The Jewish Agency and Israel-Diaspora Relations:
Some Concrete Steps for the Improvement
of Jewish Agency Programs
Daniel J. Elazar
Assembly delegates and friends: My assignment today is a
very difficult one -- to talk about Israel-diaspora relations in
a manner that does not repeat phrases that have now become
banalities, that is more than exhortative, and that does not
propose undo-able actions or unattainable goals. Let me try in
this forum to overcome these perils endemic to the subject by
focusing very specifically on Jewish Agency functions and
governance as elements which make Israel-diaspora relations real.
My intention is to suggest ways and means to strengthen those
relations through improvements in carrying out the functions of
the Agency.
What I am going to say is based on premises I have
articulated elsewhere -- to wit:
1. Israel-diaspora relations have moved in the past 20 years
from a situation in which a few top leaders from each side would
meet with each other periodically, to a relationship in which
there are hundreds if not thousands of continuing ties on all
levels of Jewish activity -- public and private. Project Renewal
was both a manifestation and a cause of this sea-change.
Put more graphically, we have moved from a situation where
Israel and the diaspora were two separate institutional pyramids
with only the tips touching occassionally, to one in which for
some purposes we are all part of a common mosaic or matrix
composed of larger and smaller cells, in communication with one
another in a wide variety of ways, so that activists of all
kinds, as well as the top leadership, are increasingly linked to
one another.
2. Both Israel and the diaspora -- especially the American
diaspora -- have basic ideologies, needs and politics of their
own which are built into their respective situations, are
unlikely to change very much, and which must be taken into
consideration by the other party if we are to live and work
together successfully. More specifically, in terms of ideology,
Israelis, no matter how committed to working with the diaspora,
deep down in their heart of hearts inevitably question its
legitimacy as an equal partner with the Jewish state. American
and certain other Jews, no matter how committed spiritually and
otherwise to Israel, deep down in their heart of hearts see
Israel as no more than first among equals in a network of
permanent, secure Jewish communities around the world.
Beyond that, each has its survival needs which, at times,
will lead it to take actions that upset, anger, or just plain
puzzle the other side. The Pollard case is a case in point.
Finally, each has its own brand of politics. In Israel, it
is a highly partisan politics in which every public decision and
many private ones are subsumed within the party political
framework. In the diaspora, it is the politics of personalities
and organizational interests jockeying for position, often by
emphasizing public relations over less visible solid
accomplishment.
3. We have an institutional structure in place, a network of
functional authorities, some single purpose like ORT and some
multi-purpose like the Jewish Agency, that are in the process of
developing relationships with one another, already forming a
package, but one that is not yet tied up. It is the task of this
generation to transform that network into a properly functioning
world Jewish polity, just as it was the task of the last
generation to secure Israel and the individual diaspora
communities that make up that polity, after a century of upheaval
and destruction.
Some Necessary Conditions
We also know something about the conditions that we believe
are necessary to achieve the results we seek. They include:
Maximum accountability within the institutions of the
Israel-diaspora partnership.
As much of a "hands-on" approach as possible, enabling those
involved in Jewish Agency programs, either as donors or as
recipients, to be involved in determining the character and
functioning of those programs.
Minimization of bureaucracy and waste to the extent possible.
Improved cooperation between the Jewish Agency and the Israel
government, recognizing that however much separation of their
functions in the same field may be desired, in fact it is
difficult to impossible to implement, for objective as well as
subjective reasons.
The Jewish Agency must reassess its present responsibilities
with an eye to reassigning priorities and even some
responsibilities themselves as the world changes in the last
generation of the 20th century.
Moving to the Project Renewal Model
In concrete terms, the most successful Jewish Agency-related
effort to strengthen Israel-diaspora relations since the
establishment of the State is Project Renewal. It has not only
proven itself in connection with urban revitalization in Israel
where its record is "world class," but it has given us all an
indication of what can be achieved in the Israel-diaspora
relationship.
