Brit Tzedek v'Shalom

Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace

The following is an article from The New York Jewish Week, from June 21st, 2002

Mostly Quiet On The Left : U.S. groups offer muted response to UJC decision on aid beyond Green Line
by Julie Weiner

The Jewish federation system's decision last week to provide humanitarian assistance to Jews living in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza is sparking some reservations, but little outcry, from American Jewish leftists - another sign that 20 months of Palestinian-initiated violence has moved American Jewry rightward.

Last week's decision by the United Jewish Communities, a reversal of a longstanding policy, came in the wake of mounting criticism from Jews who were supportive of the settlers or who simply believed that the community should help Jews regardless of where they live.

It also came as the UJC is divvying up almost $300 million in emergency assistance to Israel and as many Jews around the world fear that current violence is threatening the very existence of the Jewish state.

Until last week, the umbrella for North American federations did not fund services beyond the Green Line, or Israel's pre-1967 borders.

However, many individual federations - and a range of Jewish charities - did fund such services, so it is not yet clear whether the change will mean a significant new flow of dollars to residents beyond the Green Line.

Whether because the policy change's implications remain to be seen or simply because opposition to individual settlers may have softened after such a long period of Palestinian suicide bombings, few left-leaning Jewish groups are criticizing the UJC's policy shift, at least for now.

One of the sole Jewish groups speaking out is a small newcomer, Brit Tzedek V'Shalom, a group of American Jews that describes itself as pro-Israel and anti-occupation.

Marcia Freedman, chair of Brit Tzedek V'Shalom's interim executive committee and a former Knesset member, said her group is unhappy with the policy shift because "We, like the majority of Israelis, believe that the settlements are an obstacle to peace."

Settlers already receive more government assistance per capita than other Israeli citizens, Freedman said, noting that they continue to receive special mortgage subsidies and free early childhood education despite widespread budget cuts to social services within the Green Line.

"If the UJC wanted to invest its money wisely in terms of the long-term interest of Israelis, it would invest in a fund for settlers who would like to return to the Green Line but cannot do so for economic reasons," Freedman said.

However, despite her disappointment in the UJC's policy shift, Freedman said her group is not going to mobilize its supporters to protest in any way, nor does she expect it to affect prospects for negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.

Other left-wing groups were more muted.

Even Americans for Peace Now, which has long argued that Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are an obstacle to peace with the Palestinians, has been quiet regarding the new policy.

"Given everything that's taken place over the past year and a half, particularly as settlement communities have been targeted by terrorist attacks, it's very understandable why the American Jewish community would want to be helpful to individual settlers who've been victims of terrorist attacks," said Lewis Roth, a spokesman for APN.

"But at the same time there has to be a note of caution about the community going beyond that and helping organizations or settlement communities themselves because of the political and security implications that would have," Roth added. "We'll just have to hope that the UJC is able to walk that line."

The Reform movement's Union of American Hebrew Congregations, another longtime opponent of expanded settlements, is also reserving criticism - but is a bit leery.

Emily Grotta, a UAHC spokeswoman, said the group is "certainly not opposed to funding individuals, but there's a slippery slope."

Grotta did not elaborate on exactly what the slippery slope might be, but said funding institutions, rather than individuals, in the West Bank and Gaza might be more problematic.

The UAHC, like the other main branches of Judaism in North America, recently became an official partner in the UJC's emergency campaign for Israel, urging its members to contribute to the fund.

That support is not changing, Grotta said. "As long as it's going to individuals, we're not going to say just because they live outside the Green Line that they shouldn't be helped."

Marvin Lender, chair of the executive committee of the Israel Policy Forum, which has been a proponent of the Oslo peace process and encourages the U.S. to maintain a strong role in encouraging negotiations, said he supports the UJC's decision.

Lender, who is also on the UJC board and has chaired the UJC's recent Israel solidarity rallies, said, "We have for years helped Jews wherever they are, and the situation today is disastrous. So I'm supportive of the decision we've made and glad we're doing it."

Asked if he thought the new policy might send a political message or affect the prospect for peace negotiations, Lender said "not at all."

Norman Rosenberg, executive director of the New Israel Fund, said his group does not take positions on what other Jewish groups do, and that it plans to maintain its own policy of funding projects only within the Green Line.

The New Israel Fund provides grants and technical assistance to a range of Israeli nonprofits working in such areas as civil and human rights, Jewish-Arab equality and advancing the status of women.

"The feeling has always been that the territories are a disputed area," Rosenberg said, adding that because their final status is unclear, funding organizations in the West Bank and Gaza is "not from our institution's point of view a sensible thing to do."

NIF has been approached by Jewish groups operating over the Green Line before, particularly by some people seeking to establish a rape crisis center, but turned them down.

"A couple of" NIF donors who are also federation donors have called the NIF expressing concern about the federations' policy shift, Rosenberg said. "But reaction has come from very few people."