For much of American Jewry, local Jewish federations remain important umbrella organizations that direct funds to a variety of Jewish philanthropies. But the New Israel Fund (NIF)—founded in 1979 to support left-wing organizations in the Jewish state—has recently taken the step of trying to compete with the federations in distributing monies, particularly through donor-advised funds. NIF’s supposed advantage is that it is happy to direct donations to anti-Israel groups such as IfNotNow, deemed off-limits by federations. Jonathan Tobin writes:

By taking money away from the federation’s charitable funds in this manner, [NIF] will drastically reduce already diminishing resources in an era of shrinking Jewish demographics and donations. What’s worse, . . . it’s an effort to destroy the links between American Jews and Israel.

The worst thing federations could do in response to the NIF’s efforts would be to seek to compete with them by opening themselves up to donors who want to direct money to anti-Israel groups.

[I]nclusion cannot be the primary goal of any Jewish community. A community that funds Jewish and Zionist philanthropies while also giving donors an option to back anti-Zionist . . . efforts that seek to hurt Israel is one that isn’t so much inclusive as one that stands for nothing. And communities that stand for nothing have no purpose or chance of survival.

The best response to this challenge is for federations to stand firm against this disreputable effort not only to damage Israel but to impact the ability of these philanthropies to fund the infrastructure of Jewish life—namely, schools, camps, adult-education and vocational assistance, services to the elderly and poor, and aid to overseas Jewish causes. . . . This is a moment when those who care about Israel—no matter where you stand on the ideological spectrum—must draw a line and demand that Jewish philanthropies continue to say “no” to anti-Zionist groups.

Recent satellite imagery has shown a buildup of Egyptian tanks near the Israeli border, in violation of Egypt-Israel agreements going back to the 1970s. It’s possible Cairo wants to prevent Palestinians from entering the Sinai from Gaza, or perhaps it wants to send a message to the U.S. that it will take all measures necessary to keep that from happening. But there is also a chance, however small, that it could be preparing for something more dangerous. David Wurmser examines President Abdel Fatah el-Sisi’s predicament:

Egypt’s abysmal behavior in allowing its common border with Gaza to be used for the dangerous smuggling of weapons, money, and materiel to Hamas built the problem that exploded on October 7. Hamas could arm only to the level that Egypt enabled it. Once exposed, rather than help Israel fix the problem it enabled, Egypt manufactured tensions with Israel to divert attention from its own culpability.

Now that the Trump administration is threatening to remove the population of Gaza, President Sisi is reaping the consequences of a problem he and his predecessors helped to sow. That, writes Wurmser, leaves him with a dilemma:

On one hand, Egypt fears for its regime’s survival if it accepts Trump’s plan. It would position Cairo as a participant in a second disaster, or nakba. It knows from its own history; King Farouk was overthrown in 1952 in part for his failure to prevent the first nakba in 1948. Any leader who fails to stop a second nakba, let alone participates in it, risks losing legitimacy and being seen as weak. The perception of buckling on the Palestine issue also resulted in the Egyptian president Anwar Sadat’s assassination in 1981. President Sisi risks being seen by his own population as too weak to stand up to Israel or the United States, as not upholding his manliness.

In a worst-case scenario, Wurmser argues, Sisi might decide that he’d rather fight a disastrous war with Israel and blow up his relationship with Washington than display that kind of weakness.