THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS
Friday, March 30, 1984
15
Hadassah women block Sharon
Continued from Page 14
characterized the previous generation.
They were not automatically in awe of
everything Israeli, nor did they feel a
sense of overwhelming inferiority in
relation to the new generation of Is-
raeli leaders, as their predecessors had
to Ben-Gurion and his colleagues.
They were less emotional and more
critical and businesslike.
It was a different Israel too, that
was revealed to them in the 1970s, an
Israel more aware of its own shortcom-
ings and let it be said — failures. The
plight of a large segment of the
Sephardi population still living in poor
conditions and restricted oppor-
tunities blew up as a major social issue
in the early 1970s. The trauma of the
Yom, Kippur War exposed the in-
adequacies of the long-time Labor
Party leadership. Israel, too, became
more self-critical and less tolerant of
past excuses for inefficency and politi-
cal corruption.
The second half of the 1970s wit-
nessed a deepening Diaspora ivolve-
ment in Israel's problems and a
greater willingness to resolve dif-
ferences of opinion with Israel leaders
out in the open instead of behind closed
doors.
Project Renewal — the com-
prehensive slum rehabilitation pro-
gram launched in 1977 — opened a
new perspective on Israel. For the first
time it offered Diaspora fund-raisers
and professionals direct involvement
in wrestling with the problems of clos-
ing the social and cultural gap be-
tween the established and disadvan-
taged segments of Israel society.
The experience in Project Renewal
of working directly at the grass roots
with the residents of disadvantaged
areas and government officials had an
especially critical impact on the
newest generation of Diaspora fund-
raisers and federation professionals in
their 30s and early 40s. It made them
even less tolerant of the confusion and
inefficiency in Israel bureaucracy and
more determined to assert a closer con-
trol over the disposition of Diaspora
funds in Israel.
The rise to power of the Likud in
1977 prepared the ground for open con-
frontations between Diaspora and Is-
raeli leaders, such as the recent spec-
tacle of Sharon's defeat. The leading
party in the Likud, Herut, never ad-
justed ideologically to the reconsti-
tuted Agency and the active role in
Israeli affairs it conferred on Diaspora
Jews.
In particular it resisted the prin-
ciple laid down in black and white in
the Agency's by-laws that the Dias-
pora representatives in the WZO and
the Agency could have a say in the
selection of top Agency officials. Thus
instead of quietly seeking Diaspora
consent to its candidates for these
posts, Herut has on several occasions
tried to ram them down the throats of
the Diaspora delegates, even when it
was known that they were unaccept-
able. Each time such attempts have
back-fired for Herut, causing it much
embarrassment and further entrench-
ing the fact of Diaspora influence that
they so sorely resent.
The Diaspora leaders in the
Agency, or at least the top segment in
this group of several hundred men and
Jerold Hoffberger set the tone of the -new
assertiveness when, soon after assuming
command of the board of governors of the
Jewish Agency, he successfully blocked the
re-appointment of a friend of then-Prime
Minister Menachem Begin.
Max Fisher of Detroit chaired the Jewish
Agency board of governors from 1971 to
1983 and helped institute the policy
changes which gave the Diaspora more
influence in the Jewish Agency
decision-making processes.
women, have recently tried to forge
better organizational tools for super-
vising Agency activities and the all-
important task of determining its an-
nual budget.
Long-distance management has
proven to be inherently problematic,
they now 'realize, especially as the
board of governors convenes only twice
a year for a brief period. Furthermore,
these leaders do not always have a
firm grasp of how Agency programs
complement or conflict with social and
educational activities carried out di-
rectly by the government. And in
evaluating the performance of Agency
departments, they have to rely mainly
on what the Agency bureaucrats tell
them.
Some of the worst instances of
waste, duplication and politicization
in the Agency have been done away
with since the early 1970s, but there is
still room for considerable improve-
ment. Yet it should be noted that some
of these changes would have come
about even if the Agency adminis-
trators did not have Diaspora leaders
looking over their shoulders.
Over the years there has been an
ideological rapproachement with
Diaspora Jewry that would have been
unthinkable under someone like
Ben-Gurion, who stoutly asserted that
only someone who makes aliyah can be
considered a Zionist. Today, leaders
like Max Fisher, the board of gover-
nors chairman from 1971 to 1983, have
embraced the term "new Zionist" to
describe their outlook.
