TopicalBoost WordPress Demo

Topic: Hamas

Palestinian Islamist political and military organization, widely designated as a terrorist organization

  • A Critical Lifeline: Israel’s New National Blood Bank

    As Israel’s allies come to its aid during the unfolding Israel-Hamas war, one critical resource that has been years in the making and has proven paramount to Israel’s defenses is the recently completed Marcus National Blood Services Center, funded by hundreds of donors, including Bernie and Billi Marcus of The Marcus Foundation and American Friends of Magen David Adom (AFMDA).  

    At the grand opening of the blood bank in Ramla, Israel, on May 2, 2022, Isaac Herzog, the president of Israel said, “The Marcus National Blood Services Center … embodies the most moving essence of our shared humanity. To receive a blood transfusion — the irreplaceable gift of life — from complete strangers is a stark reminder that we are one living, breathing tapestry of humanity, now safeguarded in this impressive new center.” Catherine Reed, CEO of AFMDA, called the center of “strategic importance to the people of Israel.”  

    Philanthropy Roundtable recently sat down with The Marcus Foundation to discuss the security features in place at the Marcus National Blood Services Center and the critical role philanthropy played in its founding. 


    Q: On May 2, 2022, the Marcus National Blood Services Center was dedicated in Ramla, Israel. How did the Marcus Foundation learn this was needed in Israel and why was Bernie Marcus inspired to support it? 

    The Marcus Foundation: Bernie Marcus learned years ago, on a trip to Israel, that the blood center at the time, located at Tel HaShomer, had to move its operations into bomb shelters when rockets launched from Gaza targeted the Tel Aviv area. He realized then how delicate and vulnerable the blood system was.   

    “We worked with Magen David Adom (MDA) as it rethought ways to protect Israel’s national blood supply well into the future,” he has said. “Having it in a safe and secure underground facility doubled the blood supply and protects it from harm during missile attacks, chemical warfare and earthquakes, ensuring Israel’s blood supply will be protected for all its citizens, Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.” 

    More than 600 Americans and others around the world also made significant donations. Bernie and Billi donated $35 million to the project. In addition to the Marcuses, major donations were made by the Adelson Family Foundation; Bloomberg Philanthropies; Donna Calcaterra; Kurt and Susan Charm Schwartz; Crown Family Philanthropies; The Deshe, Diamond and Saul Schottenstein families; The Donner and Sznajer families; Judy Fleischer; Barbara and Dr. Bruce Ribner and The Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies. A total of 25 of the major gifts were each $1 million or more. 

    Q: The new blood bank was meticulously designed to double Israel’s blood capacity while also being protected from missiles, biological and chemical warfare and earthquakes. Which capabilities and securities are in place in this facility?  

    The Marcus Foundation: Construction of the project required the removal of 11,000 truckloads of soil to excavate the site. Three floors of the six-floor facility are underground and have an even larger subterranean footprint than what is seen above ground. 

    The facility, built at a cost of $135 million, is a first in its concept, design, engineering and capabilities. It was designed and constructed in cooperation with the Prime Minister’s Office, Ministry of Defense, Israel Defense Forces and the National Cyber Security Authority. It is shielded with extra-thick concrete walls, blast doors and airlocks. One of the doors is considered the most secure, largest and heaviest blast door in Israel and, perhaps, the world. To ensure the highest levels of protection and continuity of operations in war scenarios, such as today, each critical system has a secondary system. The center has 375 employees, including hematologists, phlebotomists and lab technicians. 

    Q: What impact has the new blood bank had in the wake of the October 7 attacks on Israel? 

    The Marcus Foundation: Since October 7 through November 26 (seven weeks), AFMDA blood services collected 81,000 blood units. This is 2.3 times the 35,000 blood units collected during its regular activities. Only because they had the new protected, safe, spacious Marcus Blood Services Center, were they able to process, test, store and deliver all the units needed by the civilian and military authorities in Israel.  

    Both the blood inventory and the employees, volunteers and the military brigade of reservists, soldiers and officers, who were recruited to assist during this emergency — all were under 100% protection during the many Red Alert events that were experienced in the last 2.5 months. It can confidently be said that the blood supply of Israel was saved during this war due to the generous, important donation of the Marcus family and foundation. 


    Q: How can donations to this vital project be made? 

    The Marcus Foundation: Donations are especially important now, and ongoing support is needed, as normal blood need is 270,000 units of blood a year, and terrorism continues to take the lives of innocent Israelis. Amazingly, the Blood Center became operational just days before October 7. The Center and ambulances were all called into service on and after October 7. 

    MDA relies on the support of donors to keep its dispatch systems, training and equipment the best in the world. MDA’s site has various ways people can contribute including donations of critical equipment and financial donations online, via text, phone and mail. The blood center has its own donation website. 

    Q: In your opinion, how did Bernie’s approach to philanthropy make a difference in supporting this particular project?  

