Sergey Kadinsky

This article was published on October 28, 2007 in the Israel National News, an Israeli internet-based news site that provides news and topics relating to Israel and the greater Jewish community. This news site's political outlook is considered to be religious-Zionist.

In the same week that the Knesset passed legislation allowing the Jewish National Fund to sell lands only to Jews, I received a letter from a critic of this legislation. Describing the goal of the New Israel Fund, the organization's Executive Director, Larry Garber, spoke of the "responsibility of making Israel a better place for all its citizens." The letter spoke of the NIF's mission as a middle way between Israel's far-left critics and the "cheerleaders who only see its merits," describing an Israel that can be "strong, secure, AND democratic."

Nowhere in Garber's letter does the NIF support the Jewish identity of Israel. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Garber was among the critics of the recent legislation. What does surprise me is the NIF's claim of being democratic while being critical of the democratic process that brought about the passing of the legislation. In its first reading, the legislation passed by a margin of 64-16. Unhappy with Garber's claiming support for the democratic process and his displeasure of its results; I sent him a reply letter.

In the 28 years since its founding, the NIF has granted more than $200 million to organizations in Israel that it finds favorable to its mission. An example is the Reform movement's Israel Religious Action Center and Rabbis for Human Rights, which have replanted over 500 Arab-owned olive saplings, allegedly damaged by settler vigilantes. In response, I asked Garber why the NIF has not provided similar funding to replant settler-owned saplings damaged by Arab and leftist vigilantes.

In addition, I noted that, while the NIF's grantees have successfully ensured the indictment of Tzfat Chief Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu for racist incitement speech, I cannot name one radical Muslim cleric targeted by the NIF's grantees for anti-Jewish incitement.

The NIF's grantees are helping to ensure that illegal Sudanese refugees residing in Israel receive asylum. At the same time, we have yet to see any effort on the NIF's part to assist the expelled Jewish residents of Gush Katif, many of whom remain homeless and unemployed.

These examples demonstrate that Garber's commitment to equality in Israel is a failure, as a result of selective policies.

In the Negev, the NIF's grantees have successfully helped unrecognized Bedouin villages receive adequate planning and development from the government. If a Jewish group were to unilaterally construct an "unrecognized village," it would be considered an "illegal outpost," and every effort would be made to dismantle the homes and prosecute the offenders. Why does an organization that claims to promote equality for all Israeli citizens support such a double standard?

Most of the voices criticizing the legislation have a track record of preferring an Israel that is a state of "all its citizens," even if this means forcing the state's Jewish identity into the backseat. Perhaps most audacious of all is Garber's claim of following the vision the Israel's founders, who called for a "strong, just, and tolerant nation." Does Garber honestly believe that David Ben-Gurion would have supported giving equal rights to a minority whose loyalty to Israel is lukewarm at best and questionable at worst?

The legislation allowing the Jewish National Fund to follow its mission of promoting Jewish settlement is not only a recognition of its right to do so as a private organization, but it also bucks the past decade's series of concessions, disengagements and secularism that have all acted to erode the strength and Jewish character of Israel.

The purpose of Garber's letter was to enlist my support for the NIF's goal of a "democratic" Israel. I concluded, "Until you can prove that your organization is even-handed in its choice of causes, I feel that my financial support would be best used by a less divisive, more tradition-oriented Jewish organization."

Critics have raised accusations of racism, and they will fund any attempt to rescind the legislation, whether it is through the legislature or the judiciary. In reality, their criticism only shows their own insecurity not only with the Jewish identity of Israel, but possibly also with their own personal identities as Jews.