Local News
JNF-Canada responds to CRA decision to revoke its charity status
(Posted August 30, 2024) We have been attempting to provide full information as to the ongoing situation in which the CRA has revoked JNF-Canada’s charitable status. Elsewhere on this website you can read stories that outline what has happened.
On August 28, JNF-Canada sent an email to supporters in which it provided a rigorous defence against the decision by the CRA to revoke its charitable status.
Here, in full, is what that email contained:
| Dear JNF Supporters, We thank you for your continued support and attention during this ongoing matter. The number of kind calls, texts, and emails to our offices have been overwhelming. Todah Rabbah. The following is JNF’s official response to the claims made in the CJN. The most upsetting thing about the article is that it plants doubt in our supporters minds. Your generosity and support is not something we take lightly, and keeping your trust is our #1 priority. Thank you for taking the time to read it and as always, we welcome any questions or concerns you might have. In the coming days, we will also be releasing additional documentation that we have submitted to the CRA to further explain JNF’s position. We believe we have a strong legal case, have more than demonstrated cooperation and compliance with CRA, and we are proud of what we have achieved in Israel and across Canada thanks to you – our donors and supporters. You can also read the following statement on our website. |
| JNF Canada’s Official Response to CJN 15+ Million Trees is No Gimmick We wish to respond to the recent coverage in the CJN with respect to our multi-year battle with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). It is time to set the record straight. Although JNF was in regular contact with the CJN reporting team prior to the publication of the article on the history of our relationship with the CRA, we were never asked for our views on critical issues raised in the article. Furthermore, the behaviour of the CRA or their findings, are never questioned or criticized. Rather, it assumes that the CRA is righteous and just, and JNF is the guilty party. Not surprisingly, this leaves the readers with a one-sided and unbalanced impression. A few issues raisedDue to human error, we provided the CRA with documentation on the wrong psychiatric hospital project. We annually oversee funding for multiple projects and at the time, we were supporting two psychiatric facilities in Jerusalem. A phone call would have quickly resolved the matter.Hebrew is the language of work in Israel, the language in which we receive 100s of documents, and a language our leadership can read and work in. While there is no law that requires documentation to be submitted to CRA in English or French, we should have translated certain documents to make it easier for the CRA to review. Again, a phone call would have resolved the matter quickly.A statement from a staff person that trees are simply a marketing trick – what? JNF has planted 15+ million trees over the decades – that’s in no way a “gimmick”. It’s integral to our entire organization and we are proud of this work.And still, these are periphery issues in the matter of our revocation. The CRA revoked our charitable status without a fair process even though we have addressed their principal concerns. Fundamentally, CRA is questioning our charitable objects and therefore our charitable activities in support of the people of Israel. |
| The JNF-CRA Relationship The CJN misconstrues the nature of the timeline between the CRA Charities Directorate (“CD”) between 2014, the year the auditors came, and August 10, 2024, the date of revocation. The CJN article says that the CD, for example:“lost patience”“had known for years … major concerns with how the Charity operates”“warned them again in 2023 and in 2024”“warned repeatedly to clean up its act between 2016 and 2023”The entire CRA-JNF relationship was based, rather, on the premise of investigation/prosecution/sanction. This approach is in accordance with provisions of the Income Tax Act (ITA), read literally, but is not in accordance with CRA official guidance and not in accordance with the treatment afforded to almost all other charities. There were no “repeated warnings”. There were repeated accusations, all of which were addressed by JNF. Over the course of the 10-year process, CRA refused on more than 10 occasions to meet with JNF representatives. Throughout, CRA simply threatened revocation, rejecting all of JNF’s requests to discuss solutions in person. Furthermore, evidence suggests that CRA took a position in the process prior to even conducting the actual audit. As early as 2013 a representative of CRA said to the CRA audit team that the campaigns and complaints of JNF’s detractors provided “excellent background about the Charity…and a view of potential areas of concern for the current audit.” It was not until JNF obtained access to CRA’s heavily redacted audit file in July 2021 that JNF learned of the extent of the role of its detractors in the audit and sanction process. Interestingly, the redacted materials fail to divulge the fact that JNF’s most vociferous detractor had submitted over 100 pages of writing to the Director of