Features
Jewish nonprofits are struggling. How should donors try to rescue them?
By BEN SALES NEW YORK (JTA) — In the weeks after it became clear that the coronavirus pandemic would spark a lasting economic crisis, the Jewish world’s leading funder group put together a memo with some back-of-the-envelope projections for how much Jewish nonprofits stood to lose.
The tally: at least $650 million, according to the internal document from the Jewish Federations of North America, which was based on estimates from several American Jewish umbrella organizations, such as the Foundation for Jewish Camp and the JCC Association of North America. The document was produced in March and obtained by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
The document says Jewish camps, schools, community centers and other groups like college Hillels will need that much or more to make it through the pandemic, which has already caused widespread layoffs and furloughs at Jewish community centers across the United States.
On Monday, a coalition of large Jewish philanthropic foundations pledged $80 million to shore up struggling Jewish organizations. But now, with it becoming increasingly clear that the world will not snap back to its former shape anytime soon, that number appears to be a fraction of what will be needed. Doron Krakow, CEO of the JCC Association of North America, told JTA earlier this month that the need would exceed $800 million if camps have to close for the summer and a recession drags into a second year.
The sudden financial blow is reanimating a longstanding debate about the best way to support America’s robust infrastructure of Jewish nonprofits. Should collective, communal fundraising bodies like Jewish federations have responsibility for disbursing philanthropy across the Jewish world? Or should the wide array of private Jewish family foundations each give separately to their causes?
Proponents of the network of Jewish federations, which act as collective funding bodies for local Jewish communities across the country, have suggested a single massive pool of coronavirus philanthropic assistance, to be managed centrally. No overarching plan has been put forward yet, but the Jewish Telegraphic Agency has learned that several leading funders are working to form a fund that would provide loans to Jewish organizations on the brink of going broke.
Among them is Krakow, who has called for private Jewish foundations and Jewish federations, which act as collective charities for Jewish communities across the country, to create a loan fund of $1 billion.
“There’s a need to know with confidence that we can keep one eye on the horizon and know that there’s a day after,” he said.
But some in the world of Jewish philanthropy are already raising questions about whether a centrally administered megafund is the best strategy to shepherd geographically and programmatically diverse organizations through the crisis.
“A ‘Billion Dollar Fund,’ a ‘Jewish New Deal’ [or] a ‘COVID czar’ are fine and well-intentioned ideas that look good on paper and seem simple and straightforward, but they are anything but,” Andres Spokoiny, CEO of the Jewish Funders Network, which convenes Jewish donors and foundations, wrote in a recent essay in the publication eJewish Philanthropy.
“As leaders it’s our responsibility to accept reality and focus on practical, smaller-scale, sector-specific solutions that can work,” Spokoiny wrote. “The aggregate of all those will be surely larger than any central fund and will produce a richer and more vibrant result.”
The $80 million fund, announced Monday, appears to attempt a third way. It’s a coalition between the Jewish Federations of North America and eight large Jewish philanthropic foundations. Called the Jewish Community Response and Impact Fund, it will prioritize organizations that focus on education, leadership and engagement, though a press release did not provide further detail on those fields.
The fund will provide short-term loans to organizations to meet payroll and maintain operations in the next three to six months, and will also award grants that do not have to be repaid. Participating foundations include the Jim Joseph Foundation, Maimonides Fund, Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation and others.
“We have also seen firsthand the acute challenges Jewish organizations across the country are facing,” read a statement from the funders. “While this fund alone cannot address all of those challenges, we believe that investing together in these vital pillars of Jewish life will help ensure a stronger future for American Jewry in the months and years to come,”
Beyond that fund, experts in American Jewish philanthropy say that large individual donors and family foundations are likely to eschew putting their money in a giant pool. While federations used to dominate the Jewish giving scene, they and their ethos of collective giving have ceded more ground to private foundations, as large donors have become more involved in the causes they fund and more particular about how their money is spent.
