Combating Antisemitism vs. Promoting Jewish Education and Engagement? |
The recent tragic attack at Temple Israel in the Detroit area is but the latest example of the distressing – and continued – rise of antisemitism in the United States.
Initially, I was shocked and surprised when such incidents first started occurring. As a boomer who grew up at a time heretofore perceived as the Golden Age of American Jewry, I thought that the problem of antisemitism per se was largely a thing of the past. But I am not shocked and surprised anymore.
I am not shocked and surprised anymore after reading Antisemitism: An American Tradition, written by Pamela S. Nadel, the Patrick Clendenen Chair in Women’s and Gender History and director of the Jewish Studies Program at American University. In this timely book, Nadel persuasively argues that antisemitism has a long, continuous – even at times violent – history in the country. Indeed, she emphasizes that the latest manifestation of hatred against Jews is not a new phenomenon or a rupture from the past. Rather, as she meticulously and exhaustively documents, it dates to the colonial era and has disturbingly burst out into the open again in a virulent way after October 7.
In response to this alarming and troubling turn of events, a vast – and increasing – amount of Jewish philanthropic dollars has poured into communal coffers since that fateful day to stem the tide of this disconcerting spike in antisemitism. In fact, it is estimated that approximately $600-$800 million was raised in 2023 (and a similar amount since), which represented a 20-30 per cent increase over 2022 and a 150 percent increase over the previous decade. The beneficiaries of such largesse have been the major players in the Jewish communal world, such as the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, Blue Square Alliance Against Hate, Hillel International, but also many smaller organizations and newer programmatic initiatives. With such funds, these organizations have used to varying degrees a wide range of tactics, including public education, advocacy, coalition building, as well as specific legislative and legal actions, among others, to address this painfully growing problem.
The persistence, if not continual upsurge in antisemitism, has sparked a fierce debate in the Jewish community about whether the huge amount of money that has been garnered for these otherwise laudable efforts is worth the philanthropic investment. On one side of the debate are those who think the fight against antisemitism is indeed worth the investment but acknowledge that the use of these funds must be employed in a strategic and prudent way. One of the leading proponents of this point of view is Andres Spokoiny, the head of the Jewish Funders Network. As he wrote last year in an article that appeared in Sapir: “The fight against antisemitism presents a paradox: “It demands great resources, and at the same time, money has only limited effect. That makes the need to spend wisely even more acute…Because the key question is not how much we spend, but how.”
On the other side of the debate are those who think that the fight is not worth the investment of such valuable communal resources. Perhaps the most prominent exponent of this position is Bret Stephens, the iconoclastic New York Times columnist. In his recent “State of World Jewry” speech at the 92nd Street Y, he provocatively argued that the fight against antisemitism was a losing battle and that Jewish communal funds could be better spent in other ways. As Stephens acerbically stated: “‘…the fight against antisemitism,’” which consumes tens of millions of dollars every year in Jewish philanthropy and has become an organizing principle across Jewish organizations, is a well-meaning but mostly wasted effort. We should spend the money and focus our energy elsewhere.” As to where it should be directed, he went on to say: “The goal of Jewish life is Jewish thriving. And by ‘Jewish thriving’…I mean a community in which Jewish learning, Jewish culture, Jewish ritual, Jewish concerns, Jewish aspiration and Jewish identification are central…”
Upon reflection, there are merits to arguments on both sides of this emotionally charged debate. Indeed, on the one hand, we know from our tortured history that unchecked antisemitism can lead to the moral abyss, so resources to support every possible effort to try to stop it in its tracks should be marshaled. On the other hand, it’s also the case that an effective antidote to antisemitism is various educational and identity building programs to create knowledgeable and proud Jews who can – and will – stand up for themselves when the situation demands, which I think underlies, in part, Stephen’s stand, the other being that greater Jewish literacy is a positive value in and of itself.
To accomplish both goals, which I fully support and applaud, will require a shift in existing Jewish philanthropic priorities if the inefficiencies and duplication of current anti-antisemitism activities, which Spokoiny estimates to be $150 million, can’t be squeezed out and deployed instead toward Jewish educational and engagement endeavors. For that to happen, there needs to be a change in the mindset on the part of communal leadership. As Rabbi David Wolpe best said in a recent article in The Dispatch: while antisemitism must be confronted, we must also invest heavily in such vital enrichment endeavors to create a strong and vibrant Jewish life and culture that’s worth defending. Beyond that, from a practical standpoint, achieving these goals would undoubtedly benefit by the pool of available resources being expanded, especially if leading Jewish philanthropists who have not given to the Jewish community in the past – or who have given only token amounts – stepped forward in a bigger way.
This debate over the use of communal resources has simmered somewhat, given the Iranian war, but may come to a boil again when developments calm down in Israel and the Middle East. How things play out in the months and years ahead will not only have an impact on the battle against antisemitism, which Nadel astutely observes will always be with us, but also could have implications for Jewish philanthropy – and the way that communal funds are distributed for domestic purposes in the future. (It also could have implications for giving to Israel, but that is a story for another time and place.) In the meantime, I’m skeptical that in the short run there will be a substantial reallocation of dollars and that leading philanthropists who previously have not donated will suddenly start contributing Jewishly in a significant manner, so for the time being this debate of how philanthropic funds should be spent will continue to be the subject of spirited discussion.