the Charities Directorate (CD) and had actually met with him in October of 2017. This fact was only discovered by JNF in August 2024. Why did the Director of the CD meet with a major detractor, and not understand that it was therefore incumbent upon him to meet with representatives of JNF? Instead, there was unrelenting determination to revoke JNF from the outset, due almost entirely to the CRA’s apparent but unexpressed view that JNF was entirely subservient to Karen Kayemeth Le’Israel (KKL), and therefore that it did not undertake any independent operations. All of the detractors have taken this view. None accord JNF any existence or integrity independent of KKL. We point out that, to address this, we have reduced the number of our projects with KKL, entered into a robust compliance agreement with them, and changed the way that KKL describes its relationship with our charities on its website. KKL works for JNF Canada, just like any other agent that we utilize. (The term “agent” is CRA nomenclature. If a charity is doing work in a foreign country, they need an agent to assist with their charitable work.) JNF’s leadership selects the projects we wish to support, and we always have direction and control over all of the funds, as we only reimburse expenses upon receipt of valid expense reports. In short, we have addressed the CRA’s concerns. In summary, this was a vigorous prosecution from Day 1. There was no discussion afforded to us. Rather, there is evidence of the CRA’s determination to reach a result of revocation from the outset, and there is a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the above and other documents that we obtained through our access to information request. CRA Guidance The CRA’s own published guidelines for applying sanctions highlights the irregularity with respect to the treatment afforded to the JNF. “As a general rule, the Directorate intends to start with educational methods to obtain compliance, and then move progressively through compliance agreements, sanctions, and the ultimate sanction of revocation, if necessary.” Only in cases of “aggravated non-compliance” does CRA decline to follow this approach. CRA has never alleged or maintained that JNF was guilty of “aggravated non-compliance.” There were no educational methods presented nor was there any effort on the part of CRA to develop a compliance agreement. The question for CRA is why it abandoned its own guidance, and whether the detractors played any role in that decision? “Repeated warnings” The recent CJN article mentions a 358-page document. The 358 pages is actually several documents. The sequence of messaging in the documents is not “repeated warnings” – it is CRA’s position repeated several times, in a process in which JNF offered a vigorous defense. CRA actually abandoned several arguments including those related to KKL, as well as to projects on disputed territories and projects situated on IDF land. Nevertheless, we made changes even though we disagreed with the CRA’s legal reasoning. There are several other documents, from both sides, subsequent to the 358 pages of documents. JNF’s full position is stated in multiple submissions, most of which, unfairly, are not referred to in the CJN article. JNF’s last submission of October 2023 is over 90 pages long. JNF presented a detailed and well reasoned legal argument based on dozens of precedents prepared by an eminent lawyer, and CRA’s response did not address these issues at all. The CRA letter of July 2024 purports to deal with the arguments raised in our October 2023, but fails. Our position was ignored. “One last chance” The CJN claims that the CRA gave JNF “one last chance.” The timing and the legal logic are incorrect. JNF had a legal right to object to CRA’s ‘notice of intent to revoke’ letter of August 20, 2019. There is no discretion or power in the CRA to “give” a charity ‘one more chance’. JNF prepared a Notice of Objection to CRA’s notice, on October 18, 2019, and requested that CRA provide JNF with its whole file, as it had a legal right to do. CRA provided a heavily redacted file on July 21 2021, 18 months later. JNF prepared two further submissions as part of this appeals process, the second of which was submitted on December 17, 2021, after it had had a chance to review the heavily redacted file. CRA provided its response to JNF’s appeal in a letter dated July 26, 2023, another 18 months later. JNF responded in October 2023 with its 90-page letter. There was no ‘one last chance’ and the origin of CJN’s February 2023 date is a mystery. Three full years of the delay were caused by CRA. The CJN article makes it appear as though JNF never responded to ‘warnings’ and that the CRA, out of the sheer goodness of their collective hearts, gave the truant ‘one last chance’. The exact opposite is true. We have responded to all of their communications, addressing their concerns or expressing our objection of their position. It’s worth adding that each CRA letter in the process dropped significant arguments that had been sufficiently refuted by JNF, despite their unrelenting drive to revoke JNF’s registration, contrary to its own guidance. Improvements since 2016In 2016, JNF Canada retained legal counsel who has not only represented us to CRA but has also