The key to Project Renewal's success were the twinnings of
diaspora and Israeli communities. Hence, my recommendation is
that the Jewish Agency commit itself to build comprehensive
twinnings, including and cutting across other Agency functions,
so as to build in the interactive component which has made
Project Renewal so great. To that end, I would recommend that a
significant percentage -- say, up to 20 percent -- of the Israel
allocations of diaspora communities be set aside for Jewish
Agency programs based upon such twinning or in some cases on
direct diaspora responsibility for particular projects in Israel.
Furthermore, I suggest that the Jewish Agency be concerned
with encouraging the development of a broad-based Magbit in
Israel whose proceeds in part would be used both on a local
community and a countrywide basis to match diaspora contributions
and, in part, to go into a common pool for Jewish Agency
activities in the diaspora.
Let me be more specific, program by program:
1. Aliya and Klita
In my opinion, the time has come to apply the Project Renewal
model to immigration and absorption through the establishment of
"Project Aliya". Without overburdening you with specifics, let
me suggest that it could work in the following way:
First we would distinguish between aliya from free countries
and aliya from oppressed countries. In the case of the former,
the communities from which the olim come should have a major
share of the responsibility for their successful aliya and klita.
They should take responsibility for enabling the transition to
occur with a minimum amount of conflict and misunderstanding and
in such a way that there can be maximum preservation of those
aspects of life deemed essential by different people coming from
different cultural backgrounds. In doing this, they will work
with the Jewish Agency and the Ministry of Absorption, or
preferably for a joint authority established by the Jewish Agency
and the government of Israel that replaces the two, as local
communities work with the Jewish Agency Project Renewal
Department and the Ministry of Housing and Construction.
The diaspora communities should be involved in everything
from the appointment of the appropriate joint committees to
diaspora leadership running interference for "their" olim. Their
local counterparts on the Israeli side should be the associations
of olim from particular countries and/or communities, that shall
be recognized as such and strengthened accordingly.
In order to carry out this task, the Jewish Agency or the
joint authority will establish a computerized system of
information on aliyah matters and reassign resources from other
activities for the maintenance of a current data base. In turn,
each diaspora community should commit itself to provide computer
terminals in central locations within the community (if
successful, ultimately in every major synagogue and community
center), where the latest readouts can be obtained on job
opportunities, immigrant's rights, mortgages and other subsidies
available, etc. The number of shlichim should be drastically
reduced in accordance with this new system.
This new system of providing support for klita can be used to
move to a system which has already been widely discussed, of
providing a general grant to each oleh or family of olim to
dispose of as they see fit in the klita process, rather than the
provision of extensive services by either the Agency or the
government. Since his or her local community will be involved,
should the oleh return to the diaspora, he or she could be held
responsible by contract for either returning all or part of the
funds provided, as agreed in an initial contract, thus
substantially reducing the problem of exploitation of rights
which has plagued the aliya system since the system of privileges
for olim was introduced.
With regard to olim from countries of oppression where there
are no local communities to provide them with support, twinnings
can be arranged with diaspora communities in the free world to
provide similar services in conjunction with the Jewish Agency
and the government.
In sum, the aliya and klita system will be transformed into
the same kind of quadripartite partnership that has worked so
well in Project Renewal, involving the diaspora community, the
Jewish Agency, the immigrant associations in Israel, and the
Israeli government.
Since aliya is a never ending project, this is one in which
we can expect the Jewish Agency to continue to be active for the
indefinite future, and it should be structured accordingly.
2. Rural Settlement
In my opinion, the Jewish Agency should phase itself out of
this function as soon as possible for two reasons:
A. At this stage of the country's development, it is most
suitable for the exclusive control of the Israeli government,
especially since command of the settlement activity is beyond the
Green Line where the Agency cannot be involved even now.
