reading alone.

The school, to its credit, has a one Deaf man and one Hard of Hearing woman on staff. He serves as the school’s instructor for sign language and she is an aide in a classroom of hearing impaired children with multiple disabilities. Additionally to be commended, one or two outstanding teachers served as lead staff at the camp during the summer. These teachers had a higher level of training and were able to traverse the boundaries between the Arab and Jewish classes. Also, the care and commitment of the teachers of the entire camp is to be lauded.

However, the segregation of the children from each other, the lack of formal training among some of the teachers, and the consistent use of the oral methods, even when it was clear students not only preferred sign language, but were incapable of comprehension without it, were barriers to achieving the best recreational and educational environment the camp could have provided.

In the past 13 years a startling number and variety of organizations for the hearing impaired have been formed in Israel. Organizations such as BeKol (for the hard of hearing), The Institute for the Advancement of the Deaf and Hearing Impaired, The Association of the Deaf in Israel, Yeshiva University Alumni’s Jewish Heritage Program for the Hearing-Impaired and others are changing the landscape and reality of Israeli Deaf life. In little over a decade these groups have successfully advocated for the following changes: computer assisted note-taking in university classrooms; a special telephone relay system for Deaf and hard of hearing; assistive technology in seven movie theaters and two museums; Israeli sign language interpreters in university classrooms; a growing number of TV programs, including all news broadcasts, captioned for the hearing impaired; and the loan of laptop computers to Deaf and hard of hearing university students.

In recent years Deaf groups have joined newly formed coalitions of disabled individuals such as Bizchut and the Israeli Organization of the Disabled. These groups, along with others of a similar nature, have successfully advocated for the following changes: the Equal Rights for People with Disabilities Law (1998); legislation mandating accessibility of polling stations (1999); implementation of the accessibility of public transportation legislation part of the Equal Rights Law (2000).

Furthermore, the Israeli Organization of the Disabled gained national and international media coverage during its recent 77 day sit-in at the Israeli Knesset. The group, led by a small coalition of leaders with a variety of disabilities, was moved to action by the desperate poverty of the disabled individuals who rely on the 1741 NIS (approx. $430 US) monthly government disability allowance. The primary demand of the Israeli Organization of the Disabled was that the allowance be immediately raised to Israel's minimum wage of 3260 NIS a month. In the end a compromise was reached, permitting increases of 200-1050 NIS per month depending on individual circumstances.

The Israeli Organization of the Disabled, Bizchut and other coalitions of disabled individuals are currently advocating for a whole host of reforms including: ensuring equal access to all buildings (particularly residential); employment equality; protection of disabled crime victims; accessible reproductive and mental health services; and day care centers for the severely disabled. Their partners include the JDC and JAFI as well as a special commission in the Israeli government established to study the area of disabilities. As the visibility and activities of the disabled individual and disabled rights groups increase in Israel, we can expect that these and other initiatives will be at the forefront of a debate in Israeli society about inclusion and rights of its disabled citizens.

Hasbara viewed by the Intelligentsia

Hasbara and the Media

Changing Images

Recommendations

New Study Shows Hiring of Fundraising Professionals Continues at Strong Pace, Even in Down Economy. By David Edell and David Hinsley Cheng

KEY FINDINGS

New Study Shows Hiring of Fundraising Professionals Continues at Strong Pace, Even in Down Economy.
By David Edell and David Hinsley Cheng