Statements on a Time in Limbo

As so much in the Middle East and here in the US seems to waver at an inflection point between peace and war, democracy and dictatorship, here are some snapshots that capture the moment.

Hello to new subscribers! Since I don’t know if you’ve signed up for more coverage and analysis of the politics of the Israel-Palestine conflict, or for The Connector’s traditional focus on organizing, movements, tech and democracy, let me just say welcome aboard for the mish-mash! Since Hamas’ October 7 attack and the rupture it has caused among Democrats and grassroots activists, I’ve been going deep on that topic here. But as the 2024 election heats up, I’ll also be digging in on issues around threats to democracy, AI and campaigns, progressive tech infrastructure, third party gambits and the like. As always, I appreciate your attention and feedback!

We seem to have entered a limbo period in the conflict in the Missile East, with a potential Israel-Hamas deal on hostages and cease-fire being discussed and no clarity about how it may get resolved. It’s hard to construct a narrative when so much is in flux. So in today’s edition of The Connector, I’ve decided to instead review a bunch of recent statements made by various protagonists and advocacy organizations, in an attempt to stay aware of the whole swirl that makes up the context of this charged moment.

First, here are the opening paragraphs from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement from yesterday in Israel, explaining why he rejects Hamas’ terms for a hostage deal:

“Tonight I want to speak to you about total victory. Our security and the prospects of peace in the Middle East depend on one thing: total victory over Hamas. At the start of the war, I outlined three goals: destroy Hamas, free the hostages, and ensure that Gaza doesn't pose a threat to Israel in the future. Achieving these goals will ensure Israel's security and pave the way for additional historic peace agreements with our Arab neighbors. But peace and security require total victory over Hamas.

We cannot accept anything else. Can you imagine what will happen if we don't have total victory? Hamas leaders have already pledged they’ll repeat the October 7th massacre over and over and over again. No nation can accept that; we certainly won't. Without total victory Iran and its terror proxies—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and others—will be emboldened to subvert moderate states in the Middle East; they’ll threaten the entire free world. Only total victory will prevent that. And total victory is within our reach.”

He goes on to promise Israelis that then Gaza will be demilitarized, that the UN relief agency UNRWA will be replaced, and that he welcomes “the participation of moderate Arab states in creating a different and better future for Gaza.”

This is a man who is living in a fantasy world.

Now, here is a key snippet from US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s remarks from Tel Aviv a few hours later:

“Israelis were dehumanized in the most horrific way on October 7th.  The hostages have been dehumanized every day since.  But that cannot be a license to dehumanize others.  The overwhelming majority of people in Gaza had nothing to do with the attacks of October 7th, and the families in Gaza whose survival depends on deliveries of aid from Israel are just like our families.  They’re mothers and fathers, sons and daughters – want to earn a decent living, send their kids to school, have a normal life.  That’s who they are; that’s what they want.  And we cannot, we must not lose sight of that.  We cannot, we must not lose sight of our common humanity.

We remain determined as well to pursue a diplomatic path to a just and lasting peace, and security for all in the region, and notably for Israel.  And that diplomatic path continues to come into ever sharper focus as I travel throughout the region and talk to all of our friends and partners.  An Israel that’s fully integrated into the region, with normal relations with key countries, including Saudi Arabia, with firm guarantees for its security, alongside a concrete, time-bound, irreversible path to a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel, with the necessary security assurances.”

This is a man who is straining to square a circle.

Now, going backwards in time a bit, here are some less prominent statements that caught my attention and deserve yours.

—Yesterday, three dozen Israeli civil rights, human rights and peace groups released a joint statement calling for “for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and demand the immediate release of hostages held in the Gaza Strip,” arguing that “an immediate ceasefire will prevent further loss of civilian lives and facilitate access to vital aid for Gaza to address the unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe there.” The groups included B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence, Combatants for Peace, Peace Now, Rabbis for Human Rights and Zazim (Israel’s version of MoveOn).

So far, I’ve seen no sign of any of the #ProPalestine #CeaseFireNow crowd amplifying this call. I wonder why. Perhaps it requires seeing Israel not as a “settler-colonialist” or Nazi monolith but as a flawed democracy with contestable politics?

—On January 30, a little more than a week ago, the Union of Reform Judaism, the largest of the branches of American Jewish religious communities, put out a major statement criticizing Netanyahu’s comments “dismissing the possibility of a future peaceful Palestinian state,” reiterating its support for same, and urging several important non-military steps that Israel “can and must take” including: “Stopping incitement to violence, racism, and use of dehumanizing language against Palestinians by government ministers and others; forcefully addressing settler violence against Palestinians; preventing the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, including through the delivery of tax revenue currently being delayed by Israel; delivering swift and regular humanitarian aid to Gazans struggling against illness and hunger, with safeguards monitored by the international community to ensure that such aid is not diverted to Hamas; rejecting any suggestions of forced relocation of Palestinians from Gaza; such relocation would be in clear violation of international law; committing to ending the occupation, based on a negotiated, diplomatic solution acceptable to Israel and Palestinians alike. Such a solution will fulfill the Palestinian right to self-determination, without which Israel will never be safe and secure; halting the construction of West Bank settlements and rejecting any Jewish resettlement in Gaza.” Now, will rabbis in major Reform synagogues speak up?

