ADL and AJC Suffer Big Drop in Donations

[bemildred]

Giving Down By Nearly A Third, Shift to Single-Issue Groups

Washington — Two of America’s oldest, largest and most prominent Jewish organizations are suffering massive slides in public contributions as Jews appear to be turning away from large, multi-issue advocacy groups and toward single-issue organizations.

The Anti-Defamation League has lost more than $20 million in annual contributions over the past five years, going from more than $73 million in 2006 down to $51 million in 2010, according to its latest tax filings. That is a 30% fall-off, before taking inflation into account.

Similarly, the American Jewish Committee, which brought in $62 million in donations in 2005, raised only $38 million in 2010. That was a recovery from the year before, in which it raised just $10.6 million in donations.

http://www.forward.com/articles/147567/?picks_feed=true

[azurnoir]

1. I'm curious as to what these "single issue" groups are

the article isn't very clear as to that

[oberliner]

2. I'm curious as to whether or not you realized the article had a "page 2"

Because the single-issue groups are enumerated there.

[oberliner]

3. While AIPAC has a big rise in donations

What's that about?

[azurnoir]

5. thanks for pointing it out standwithus has too a group few here seems to have heard of

oh and Jstreet has also seen a rise in donations too

[oberliner]

6. You are welcome

Why do you think those groups are doing so well?

[azurnoir]

8. I agree with article in that those groups are very focused in their

particular agenda's both of which involve Israel

[oberliner]

9. So that singular issue ("pro-Israel") is gaining traction?

Do you think it's that more Americans are becoming more supportive of organizations that they view as pro-Israel, be it AIPAC or J Street?

If so, why do you think this is happening?

[azurnoir]

10. well for those that give money apparently it is

but I must wonder which organization has reaped the most

[oberliner]

11. Support for AIPAC is steadily rising

At least according to page two of the article (which I'm glad you've finally discovered exists!)

What do you think accounts for its growth in donations over the last five years?

[azurnoir]

14. finally? you mean 18 hours ago? glad you noticed as to AIPAC

if you want your money to 'talk' politically that's the place to go isn't t?

[oberliner]

15. I have no idea what your subject line or message means

Not sure what happened 18 hours or what you are glad that I noticed.

I don't think AIPAC is necessarily the place to go if you want your money to "talk" politically.

I'm not really sure what that means.

J Street also has seen a rise in donations.

Anyway, if you have a point, please feel free to make it.

And if you want to respond to my question less cryptically, I would welcome that as well.

[azurnoir]

16. I first responded to your pointing out the second page approximately 18 hrs prior

to the post your replying to where in I thanked you for pointing it out to me,and as we have had several exchanges since then on this thread, I am not quite sure why you would feel it necessary to point out "finally"

as to AIPAC that PAC has a known reputation for having influence with politicians hence my comment about "talking politically"


as to JStreet vs any other group who's donations have risen it seems that people are giving to groups that best represent their opinions which are quite diverse indeed

[oberliner]

17. Thanks for attempting to clarify

Unfortunately, I still basically have no idea what you are trying to communicate.

[shaayecanaan]

4. I think the ADL feels torn between its own liberal tradition...

and the desire on the part of its donors to be a white-hot torchbearer for Israel. Obviously, a couple of instances in the past few years where those tensions have bubbled to the fore have been the Armenian genocide controversy and the New York mosque issue.

An interesting snippet I read a few years ago:-

What’s surprising is how unabashedly forthright Abraham Foxman has become about what motivates him and his institution. In October of 2005, Foxman addressed a classroom of Jewish students at New York University. Young heads nodded and brows furrowed as Foxman riled them with his customary rhetoric: Isn’t it antisemitic for pro-Palestinian groups to seek divestment only from Israel, ignoring the far greater crimes of regimes like Sudan or North Korea? How do we describe this sort of selective flagellation of the world’s only Jewish state, if not as antisemitism?

"What if the campus Free Tibet club campaigned for divestment from China? Would that be anti-Chinese bigotry?" asked Asaf Shtull-Trauring, a 20-year-old student and conscientious objector from the Israeli army.

Of course not, answered Foxman, but it was preposterous to compare the two conflicts, what with the Jews’ experience of two millennia of murderous persecution. Shtull-Trauring responded with two questions: Did Foxman mean that selective treatment is okay so long as it’s not directed at Jews? And where did the Anti-Defamation League get off telling Jewish university students which opinions about Israel were acceptable and which verboten?

The dialogue spiraled into a confrontation. Shtull-Trauring says Foxman, frustrated and under attack, placed his cards on the table, angrily retorting: “I don’t represent you nor the Jewish community! I represent the donors.”

http://www.jewcy.com/post/fire_foxman

[oberliner]

7. I think you don't know very much about the ADL

Their position on anti-semitism manifesting itself in the sorts of actions against Israel described in your excerpt has been very consistent over the years and is not at all a new phenomenon.

Maybe you should read The New Anti-Semitism, published over 35 years ago by Arnold Foster, General Counsel for the ADL from 1940 until his retirement in 1979.

[shaayecanaan]

12. A devastating critique

So much evidence there. You're really landing the big punches these days, aren't you?

[oberliner]

13. Wasn't really meant to be a critique

Just an observation.

The ADL today isn't really doing/presenting anything different with respect to its position on Israel than it was 35 years ago.

I think the reason for the drop is, as this article points out, the proliferation and growth of a variety of other single-issue organizations over the years and the ease with which one can pick and choose one's contributions and how easy it is to get info on groups (and, in fact, to start and develop groups) with the growth of the internet.

I'm not really interested in "landing punches" or anything of that nature.

We're all generally on the same side here.