filled the function of a compliance officer. We have worked closely with David Stevens (Gowlings) and his colleagues for over 8 years, to ensure that our undertakings are CRA compliant.JNF Canada has worked side by side with Keren Kayemeth L’Israel for decades. There was confusion about the relationship. To demonstrate that we are an independent Canadian charity, in 2018, JNF Canada fully rebranded to remove any association with KKL.JNF Canada also rewrote, thereby modernizing and strengthening, the agency agreement between the two organizations and utilized this agreement as a template for agreements with other Israeli organizations. JNF Canada has no exclusive relationship with KKL. Rather JNF Canada works with the best organizations in Israel to advance the projects we select. JNF’s leadership make the decisions with respect to projects that we wish to undertake as an organization. There is no KKL “head office” giving instructions to JNF Canada. JNF Canada hired a Senior Representative based in Israel, to enhance our ability to demonstrate direction and control over our projects, represent JNF Canada and oversee our charitable endeavours there.Before undertaking any project, an Israeli lawyer reviews the ownership of the land to ensure JNF Canada is not doing anything in violation of CRA policies.JNF Canada hired a new CFO who has worked with our legal counsel to improve and enhance our record keeping, ensuring that all activities undertaken are compliant with CRA rules and regulations, and that documentation is collected and filed properly. Moving Forward JNF has launched two legal processes to challenge the revocation notice: July 25, 2024: Federal Court of Appeal appeal challenging the CRA revocation decision on the basis of a misapprehension of the facts and law; flawed and unfair process; and bias. August 20, 2024: Federal Court Application for a Judicial Review of the August 10 revocation notice.At the same time, we are calling on our elected representatives to take responsibility.To date, Liberal MPs have situated the actions of CRA as a bureaucratic response to JNF ‘s charitable objects because of audits undertaken in 2014. If elected officials are arguing that unelected bureaucrats have been delegated the authority to make a decision of this magnitude, that was a mistake. The Government should take responsibility. The Minister of National Revenue and the Government of Canada should put the revocation of our charitable status on hold until the courts have ruled, as is customary in situations like ours (based on our lawyer’s review of over 200 cases). JNF Canada should be provided the fundamental value of the presumption of innocence, especially because we are not an aggravated case.While for the time being we are not allowed to issue charitable receipts, please rest assured that we will continue to raise funds in support of building Israel’s social infrastructure to the benefit of vulnerable populations such as youth-at-risk, victims of domestic abuse, children with special needs, veterans and the disadvantaged. Hurting JNF hurts Israelis who need our help the most, especially as they try to recover from the horrors of October 7.There were many opportunities to solve this issue short of the draconian penalty of revocation. JNF would welcome the opportunity to find an off-ramp and will, as demonstrated many times before, continue to do whatever is necessary to satisfy the expectations of CRA. We do not ordinarily post comments to this website. (We received too many spam comments when we allowed comments.) But – if you would like to comment on this story – or any other story for that matter, send an email to jewishp@mymts.net– and if the comment is relevant and not defamatory, we will post the comment. |
Local News
Who is Rabbi Ephraim Bryks and how did his time in Winnipeg prove so convulsive?
By BERNIE BELLAN (Posted December 30) Thirty-five years after Rabbi Ephraim Bryks left this city his name is now back in the news as the result of a new lawsuit that names Rabbi Bryks, the Adas Yeshurun Herzlia Congregation – for which Bryks served as rabbi for 12 years, and two rabbinical organizations as defendants. You can read more about that lawsuit and what it alleges elsewhere on this website at “lawsuit filed.“
But, aside from questions about why this lawsuit was filed now – some 38 years after the acts for which Bryks is accused of having committed against the plaintiff, there are still so many unanswered questions about Rabbi Bryks’ time in Winnipeg.
In his seminal history of the Jewish people of Manitoba, Allan Levine wrote: “The biggest controversy in the Herzlia’s history – in fact, arguably the most controversial matter in the annals of the Winnipeg Jewish community – involved Rabbi Ephraim Bryks, the synagogue’s rabbi from 1978 to 1990. Bryks arrived in Winnipeg in 1978 at the age of twenty-four, with his wife Yochevaed…”
Levine noted that “Under Bryks’ leadership, the synagogue’s membership increased. He established new programs for youth and immersed himself in the Jewish community. He also initiated Torah Academy, an Orthodox elementary school that operated out of Herzlia and soon had a sizable (sic.) enrollment (sic.).” (Gee Allan, didn’t anyone check your book for spelling mistakes?)