“If we’ve seen any trend in philanthropy over the course of the last number of decades, it’s to targeted giving,” said Jack Wertheimer, a professor of American Jewish history at the Jewish Theological Seminary. “Donors are leery of giving large amounts of their philanthropy to a pot that will be divided up, not according to their own wishes but according to the directives of some body that would make the decision. Federations obviously have suffered from this.”
But there’s still interplay between large donors and federations, said Hanna Shaul Bar Nissim, a visiting scholar at Brandeis University who focuses on American Jewish philanthropy. Many Jewish family foundations give to their local Jewish federations and, in turn, sit on their boards or have influence over where the federation money goes.
“The golden rule of, the size of your donation impacts the size of your involvement, is very relevant to the world of Jewish federations,” said Bar Nissim, who is also deputy director of the Ruderman Family Foundation. “The more you give, the more you can have a say and become involved.”
No matter how the debate is settled — or whether it is at all — it’s clear that funders must move quickly if they are to blunt the effects of the pandemic, which has rendered at least 20 million Americans jobless in just four weeks.
Other Jewish philanthropies have also started doling out funds. New York’s UJA-Federation has announced $43 million in grants to social service organizations, JCCs and individuals in need.
And the Harold Grinspoon Foundation, which usually gives approximately $3 million annually to Jewish camps, has announced an additional $10 million in matching grants to help camps survive whatever financial damage this coming summer may bring.
The foundation’s leadership understands that $10 million is not nearly enough to fill camps’ anticipated needs — that would take about $150 million, the foundation estimates. Still, Sarah Eisinger, who heads the foundation’s camp initiative, said she hoped the $10 million dollars would set an example and give the camps a measure of hope.
“It’s only one intervention,” she said. “It’s only one slice of a much larger pie. But the early impact of that money and the psychological lift of a shot in the arm will fuel a sense of optimism and a possibility to raise resources.”
The foundation moved quickly in part because its president, Winnie Grinspoon, realized that hewing to longstanding giving practices, or waiting for them to be renegotiated, would deepen the financial devastation that is already unfolding.
“This is an unprecedented situation, as we all know, and the rules and restrictions we might operate under at a normal time go out the window,” Grinspoon said.
She added, “This is the moment to give boldly, to go beyond our normal giving structure and limitations for those who are able to reach deep into their pockets, so we don’t look back with regret.”
Features
Democratic Socialists of America to Demand Mamdani Implement Extreme Anti-Israel Agenda
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the largest socialist organization in the US which counts prominent politicians among its ranks, intends to pressure New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani to implement a series of extreme anti-Israel policies when he officially enters office, according to a new report.
JusttheNews.com obtained and published internal plans detailing how the Anti-War Working Group (AWWG) of the DSA’s branch in New York City has been plotting for weeks to push Mamdani, a member of the DSA and self-declared democratic socialist, to impose its agenda from City Hall in Manhattan.
The five-page document, titled “AWWG Palestine Policy Meeting Meeting Agenda & Notes [sic],” outlines a policy agenda that includes 12 demands for the Mamdani administration, each of which target institutions with ties to Israel.
The group plans to urge City Hall to divest New York City pension funds from Israeli bonds and securities, withdraw municipal deposits from banks that lend to or do business in Israel, and terminate all city contracts with companies that do business with Israel.
The proposals, described as “demands” in the document, further call for city-run grocery stores to exclude Israeli products and for investigations into real estate agents allegedly involved in the sale of “stolen” West Bank land.
Additional measures outlined in the document include evicting weapons manufacturers and transporters from the New York City metro area, revoking the nonprofit status of charities that fundraise for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and directing the City University of New York (CUNY) to divest its endowment while reinstating professors fired over what DSA described as pro-Palestinian activism.
The agenda also seeks to dismantle outgoing Mayor Eric Adams’s NYC–Israel Economic Council, end New York City Police Department (NYPD) training programs with Israeli security forces, halt police “repression of demonstrators,” and even pursue the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and IDF soldiers on war-crimes charges.