B. Hard as it may be to confront this reality from a Zionist
perspective, the old notions that settlement on the land is the
highest form of Zionism are utterly obsolete. As it is, there
are far too many rural settlements at this time, which is one of
the main reasons why so many are in economic crisis. At some
point, the question of these existing settlements will have to be
confronted head-on, painful as that may be, or else either the
government and the Agency will continue to pour hundreds of
millions of dollars into a bottomless pit -- in what is
euphemistically called "consolidation" -- to save what cannot be
saved and has not been saved anywhere in the world. Hence new
rural settlements are really no longer necessary, nor should they
be encouraged. Rural settlement was one of the glorious aspects
of the Jewish Agency's history. That glory should not be
diminished by continuing an obsolete activity after it has lost
its usefulness.
It must be recognized that such a phase-out may not be
immediately do-able. In that case, the Agency must do two
things:
Concentrate any new settlement activity in the direction of
the new forms of community settlement which are essentially
suburban or exurban in character, not designed to be
agricultural, but rather to provide the benefits of settlement of
the land while at the same time recognizing present economic,
social and geographic realities. Since the founding of each of
these settlements is estimated by the Rural Settlement Department
to be less than half the cost of the founding of a traditional
kibbutz or moshav, this is a more economical way of dealing with
the issue.
The Jewish Agency must live up to its responsibilities as a
funding agent and prepare a plan for true consolidation of
settlements.
None of this has a direct Israel-diaspora dimension, except
to the extent that here a diaspora leadership cut loose from old
ideological presuppositions may be able to help the Israelis
overcome their own sentiments in this regard.
Beyond that, it is possible to look into whether or not
diaspora communities can be twinned with rural settlements as
they have been twinned with Project Renewal neighborhoods. The
problem here is that the rural settlements need economic
assistance, not community centers or day care -- assistance
beyond the capabilities of diaspora community fundraising and, as
I have suggested, even beyond the capabilities of the whole
Jewish people to sustain.
3. Youth Aliya
As we all know, Youth Aliya is another service that is
presently being studied to see whether its strong commitment to
residential education is still necessary in every case. An
otherwise highly successful program, Youth Aliya has recognized
this by moving in two directions -- one, by establishing youth
centers which are daytime programs for disadvantaged youth who
remain at home with their families and, two, by introducing
programs to bring diaspora youth to Israel to study for limited
time periods. The diaspora leadership should encourage this
self-examination with a view to increasing the role of both of
these new initiatives. At the present time, of the 17,650
students in Youth Aliya educational frameworks as of March 1987,
only 2,500 were in youth centers and 600 in projects for youth
from abroad, or less than 20 percent of the total.
With regard to direct diaspora involvement, the same twinning
process can be implemented. The diaspora should be and to some
extent already is involved in the projects for youth from abroad
and it can be twinned with youth centers that are, by definition,
located in municipalities. Indeed, that twinning can be part of
the comprehensive twinning I propose, whereby a particular
diaspora community will acquire a wide range of responsibilities
in a particular Israeli city neighborhood or town -- for Project
Renewal, for Youth Aliya, for Jewish Agency housing programs
through Amigour, and for any locally-based social programs,
thereby establishing a continuing, comprehensive relationship.
4. Education
The Jewish Agency's responsibilities in education are
three-fold:
To provide supplementary support for Israel's institutions of
higher education.
To provide an Israel experience for diaspora youth that will
strengthen their Jewish identity and knowledge and hopefully
encourage them to settle in Israel, and
To assist in the improvement of Jewish education in the
diaspora communities themselves.
With regard to the first, since planning for higher education
is in the interest of the state council for higher education,
there is little to be done through the Jewish Agency in the way
of increasing Israel-diaspora cooperation, even though the
institutions themselves are major elements in the structure of
Israel-diaspora relations. Every Israeli university is, in
effect, a national institution, a university belonging to the
entire Jewish people, governed by a board of trustees drawn from
throughout world Jewry, with faculties and student bodies equally
diverse. All obtain both their operating and capital budgets
from Jews throughout the world. They deserve exploration in
their own right with regard to their improvement as vehicles for
fostering Israel-diaspora relations.