Levine’s story about Bryks goes on to note that controversy first began to circulate openly around Bryks in 1985 in the pages of what our paper was then called, which was the Jewish Post. (We didn’t become The Jewish Post & News until 1987, which was when we took over what had been The Western Jewish News.)
Bryks had been writing a weekly Torah commentary in our paper until three rabbis – Rabbis Rappaport, Weizman, and Neil Rose, sent a letter to the editor (who was my late brother, Matt, at the time) accusing Bryks of having plagiarized several of his columns from a book by Rabbi Reuven Bulka. Matt investigated and discovered that Bryks had indeed plagiarized at least two columns from Bulka’s book. When Matt reported what he had found, Bryks stopped writing his column for us.
“Far worse was yet to come,” Levine’s section about Bryks continues. “In 1987, several parents of young (male and female) children attending Torah Academy alleged that Bryks had sexually abused their children. The Herzlia board properly investigated the matter and heard evidence. According to a CBC-TV documentary on the case, the parents and their children were accused of being liars.”
Levine goes on to note that Winnipeg South Child and Family Services were asked to investigate the matter by the synagogue board, but the agency concluded that “Bryks’ behaviour of having children sit on his lap while he tickled them was ‘neither appropriate nor professional’, but not illegal. That might have been the end of it, but another allegation was made, this time to the Winnipeg Police by parents of an eight-year-old boy who claimed Bryks had fondled him. The police consulted a Crown lawyer, who decided not to pursue it since it came down to the child’s word against that of a rabbi.
“The case tore the Herzlia congregation apart, and some members left the synagogue,” Levine writes.
In 1990, Bryks left Winnipeg for Montreal, where he had been hired to head a Jewish school until parents there learned of the allegations against him in Winnipeg and the offer of employment was rescinded.
Subsequently, Bryks moved to New York, where he founded another private religious school in Queens – this time for children of Russian immigrants.
In 2003, however, Bryks resigned his membership in the Rabbinical Council of America. According to a report on “Newsday,” Bryks had “been dogged by allegations of sexual abuse against at least one Winnipeg child for more than 15 years.” He had headed two different yeshivas in New York, but no longer did so.
That Winnipeg child’s name was Daniel Levin. He was the son of Martin and Sarah Levin. (Martin Levin had been editor of the Jewish Post until 1983. He later became the books editor of the Toronto Globe & Mail.)
In Allan Levine’s account of what happened, “Daniel Levin had attended Torah Academy from kindergarten to Grade 2. …A troubled teenager, Daniel alleged that Bryks had molested him. According to Sarah Levin, Bryks had given Daniel candy to keep him quiet and told him that God would punish him if he ever told anyone what had transpired. The threat of retribution was echoed by other children who came forward. Daniel (who, by 1993, was living in Toronto) gave a taped statement to the Toronto Police, who inexplicably botched the taping and requested he repeat his statement. He never did. On Yom Kippur, 1993, Daniel, seventeen years old, committed suicide.”
In 1994, the CBC aired a documentary about the Bryks controversy titled “Unorthodox Conduct.” Myron Love wrote a detailed report about the airing of that documentary and the subsequent reaction to it from members of the Herzlia. You can read Myron’s full article on our website simply by entering the name “Rabbi Bryks” in our Search Archive portal. The first two articles to appear will be the first and second pages of Myron’s comprehensive report.
According to information online Rabbi Bryks now works as a mortgage broker in New York. For a time, he was also a self-styled marriage counsellor, providing services to women seeking religious divorces.
In 2018, we spoke with a woman in New York who told us that, 18 or 19 years prior, she had contacted Rabbi Bryks to try to help her get a “get” (religious divorce) from an uncooperative husband. That woman claimed that Rabbi Bryks showed up at her apartment and tried to take advantage of her under the guise of offering to help her obtain a “get” from her husband. As the woman continued her story, she said Rabbi Bryks had forced himself upon her to the point where he pushed her on to her bed and lay on top of her. She was eventually able to break free and demanded he leave her apartment.
There are many other references to Bryks on the internet. The recently filed lawsuit only adds to what is already one of the most controversial stories about a rabbi you’re ever likely to read.