The proposals, organizers noted, are part of an effort to strengthen DSA’s anti-Israel platform and align city policy with the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate the world’s lone Jewish state on the international state as a step toward its eventual elimination.
Mamdani, who has made anti-Israel activism a cornerstone of his young political career, has repeatedly declared his support for both the BDS movement and arresting Netanyahu if he visits New York — the latter of which he does not have authority to do, according to legal experts.
Meanwhile, the DSA has formally endorsed the BDS movement and earlier this year adopted a resolution that makes various actions in support of Israel, such as “making statements that ‘Israel has a right to defend itself’” and “endorsing statements equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism,” an “expellable offense,” subject to a vote by the DSA’s National Political Committee.
DSA’s lofty ambitions for New York City may face political hurdles, however.
US Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), one of the most vocal allies of Israel in the US Congress, warned that he would not hesitate to launch an investigation into the Mamdani administration if it were to adopt the slate of anti-Israel directives.
“As Chair of the Middle East and North Africa subcommittee on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I will be watching closely and will conduct hearings if @ZohranKMamdani and New York City engage in policy detrimental to US Foreign Policy,” Lawler posted on social media.
US President Donald Trump has previously warned that he could deprive the city of federal funds, arguing that Mamdani would be an “economic disaster” for the Big Apple.
“If Communist Candidate Zohran Mamdani wins the Election for Mayor of New York City, it is highly unlikely that I will be contributing Federal Funds, other than the very minimum as required, to my beloved first home, because of the fact that, as a Communist, this once great City has ZERO chance of success, or even survival!” Trump wrote on social media.
During his tenure in the New York State Assembly, Mamdani advocated on behalf of the BDS agenda. In the closing stretch of his mayoral campaign, however, Mamdani remained largely mum on whether he supported a divestment of city resources from Israel.
One reason by could be the economic consequences of actually implementing BDS could be disatrious for New York City. Late last month, a new report revealed that Israeli firms pour billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs into the local economy.
The study from the United States-Israel Business Alliance revealed that, based on 2024 data, 590 Israeli-founded companies directly created 27,471 jobs in New York City last year and indirectly created over 50,000 jobs when accounting for related factors, such as buying and shipping local products.
These firms generated $8.1 billion in total earnings, adding an estimated $12.4 billion in value to the city’s economy and $17.9 billion in total gross economic output.
As for the State of New York overall, the report, titled the “2025 New York – Israel Economic Impact Report,” found that 648 Israeli-founded companies generated $8.6 billion in total earnings and $19.5 billion in gross economic output, contributing a striking $13.3 billion in added value to the economy. These businesses also directly created 28,524 jobs and a total of 57,145 when accounting for related factors.
While it remains unlikely that Mamdani could entirely divest the city from Israel, an analysis conducted by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency found that he would be able to “stack the boards of two of the city’s five pension funds such that divestment from Israel could be on the table.”
Some of the DSA’s other goals, such as removing city funds from banks that do business with Israel, could be legally difficult. For example, some observers have noted that political discrimination against banks based on nationality could violate state and federal commerce and anti-discrimination laws. The Trump administration and federal lawmakers have already signaled that they will launch investigations against Mamdani if he were to weaponize mayoral powers against entities tied to Israel.
Further complicating the DSA’s efforts could be a New York State executive order which requires state agencies to divest from companies and institutions supporting the BDS movement.
The DSA policing demands could potentially have an easier time being implemented, as the police commissioner is appointed by the mayor and a new selection by Mamdani could share similar views.
Features
A Half Century of Calumny at the UN
By HENRY SREBRNIK For the past half-century, the United Nations’ Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP) has worked to delegitimize the State of Israel by amplifying Palestinian efforts to depict the Jewish state as a “colonial” and “apartheid” regime. The Palestinians are the only people to have such a dedicated propaganda organ inside the United Nations, while Israel is the only UN member state to face such attacks.