    The Marcus Foundation: Bernie’s business acumen, combined with his passion for saving lives, culminates in an entrepreneurial approach to giving that is unique and often missing in the nonprofit sector. In his philanthropy, Bernie has helped redefine the metrics philanthropists employ to distribute their wealth. He has said, “Charity is no different from business. There’s a bottom line to it.” 

    The probing questions donors should pose to potential grantees include: What are the deliverables? How will we measure outcomes? What is the organization’s plan for self-sufficiency? How capable is the leadership? 

    Learn more about Bernie Marcus and his charitable giving by watching his interview from our video series Doers to Donors.

  • Donor Intent Watch: Higher Education Donors React to Campus Responses to Israel-Hamas War

    Earlier this year, following the passage of the Donor Intent Protection Act in Kansas, Philanthropy Roundtable launched a monthly series on donor intent controversies around the country to better inform those who care about this important topic. We await updates on lawsuits involving Middlebury College and the former Hastings College of the Law, and will continue to inform readers about those topics.    

    Most cases discussed this year have involved gifts to colleges and universities. Art and natural history collections have also experienced disputes, as indicated by our continuing coverage of the Barnes Foundation and the October 2023 discussion of a landmark case at the Berkshire Museum. This month, following nearly six weeks of campus turmoil, we are returning to higher education and featuring several recently-published articles that raise important questions about the relationship between donors and the institutions they support.    

    We encourage donors to contact us with any questions they have about our featured items and consult additional resources on donor intent at the Roundtable’s Donor Intent Hub. We also welcome any news about donor intent that we may have missed.    

     
    Wealth Management: “Philanthropists are Pulling the Plug” 

    Trust & Estates legal editor Anna Sulkin Stern writes about donors’ responses to the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and rising antisemitism on campuses, naming those who have suspended or terminated their giving to Harvard University, Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania. She also reminds readers that donor dissatisfaction can easily spread to other donors and campuses, quoting from an October Trusts & Estates article:  

    Upholding and respecting donor intent encourages charitable giving. When donors know their intent will be honored, they develop confidence in the charitable sector and the organizations to which they give. However, if donors lack trust or confidence that their intent will be protected by those responsible for upholding it, some either won’t give or will give somewhere else. 

    The article goes on to suggest that although this season’s disputes between donors and higher education grantees do not necessarily involve violations of donor intent, donors who continue to give to colleges and universities may change how they structure their gifts. Avi Z. Kestenbaum, co-chair of Meltzer Lippe’s Trusts & Estates practice group, warns: “ 

    … In the future, I could see major donors putting more conditions and restrictions on their donations, not only as to how the funds are used, which is already common, but also with regard to the world view and belief system the university espouses and supports on its campus, in light of what we are now witnessing at some of these universities. 

    In the current environment, Kestenbaum’s prediction is likely correct. Increased donor restrictions, however – especially those that speak to an institution’s “world view and belief system” – are likely to run head on into faculty and administration concerns about hiring, tenure and ultimately, academic freedom. Donors will need to be well-informed about utilizing appropriate language in their gift agreements and should be prepared to engage legal assistance if needed. 

    Read more here.  


    The Chronicle of Higher Education: “The Dangers of Donor Revolt” 

    In The Chronicle of Higher Education, Lila Corwin Berman, a professor of Jewish history at Temple University, and Benjamin Soskis, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute’s Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, discuss the unfavorable reactions of many philanthropists to recent campus events. They also worry this signifies an unhealthy and dangerous level of power in the hands of megadonors that warrants increased regulation.    

    The authors note:  

    In 2022, the Council for Advancement and Support of Education calculated that institutions of higher education took in $59.5 billion in charitable gifts and found that the top 1% of givers accounted for at least 80% of all donations. Dependent on these top givers, colleges allowed them to earmark funds through “restricted” gifts dictated by donor-determined limits and priorities. According to one recent study, a full 68% of money in the largest private universities is “restricted” in this way.  

    Of particular concern, Berman and Soskis suggest, is that the political leanings of the wealthiest Americans “tend to skew centrist and conservative on many issues.”   

    While conceding that donors who are now threatening to withhold further gifts if universities fail to address antisemitism on their campuses may be “hold[ing] power to account,” the authors suggest these donors may also be engaging in “public grandstanding … showing the public that, far from balancing power, they are arrogating too much for themselves by elevating their concerns over others’ interests.” Regarding the revolt of Jewish donors, they maintain, “It is safe to assume that some critics will draw on a deep well of antisemitic tropes linking Jews to perfidious uses of power.”  

    “The donor revolt,” Berman and Soskis conclude, “has brought to the surface long-simmering debates about philanthropic power. … At the very least, we should take it as an opportunity to ask whether the philanthropic system as it exists is worth defending, or whether a public revolt against the philanthropic status quo is in order.” 

    Yet the authors never clarify what form such a public revolt might take, or what manner of increased charitable regulation they propose. Their concerns about donors who are demanding that higher education grantees abandon free speech and the protection of academic freedom are certainly warranted, yet they fail to acknowledge that donors have the right to restrict the use of their gifts to programs and institutions aligned with their values.  