With regard to the second, the Jewish Agency can have an
impact on institutions of higher education and others in Israel.
The Agency's Jewish Education Committee is already hard at work
exploring the possibilities of enhancing the Israel experience.
No doubt they will have much to say about the subject, but we
already know that there is nothing comparable to the Israel
experience in strengthening Jewish commitment, no matter what the
background of the beneficiary of that experience or where he or
she will spend his later life.
Finally, it is only in recent years that the Jewish Agency
has become substantially involved in Jewish education in the
diaspora, although it always has provided funds to support some
of the WZO Education Department programs. This new initiative is
part of the reassessment and reassignment of priorities within
the Agency initiated by the Caesarea Process. Because we are at
the very beginning of the road in this process, this is the time
to make crucial decisions with regard to what the role of the
Jewish Agency should be in diaspora Jewish education.
It is clear that, with a few exceptions, the Jewish Agency
should not be running schools. That is a responsibility of the
communities. It is also clear that the Jewish Agency has a role
to play, particularly in the smaller communities, in providing
back-up assistance, whether in the form of teaching personnel,
curriculum materials and guidance, or in similar areas. Now is
the time for the ground rules to be set.
In my opinion, these ground rules must include an
identification of those functions in which the Jewish Agency will
have to play a significant role for all communities, those in
which it should play no role at all or at best a minimal one for
most, and those which are on the "it depends" list. The ground
rules should also include some kind of classification of
communities according to their Jewish educational needs and
resources, since Agency involvement will have to be greater where
the needs are greatest and the resources least.
Thus, in my opinion, the Jewish Agency must play a major role
in Israel experience programs. However, in principle, it should
not be involved in operating schools in diaspora communities,
except where there are no possibilities for the local community
to do so. Nor should the Agency play much of a role in the
United States and other large, strong and prosperous diaspora
communities; while it will obviously have to play a far greater
role in Latin America, to give one example.
Because of the nature of education, the diaspora communities
will have to be very much involved in the activities affecting
their children. Thus partnerships will include that local
dimension that we are seeking as the norm.
5. Social Programs
The new additions to the social programs -- Otzma and the
Israel Forum -- are in themselves oriented toward Israel-diaspora
relations. This is likely to be the trend in this category, and
the category may lend itself to adding social programs with an
Israel-diaspora dimension. Even the older programs in this
category would lend themselves to a greater diaspora role. The
Israel Education Fund already has. The regional development
programs and the leadership development programs both could fit
into the comprehensive twinning arrangements mentioned in
connection with Youth Aliya. They should be moved in that
direction.
6. Housing
It is generally agreed by all that the Jewish Agency's role
in providing housing should be phased out, but it is also
recognized that it will be a good while before that phase-out is
complete. In the interim, since the Agency's housing programs
through Amigour are located in specific communities and even
neighborhoods, they should be folded into the comprehensive
twinning arrangements.
7. Other Functions
In many respects the most sensitive budget items in the
Agency budget are to be found under "Other Functions" through
which the Jewish Agency supports activities deemed worthy through
other organizations and makes allocations to institutions that
are not organically linked to it. As a result there are
literally dozens, if not hundreds, of Israel-diaspora
relationships on the micro level within this category, each of
which needs to be assessed separately. I have neither the time
nor the capability of doing so on this occasion. I will touch
only on the issue of religious pluralism which has become such a
critical issue in Israel-diaspora relations.
Here, too, we begin with different sets of premises operative
in Israel and the diaspora, regardless of religious stance. That
is to say, we can take for granted that for ideological and
institutional reasons, Orthodox Jewry seeks to avoid recognizing
non-Orthodox streams in Judaism as equally entitled to support
for their religious activities (there is no question as to their
Jewishness). Beyond that, however, Israeli expectations with
regard to the Jewish religion differ from those of many diaspora
Jews, certainly those in the United States and the other
countries of the Emancipation. These differences have an impact
on the critical question of "Who is a rabbi?" and "Who is a
legitimate convert?" -- the two operative questions that have
been most influential in shaping Israel-diaspora conflict on the
issue.