The Committee is the child of that notorious day, November 10, 1975, when the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 3379, equating Zionism with “racism.” The General Assembly also passed Resolution 3376, which created CEIRPP. In subsequent years, further resolutions expanded CEIRPP and provided it with greater resources. A UN report from 2024 shows that financial resources dedicated to servicing CEIRPP specifically stand at $3.1 million per year.
The language of Resolution 3379 encapsulated the antisemitic themes of Soviet and Arab propaganda. In his address to the General Assembly opposing Resolution 3379, Israel’s then-UN ambassador, Chaim Herzog, remarked that the draft was being debated on the 37th anniversary of the Nazi pogrom known as Kristallnacht, adding that Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler would have welcomed the proceedings.
While that resolution was ultimately rescinded in 1991, CEIRPP continued to carry out its work, promoting the ideas at the heart of the Zionism-is-racism resolution, with its call for “the elimination of colonialism and neo-colonialism, foreign occupation, zionism, apartheid and racial discrimination in all its forms.”
Within two years of the committee’s creation, its work and mission became further entrenched within the internal UN bureaucracy. On December 2, 1977, the General Assembly passed Resolution 32/40 (B), authorizing the creation of a “Special Unit on Palestinian Rights,” which would serve the committee by “preparing studies and publications” devoted to both Palestinian rights and the United Nations’ own efforts in that regard. This included the announcement of the annual observance of November 29, the anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly 1947 passage of Resolution 181 to partition Palestine, as the “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.”
The “Special Unit” created through Resolution 32/40 (B) grew into an entire Division for Palestinian Rights (DPR) in 1979, housed within what is now known as the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. The DPR’s current role includes planning and servicing the committee’s various meetings in New York and internationally, maintaining an online database known as the United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine.
The CEIRPP is presently composed of 25 member states and 24 observers, the vast majority non-democratic countries in the Global South. Of these, 23 are Muslim countries. Observers include the League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
The committee works in five areas: promoting Palestinian self-determination, advocating for an “immediate end” to Israel’s control of territories conquered during the 1967 war, mobilizing international support, liaising with UN bodies on the Palestinian question, and working with civil society organizations and parliamentarians to advance the Palestinian cause. While the committee does not directly impact the foreign policy of member states, it influences policy discussions and provides anti-Zionist NGOs with access to UN diplomats, staff, and financial resources.
In addition to the CEIRPP, there are several other UN bodies solely dedicated to the Palestinian cause. Created to provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians displaced by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), a billion-dollar agency with 30,000 employees, expanded its roster from an initial 750,000 to 5.9 million by embracing a uniquely expansive definition of refugees. It is the only refugee agency dedicated to one particular group. All others come under the aegis of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Israel estimates that as 25 per cent of UNRWA employees belong to terrorist organizations. Some were found to have not only supported but directly participated in the October 7 Hamas attacks.
The position of the Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories was launched by a resolution in 1993, and its occupant reports on the human rights situation in the territories. In July 2025, the United States announced sanctions against the present rapporteur, Francesca Albanese, accusing her of having “spewed unabashed antisemitism.” Albanese’s activities are supported by staff from the UN human rights office, at an estimated cost of $500,000 a year.
Launched in 1968, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices has produced annual 70-page reports, with legal analysis and recommendations on Israel’s alleged violations, summaries of Palestinian testimonies, and collections of statistics. Composed of Malaysia, Senegal, and Sri Lanka, and staffed out of the UN human rights office, the Special Committee also conducts regular field missions, including to Amman, Cairo, and Damascus. It has a mandate to investigate only alleged Israeli abuses. Its reports include unsubstantiated allegations, such as claims that Israeli excavations undermine the structural foundations of the Al-Aqsa Mosque on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount.
Also since 1968, the World Health Organization (WHO) has maintained an agenda item dedicated to scrutinizing Israel’s health record at the annual meetings of the World Health Assembly, its decision-making body. Israel is the only state to face such an agenda item.