—On January 25, two dozen former senior commanders of Israel’s military and intelligence organs, along with several top business leaders, released a group letter demanding the “immediate removal” of Netanyahu from the leadership of Israel, stating that he “bears primary responsibility for creating the circumstances” that led to October 7. “The victims’ blood is on Netanyahu’s hands,” the letter read. “While Israel desperately needs unity in wartime, Netanyahu is a divisive leader,” it adds. “There exists a severe conflict between Netanyahu’s personal interests and those of the State of Israel. Netanyahu is demonstrably not fit, both substantively and morally, to lead Israel in time of war, and he represents a clear and present danger to Israel.” Many of the key signers of this statement were also central to “Mattei Ha’maavak,” the nerve center for the pro-democracy protests that convulsed Israel most of last year (which I wrote about in some detail for the New Republic last summer). No one can accuse this group of being “antisemitic” for talking about Netanyahu this way.

—And on January 24, Hamas released “Our Narrative…Operation Al-Aqsa Flood,” its attempt to “clarify to our people and the free peoples of the world the reality of what happened on Oct. 7, the motives behind…and to put the facts into perspective.” It’s an 18-page document and not all that easy to find online, so go read the whole thing if you’re so inclined. But here are a few highlights:

“After 75 years of relentless occupation and suffering, and after failing all initiatives for liberation and return to our people, and also after the disastrous results of the so-called peace process, what did the world expect from the Palestinian people to do?” the document asks. It then cites Israeli plans to “Judaize” the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the practices of the right-wing Israeli government towards annexing the West Bank and expelling Palestinians, the imprisonment of thousands of Palestinian detainees, the expansion of settlements and the blockade of Gaza. “Proceeding from the above, Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on Oct. 7 was a necessary step and a normal response to confront all Israeli conspiracies against the Palestinian people and their cause. It was a defensive act in the frame of getting rid of the Israeli occupation, reclaiming the Palestinian rights and on the way for liberation and independence like all peoples around the world did.”

The document then goes on to claim that the Oct. 7 invasion was only focused on Israeli military sites, that “avoiding harm to civilians, especially children, women and elderly people is a religious and moral commitment” held by all of its fighters, and to assert that “if there was any case of targeting civilians [ ] it happened accidently [sic].” It adds, “Maybe some faults happened during Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’s implementation due to the rapid collapse of the Israeli security and military system, and the chaos caused along the border areas with Gaza. As attested by many, the Hamas Movement dealt in a positive and kind manner with all civilians who have been held in Gaza.”

As to the deaths of hundreds of Israeli civilians and the rape and mutilation of many, Hamas claims this is all Israeli propaganda. It also asserts that since all Israeli civilians are conscripted into the army, many of the civilians killed during the Oct. 7 invasion were actually soldiers.

This is an organization straining to square a circle in its own fantasy world.

—Related: At the end of February, there will be municipal elections across Israel in more than 300 localities, which will select mayors and city councils. This will be the first time that Israelis can signal whether their political loyalties have shifted since Oct. 7. I’m paying attention to a new party called “Hoze Hadash” (New Contract, in English) which is largely made up of rising local leaders from protest organizations that were central to the anti-government, pro-democracy protests of last year. Achim La’Neshek (Brothers in Arms, a network of elite reservists) and Bonot Alternativa (Women’s Alternative, a feminist group that made the Handmaid’s Tale costumes ubiquitous at so many of those protests) are at the heart of Hoze Hadash, along with Standing Together. Notably, all the slates they are running are equally balanced between men and women, a marked change from traditional Israeli political formations. Hoze Hadash has yet to surface much in the public arena, but based on a private briefing I attended last week, it is focused on toppling Netanyahu, bringing a more centrist government to power, strengthening Israeli democracy and ending the occupation. If you want to support them financially, go here.

Meanwhile, on the Home Front

Two weeks ago, the Democracy Fund released a major new report called “Field in Focus: The State of Pro-Democracy Institutional Philanthropy.” Drawing on interviews and surveys with 70 institutional funders, along with a detailed and nuanced parsing of a mix of public and private data about overall grantmaking covering the six-year period from 2017 to 2022, the report sheds valuable light on an urgent set of questions: Are funders doing enough to support pro-democracy work? Are they stepping up their efforts as the threats to democracy grow? And are there ways they could better support efforts to make America a more inclusive, multiracial democracy?