This term refers to any Jew who
upholds the centrality of the state of
Israel in Jewish life; endorses the im-
portance of aliyah, even if he does not
make a personal commitment to come
to Israel; and seeks to strengthen
Jewish values and identity through
Jewish education.
Although some Israelis sneer at
this as a watered-down Zionist com-
mitment, thee ideas have recently re-
ceived some practical expressions that
would have been unheard of 10 or 15
years ago. One is a growing interest at
the top levels of the Agency in greatly
expanding its Jewish education pro-
grams for the Diaspora, which are
today mainly the preserve of the WZO.
The other is the formation of programs
in local Jewish federations to provide
material and moral support for mem-
bers of the local community who decide
to take the plunge and settle in Israel.
The open discussion and encour-
agement of aliyah has broken
down the taboo on the subject that was
imposed by the previous generation of
Israeli and Diaspora leaders. Their
unwritten pact put the Diaspora Jews
in a morally inferior position, since
they had declined to give up their
material comforts for the rigors of
practical Zionism. The Diaspora Jews
forked over their contributions as a
sort of "guilt tax" and the Israelis for
their part agreed not to raise the
touchy subject of aliyah.
Nowadays, with tens of thousands
of Israel yordim headed towards
Babylon-on-the Hudson and a growing
Israeli appreciation of the importance
of a strong, vibrant American Jewish
community, the mutual complexes on
both sides have abated somewhat.
This has made communication and
cooperation easier on both sides.
Although the Zionist parties have
lost most of the influence they once
had among world Jewry, they continue
to control most of the funds and posi-
tions in the Agency and WZO. Lately
these anachronistic arrangements
have come under attack from two di-
rections.
No less a personage then
Agency/ WZO chairman Arye Dulzin
recently blasted the structure of the
WZO as outmoded and unrepresenta-
tive. He proposed that Jewish defense
and community organizations such as
the American Jewish Congress and
B'nai B'rith be incorporated into the
WZO, following the lead taken by the
other non-political groups such as the
Reform and Conservative movements.
He also said that these non-party
organizations should be given more
power in the WZO.
From the otterdirection, some
Diaspora leaders such as Max Fisher
have talked about extending the re-
presentation and control of the Dias-
pora fund-raisers into the WZO.
The thrust of these proposals
would be to enhance world Jewry's role
in the Agency and WZO at the expense
of the depleted and outmoded Zionist
parties. They also imply reshaping
these two bodies into Israel-based
service organizations for the Jewish
People that are run on a professional
basis with as little politics as possible.
The growing involvement. of
Diaspora and especially American
Jews in the Agency over the last de-
cade has led some leaders such as
Fisher to envision it with a new
structure and purpose. Others, more
skeptical of the possibility of rooting
out the politics, have recently
broached the heretical idea of bypas-
Continued on Page 16
The structure
Ir
he World Zionist Organ-
ization: Founded in 1897
by Theodore Herzl to
unite Jews around the
world in working towards the estab-
lishment of a Jewish state in Pales-
tine. In 1952, an Israeli law made the
WZO and the Jewish Agency jointly
responsible for immigration and ab-
sorption. In 1971, the two organiza-
tions were functionally separated,
with the WZO in charge of Jewish
and Zionist education programs, set-
tlement in the occupied territories,
and assorted cultural _activities. The
WZO is also the political framework
for Zionist activity around the world,
carried out through the Zionist par-
ties such as Mizrahi, the General
Zionists and the Labor 'Zionists, and
Zionist youth groups.
The Jewish Agency: Founded in
1929 by the WZO president Dr.
Chaim Weizmann as a framework for
"non-Zionists" to support the aims of
the WZO. In the re-organization of
the WZO/ Agency in 1971, the
.
Agency was given responsibility for
settlement within Israel proper,
Youth Aliyah, housing and other so-
cial welfare activities, including
Project Renewal:
The Agency Assembly: This is
the constituent body of the Agency
and has 340 members. Half of its
members are designated by the WZO,
30 percent by the United Israel Ap-
peal and 20 percent by the Keren
Hayesod.
The Board of Governors: This
body is charged with the policy-
making and supervision of Agency
activities. It is composed of 62 mem-
bers in the same proportion as in the
Assembly.
The Executive: It is responsible
for the day-to-day operations of the
Agency and its departments. It is
composed of the heads of the three
main departments, the chairman of
the Keren Hayesod, the president
and chairman of the UJA and three
other members of the Board of Gov-
ernors.
.
ANSIMUMIMIII41.46
1
,