In 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted 164 resolutions on Israel and 84 on all other countries combined. From 2006 through 2024, the UN Human Rights Council adopted 108 resolutions against Israel, 44 against Syria, 15 against Iran, eight against Russia, and three against Venezuela.
Meanwhile, the anti-Israel machine goes on without pause. Yet another UN commission of inquiry on Israel, headed by Navi Pillay, on Oct. 28 presented a report accusing the Jewish state of genocide. This body was initiated by the Arab and Islamic states at a special session that they convened at the UN Human Rights Council in wake of the May 2021 Hamas-Israel war. It was tasked with examining the “root causes” of the conflict, including Israel’s alleged “systematic discrimination” based on race. Instead of the usual one-year term for such inquiries, the investigation of Israel was made perpetual — it has no end date.
So while most people focus on the attacks on Israel launched regularly both in the UN General Assembly and Security Council, behind the scenes an entire bureaucracy is engaged in slandering and defaming the world’s only Jewish state. This relentless campaign takes its toll and serves to continually paint Israel as a uniquely malevolent nation worthy of elimination. We have seen the fruits of these labours since October 7, 2023.
Henry Srebrnik is a professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.
Features
Streaming-only households are growing in Canada
More and more Canadians are cutting the cord and relying exclusively on internet-delivered video. Fresh industry data indicates streaming-only homes are approaching three in then households, while the share with no cable or satellite subscription hit roughly 46% in 2024, clear signs of a decisive shift toward SVOD and free ad-supported streaming.
Cord-cutting crosses a new threshold
The long-running trickle of cord-cutting has become a stream. Convergence Research’s latest “Couch Potato” outlook estimates that 46% of Canadian households had no cable, satellite or telco TV subscription in 2024, up four percent from 2023, with the figure projected to rise further in the next few years. Trade coverage of the same report underscores the trend: OTT revenues rose an estimated 15% in 2024 as traditional TV subscriptions continued falling. While individual timelines differ by source, the trend is the same: legacy TV is shrinking fast as Canadians rebuild their viewing stacks around apps.
At the same time, streaming is not only near-universal but increasingly standalone. Media in Canada reported “nearly three in 10” households are streaming-only, relying on online sources instead of cable bundles. It’s a trend we’ve seen in other fields as well, such as casino games, where people are more interested in the online alternatives instead of landbased sites. Thus, digitalization is not a TV-thing only, but a general trend in the country. Young adult Canadians are even more onboard on this trend, accelerating the generational hand-off from channel guides to connected-TV home screens.
Regulatory and market signals reinforce the shift as well. In June 2024, the CRTC required large online streaming services to contribute 5% of their Canadian revenues to support local news and domestic content. Major platforms challenged certain aspects of the framework, but the new contributions regime, according to reports, should add roughly C$200 million annually to the ecosystem.
What’s driving streaming-only growth
Three intertwined forces explain why this change keeps advancing. First come value and flexibility: with household budgets under pressure, Canadians are more selective about which services they keep year-round. MTM’s 2024/2025 read shows people are “streamlining” their subscriptions, maintaining one or two anchors and rotating others around tent-pole releases, while filling gaps with free ad-supported TV and platform freebies.
Technology and habit formation have an important role as well. The app grid on a smart TV has replaced the channel guide for many households; game consoles and streaming sticks have made it trivial to jump between different streaming apps. Once viewers get used to on-demand navigation, reverting to fixed-time channels feels limiting, especially for younger audiences that were born with immediacy and personalization.
Content economics are nudging straggles online too. Rights for premium series and more live sports are flowing to digital, thanks to options like NBA Pass, F1 TV Pro, and others. As subscription TV revenues are declining, broadcasters and distributors are experimenting with slimmer linear tiers, hybrid bundles that pair broadband with streamer discounts, and ad-supported options that meet price-sensitive households where they are. The result is a feedback loop: as more content and better prices accrue to streaming, more households find they no longer need traditional TV packages at all.