Local News
Former Winnipegger files lawsuit against Adas Yeshurun Herzlia Congregation, former Herzlia Rabbi Ephraim Bryks, and two other defendants over allegations of sexual abuse and assault by Rabbi Bryks in 1987
By BERNIE BELLAN (Posted December 29, 2025) A former Winnipegger by the name of Ruth Krevsky (née Pinsky) has filed a lawsuit in Court of King’s Bench in Winnipeg on December 9, 2025 naming “Ephraim Boruk Bryks, Adas Yeshurun Herzlia Congregtion Inc., Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, and Rabbinical Council of America” as defendants.
The lawsuit seeks damages in the total amount of $4,200,000.
In the 30-page statement of claim Krevsky alleges that “In or around 1984, when the Plaintiff was approximately 19 years of age, Bryks sexually abused and assaulted the Plaintiff. The particulars of same include, but not (sic.) are not limited to the following:
” (a) initiated and engaged in physical contact of a sexual nature with the Plaintiff in his bedroom;
” (b) strapped the buttocks of the Plaintiff;
” (c) engaged in other sexual activities with the Plaintiff; and
” (d) in order to facilitate the abuse Bryks engaged in a pattern of behaviour which was intended to make the Plaintiff feel that she was special in the eyes of Bryks and Judaism.
“The abuse occurred in Bryks’ house located in Winnipeg, Manitoba.”
The lawsuit goes on to allege that “After the aforementioned abuse occurred, Bryks exploited his position of seniority and the trust he had cultivated with the Plaintiff to manipulate and control He used this dependency to discourage the Plaintiff from disclosing his actions, including by threatening her and by withholding reference letters essential for her academic and professional advancement.”
The lawsuit further alleges that “In or around 1987, while employed by the Congregation, Bryks was accused by (sic.) of several sexual offences involving young girls and women, including students at the School. (Ed. note, the reference is to Torah Academy, which Bryks started.) Although no criminal charges were filed at the time, the allegations were brought to the attention of the Congregation, the Union (of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America) and/or the Council (Rabbinical Council of America). Since then. additional individuals have come forward with similar allegations of sexual abuse by Bryks.”
The lawsuit also names the Adas Yeshurun Herzlia Congregtion Inc., as defendant, citing ten different rules that “the Congregation taught the Plaintiff as well as other members of the Synagogue, including
“that it was forbidden to report a Jewish religious figure such as a rabbi to secular authorities and that any such reporting would constitute a serious violation of religious duty and loyalty to Judaism.”
Further, “The Plaintiff pleads that the aforementioned rules, principles and ideologies of the Congregation created an opportunity for Bryks to exert power and authority over the Plaintiff. The power and authority allowed Bryks to engage in the aforementioned behaviour and to continue to engage in same without resistance or question of the Plaintiff, without risk of getting caught, and thereby put the Plaintiff at risk of being abused by Bryks…
“As a result, the Congregation is vicariously responsible and liable for the actions of Bryks.”
The lawsuit goes on to list a series of behaviours in which it alleges Bryks was engaging and alleges the Congregation ignored many aspects of Bryks’ behaviour, including, among others: “Bryks’ difficulties with alcohol” and “Bryks’ difficulties with his sexuality.”
The lawsuit lists a long series of damages the Plaintiff alleges she has suffered as a result of Bryks’ behaviour and the refusal of the other defendants, including the Herzlia Congregation, to take any action against Bryks.
It should be made clear that, at this point, the allegations are unproven and are yet to be defended against and yet to be tested in the courts of Manitoba.
We have reached out to Ruth Krevsky, her counsel, counsel for the Adas Yeshurun Herzlia Congregation, and the president of the congregation for comment. To date, we have not heard from either Ms. Krevsky or her counsel. We did hear from the president of the congregation, who asked us to refer any questions to counsel for the congregation. We did speak with counsel for the congregation, but at this point he indicated that he had just been recently hired to represent the congregation and was just beginning to acquaint himself with the file.
The Rabbi Bryks story was one that tore the Winnipeg Jewish community asunder. The Jewish Post had a number of stories about the allegations that were levelled against Rabbi Bryks. (You can find those stories by going to our “Search Archive” link and entering the name “Rabbi Bryks.”)
We will have much more about Rabbi Bryks in the days to come. Keep referring to this website as we add to the story.
Local News
Newly announced Vivian Silver Centre for Shared Society to further former Winnipegger’s lifelong efforts to foster Jewish-Arab co-operation in Israel
By MYRON LOVE Vivian Silver (oleh Hashalom) devoted her life to working toward dialogue and collaboration between Arabs and Jews in Israel. The culmination of her efforts was the Arab-Jewish Center for Empowerment, Equality, and Cooperation – Negev Institute for Strategies of Peace and Economic Development (AJEEC-NISPED), which she co-founded 25 year ago with her sister peace activist, Dr. Amal Elsana Ahl’jooj.