The key findings of Field in Focus are as follows:

“We estimate institutional philanthropy for democracy to have grown from between $3.8 billion and $4.3 billion in 2017–2018 ($1.9 billion and $2.1 billion on average per year) to between $5.4 billion and $6.9 billion in 2021–2022 ($2.7 billion and $3.4 billion on average per year).

• Voting and elections issues remain core to the field. Survey respondents cited efforts to protect voting rights (76 percent), election administration (73 percent), and voter engagement (86 percent) most often when describing work they funded in 2021–2022.

• Survey respondents note strong and increasing support for newer focal areas, with 70 percent reporting funding for social and racial justice work and 59 percent reporting funding for media policy and misinformation and disinformation.

• Many of the same issues are viewed as being underfunded, with media policy and misinformation/ disinformation and election administration cited most often as areas in need of greater attention and focus from funders.

If that rough estimate of $2.7 billion to $3.4 billion seems like a lot to you, the report’s authors are not so impressed. As they write, “Less than one percent of philanthropy was devoted to democracy in 2022, while other issue areas still receive far more attention and support.” And anecdotally, funders who responded to the Democracy Fund’s survey expressed serious concerns about whether the current pace of funding will continue. As the report notes, “Many note anxiety that recent field growth may decline — both in the number of funders engaged and the amount of funding available — based on the sense that the worst crises of recent years have passed. In particular, these concerns often center on newer field funders and individual donors viewed as less committed to the space long- term. Several survey respondents shared these sentiments:

• “I’m worried that some of the new energy and funding that came out of the 2016–2020 era is starting to drop.”

• “I think there is a growing complacency and lack of urgency around these issues as a result of Trump no longer being in office, when in fact the authoritarian threat is growing, not decreasing.”

• “I hear that overall giving is down and there is some donor fatigue in play, which is concerning given the challenges and opportunities in the space at the moment.”

A few observations are in order. First, if funding for “pro-democracy” efforts has increased, where is the most progress happening? I suppose the most obvious answer might be in the states where legislatures have acted to strengthen voting rights and election administration, and indeed Field in Focus found that among 37 foundations who gave detailed responses about their priorities between 2021 and 2022, issues like voter education and engagement, voting rights, election administration and redistricting were by far the most popular funding areas mentioned. But another sub-field that stood out as a funding priority was media policy, mis/disinformation and journalism, and honestly I don’t think anyone believes there’s been significant progress on those fronts.

A second question that arose for me was how the field thinks about what constitutes “pro-democracy” work. The Democracy Fund developed its own taxonomy, building on work previously done by Candid (which has a highly useful if incomplete database of democracy-related funders, grants and grantees) and refining it in conversation with other leading funders. It covers the usual bases: voting rights, election administration, campaign finance reform, redistricting reform, social and racial justice, social cohesion and polarization, political violence and anti-hate, civic education, public participation, census participation, civil rights, government oversight, healthy journalism and efforts to battle mis- and disinformation.

There’s no definition in the first place of what is meant by democracy. There’s a set of issues that a set of funders see as “core to the health of democracy” but an actual definition is missing. As a result, it’s hard to know if a lot of money being tallied is strengthening values and practices that involve more people in the decisions that affect their lives, that better inform them to participate in those decisions, and that help them and society as a whole navigate conflict when people inevitably disagree about those decisions.

How much of the money being pushed out under the banner of “pro-democracy” actually strengthens illiberal identitarians, for example? I’m all for efforts to do power-building, but judging from recent struggles over American foreign policy, it’s not at all clear that grants to some of the groups doing that kind of work are building support for pluralism. Similarly, what good are grants to shore up election administration in places where Americans live in de facto one-party districts, cities or counties? I can think of several cities in my home state of New York that are run more like family fiefdoms than democracies, and I’m sure we can all think of places ranging from Mississippi to Connecticut where that is also true. But I’ve never seen a funder try to tackle that problem.

Without a definition of democracy or a clear statement on what is weakening our democracy, the philanthropic field is bound to only modestly effective at changing the status quo. And without an analysis of why we’re ailing, throwing money at lots of solutions isn’t enough. At the end of the day, we also have to recognize that the fight to strengthen American democracy is a political fight and a systemic challenge. When one of our two major parties chooses to not just abandon democratic values but also actively undermine them, defeating that party is crucial. At the same time, getting us out of what my friend and colleague Lee Drutman calls the “two-party doom loop” requires more support for party system reform. If you haven’t read his paper on this topic, “More Parties, Better Parties,” which explains why efforts to route around parties with such measures as direct primaries, open primaries, final-four elections and ranked choice voting not only don’t solve the problem but make things worse, go read the whole thing.

—Related: This effort, led by the Democracy Fund, to get likeminded funders to move their democracy-related grants out the door by April, deserves a huzzah!

End Times

One can’t end a column on nonprofit philanthropy without this gem.