It is equally important to remember that this is not a
conflict between Israel and the diaspora. Rather it is, in the
language of political science, a cross-cutting conflict, uniting
and dividing people in both Israel and the diaspora.
It is also important to remember in this connection that
while the Orthodox constitute a very small minority in the United
States, they are far stronger in Israel and the rest of the world
in sheer numbers. Indeed, as I have shown elsewhere, they have a
plurality, no matter how the numbers of the various religious
streams are measured.
The Jewish Agency will, willy-nilly, have a major role to
play in dealing with matters of religious pluralism, whether it
wants to or not, given the institution that it is. We must make
it a proper arena for considering this issue in such a way as to
be fair and to contribute to the maintenance of the unity of the
Jewish people. Institutions do this by defusing conflict, by
reducing issues to their most manageable components and then
dealing with those.
The Governance of the Jewish Agency
You will notice that I have concentrated first on functions
and only now am turning to governance. That is because, in my
opinion, we have gone about as far as we can go in addressing
governance directly; that further changes in governance, which I
believe are needed and will come about, will have to flow from
changes in Jewish Agency functions that will then have their
impact on the governance structure. I would mention three
important dimensions of governance, however:
The Israel-diaspora relationship requires an improved
relationship between the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist
Organization. This may indeed involve the separation of the
major WZO and Jewish Agency offices. This will be necessary if
the WZO and the Jewish Agency grow further apart. If, however,
as already may be happening, the WZO and the Jewish Agency come
to offer alternative ways for Jews and Jewish groups to be
represented in the world Jewish polity, then what may be required
are better means of cooperation and not necessarily more
separation.
The Jewish Agency now represents essentially the State of
Israel and the comprehensive community organizations (the framing
organizations) of the Jewish world. The WZO has represented the
Zionist parties almost exclusively, but in the last 15 years has
given more space to the representation of other groupings as
well, such as the synagogue movements, the women's groups, the
sports groups, and such sub-groups as the Sephardim that are not
directly represented as such in the governance of the Agency. If
carried further, this bi-partite system may be a creative
solution to the problem of representing Jews of differing
orientations and interests within the world Jewish polity. If
so, it will not eliminate conflict. That is part of life and
certainly part of public life anywhere, especially in a polity
which strives to live according to the principles of democratic
republicanism. But it will make that conflict more productive,
more useful, and more honestly reflective of the Jewish people
the way we are.
There is need for a great deal more planning in the governance
of the Jewish Agency. This includes both policy and strategic
planning. The Jewish Agency is very much a creature of its
Israeli environment in its lack of concern for such planning.
This needs to be remedied.
A proper system of program monitoring and evaluation must be
built into the governance mechanism. Programs should be
monitored continually and fully evaluated every 5 to 10 years.
Conclusion
While the emphasis here has been on the greater involvement
of the diaspora communities in the work of the Agency, we must
remember that the Israel-diaspora relationship is a two-way
street. As the Jewish Agency moves more into fields such as
Jewish education, Israeli involvement in diaspora affairs will
also grow. The question is how to best do this. Elsewhere I
have suggested that one important way is to build a parallel body
of Israeli civic leaders involved in Jewish Agency affairs in
Israel, to work along with those in the diaspora for the common
good of the Jewish people as a whole. Another way is for these
civic leaders to raise voluntary funds in Israel that will be
part of the common pool.
To date we have only scratched the surface of Israel-diaspora
cooperation. As we move toward a truly functional world Jewish
polity based upon a network of Israel-diaspora relations, those
relationships should both broaden and deepen, intensifying their
texture and their quality.