Tragically, Vivian was of the 1,200 Israeli Jews, Bedouin and foreign farm workers who were slaughtered during the Hamas-led pogrom of October 7, 2023.
Last month, AJEEC-NISPED announced plans to create the Vivian Silver Center for Shared Society in her memory – a new national hub for Jewish-Israeli Arab collaboration and social innovation in Be’er Sheva – backed by an initial $1 million donation from UJA-Federation of New York, along with support from the Meyerhoff Foundation, the Gilbert Foundation, and other philanthropic partners committed to strengthening shared society in Israel.
“It’s a great honor and a beautiful gesture,” comments Vivian’s son, Yonatan Zeigen, “and I hope it will be a central building for civil society, both in the physical sense, that it will become a substantial home for the organization and for other initiatives that will use the spaced and also symbolically, as a beacon for this kind of work in the specific location in the Negev.”
As this writer noted n an article earlier this year in relation to the announcement of the launch of the Vivian Silver Impact Award by the New Israel Fund (NIF) – of which she was a long time board member, and which was developed in conjunction with her sons, Yonatan and Chen), Vivian made aliyah in 1974. She first went to Israel in 1968 – to spend her second year at university abroad at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, studying psychology and English literature.
In an article she wrote in 2018 in a publication called ”Women Wage Peace,” she related that during her final year at the University of Manitoba, she was among the founders of the Student Zionist Alliance on campus and was invited to its national conference in Montreal. There she met activists in the Habonim youth movement who planned on making aliyah and re-establishing Kibbutz Gezer. The day she wrote her last university exam, she boarded a flight to New York to join the group.
She spent three years in New York, where she became involved in Jewish and Zionist causes, including the launch of the Jewish feminist movement in America.
“It was a life-changing period,” she recalled. “I came to understood that in addition to being a kibbutz member, I was destined to be a social change and peace activist.”
Vivian and her group made aliyah in 1974 and settled on Kibbutz Gezer. In 1981, she established the Department Promoting Gender Equality in the Kibbutz Movement. She moved to Kibbutz Be’eri near the Gaza border in 1990, along with her late husband, Lewis, and their two sons
In 1998, Vivian became the executive director of the Negev Institute for Strategies of Peace and Development in Beer Sheva, an NGO promoting human sustainable development, shared society between Jews and Arabs, and peace in the Middle East. Soon after, she was joined by Amal Elsana Alh’jooj as co-directors of AJEEC-NISPED, winning the 2011 Victor J. Goldberg Peace Prize of the Institute for International Education.
In the article she wrote for “Women Waging Peace,” she noted that “while we later focused on empowerment projects in the Bedouin community in the Negev, initially we worked with Palestinian organizations on joint people-to-people projects. I spent much time in Gaza until the outbreak of the second intifada. We continued working with organizations in the West Bank. I personally know so many Palestinians who yearn for peace no less than we do.”
According to a report in the Israeli newspaper Arutz Sheva, in the November 24th edition, the Vivian Silver Centre – which is expected to open in the spring – will be located within AJEEC-NISPED’s soon-to-open AJEEC House, and will provide a permanent home for programs that promote equality, leadership, and cooperation among Israel’s diverse communities.
“The Vivian Silver Center for Shared Society, within AJEEC’s headquarters, “the Arutz Sheva report noted, “will serve as a regional platform for dozens of Israeli Arab and Jewish social organizations. Through AJEEC’s educational, vocational, and leadership programs, the center will support thousands of young adults each year – offering mentorship, professional training, and opportunities for cross-cultural collaboration.
“These programs,” the report continued, “already reach more than 15,000 participants nationwide, helping young people integrate into higher education and meaningful employment while narrowing social and economic gaps.”
AJEEC House is located in Be’er Sheva’s Science Park, near Ben-Gurion University. The three-storey AJEEC House has been designed to foster cooperation and dialogue. It will host community partnerships, provide shared workspaces for social entrepreneurs, and serve as a hub for initiatives addressing social and economic development across the Negev and beyond.
Readers who may be interested considering a donation can dial into NISPED’s website – – for further information.