    They imply that Jewish donors should avoid voicing their anger and retracting financial support because they will likely inspire more antisemitism. Their focus on donors’ power discounts the bargaining power a university can bring to the table – especially when donors are alumni who are emotionally invested with their alma maters.  

    Finally, Berman and Soskis seem to neither understand nor acknowledge that the common thread in the current communications of dissatisfied donors is a powerful feeling of betrayal. That is true for many donors who cannot be simply written off as “megadonors,” including the 1,600 Harvard alumni who are threatening to end any financial support of their alma mater unless the university addresses the wave of antisemitism on its campus.  

    Read more here. (You may need to create a free account to access this article.)   


    Cornell University and Dartmouth College on Faculty Responses 

    In The Cornell Daily Sun and on Dartmouth’s website, these articles focus on faculty members and their responsibilities to the community of students and others they serve. Both are potent reminders that the core purpose of higher education institutions is not fundraising, not lobbying, not public relations – it is teaching.  

    Responding to the October 7 terrorist attacks on Israel, eight Cornell University faculty members representing a variety of fields of study sent a joint letter to the student newspaper regarding the tumultuous events on that campus over the month that followed. “Whatever our personal response to the unfolding spectacle of physical and verbal violence now being directed at Jewish people not only here, where we live, but everywhere,” they write, “it is as professors and educators that we wish now to speak and to register our offense.” What follows is a stark reminder of the many ways in which too many faculty members have abrogated their responsibilities not simply to their profession, but – and far more importantly – to their students.  

    Failure to ensure student safety is a primary concern, the authors argue, as students must be given an opportunity to discuss issues in classrooms “without fear of reprisal, intimidation and the threat of public shame.” They go on to say, “If professors abdicate their responsibility to ensure the freedom of all their students to speak their minds, what happens in the classroom hardly deserves the name of higher education. What passes for teaching under such circumstances is called propaganda.” 

    Faculty members who express opinions in public about matters they have not studied are expressing “contempt for the years of painstaking effort that it takes to master any subject,” the authors continue. Those faculty members, they say, are not only disrespecting their colleagues and their profession, but “are also making it very difficult for all of us to ask our students to follow the rules that differentiate the conscientious pursuit of knowledge from the irresponsible reproduction of ignorance.”  

    Finally, the authors say too many faculty members fail to engage students in understanding “the implications of their position on a specific question” and in “confront[ing] fully and honestly the meaning and consequences of what they are saying.” Intentionally – and even unintentionally – allowing one’s students to adopt a mindset based on slogans is one more symptom of the current “assault on the teaching profession and discourse, an assault with which the profession itself seems to be cooperating.” The victims of this assault, the Cornell authors conclude, “are precisely those whose approval we are now shamelessly courting and whose young impressionable minds are our most important charge.” 

    At Dartmouth, faculty members have succeeded in creating a safe forum for open and educated dialogue on matters at the heart of their scholarship. Since October 7, they have offered three on-campus and livestreamed events for the college community. Susannah Heschel, chair of the Jewish studies program, and Jonathan Smolin, associate professor of Middle Eastern Studies, have led this effort which has featured faculty from Dartmouth and other institutions. Heschel has credited the longstanding practice of scholarly collaboration between the two programs, noting, “Because of that long-term relationship and understanding, we were able to immediately jump right in on this issue as soon as the October 7 attacks took place. … You don’t wait until there’s a crisis.” 

    Beyond this, a Dartmouth senior lecturer, Egyptian author and academic Ezzedine Fishere has taught a course on the politics of Israel and Palestine for seven years. In recent years he co-taught the course with visiting professor Bernard Avishai, a scholar of Israeli politics. “We thought having both perspectives would create a safer space for everybody in class,” Fishere has remarked. Although Avishai will not be available for the college’s winter term, Fishere will bring in other presenters by Zoom, explaining: 

    The idea has always been to teach students to understand the motivations of the players and their concerns and their aspirations so that they can better analyze this conflict and understand its dynamics—where it might be going—rather than to try to get them to know, quote-unquote, the truth and take positions about it. … I’ve seen how students, once they feel safe enough to allow themselves to exercise introspection about the community that they come from and about their own beliefs and stereotypes, they can open up and allow themselves to go beyond the point where they started. It’s heartwarming and it’s also what learning is about. 

    The critical importance of the teaching faculty to donors who are committed to reforming higher education is manifested in both Cornell University’s faculty letter and Dartmouth College’s faculty collaboration. In our guidebook on donor intent, “Protecting Your Legacy,” we recommend that a donor find at least one (ideally tenured) faculty member at the target institution who shares the donor’s vision and can help a donor navigate the bureaucracy of a particular campus. Faculty members can be particularly useful in explaining an institution’s academic processes and the boundaries of academic freedom, and can assist donors in building more support and continuity for their proposed reforms.  

    Read more here and here. 

  • How Donors Can Fight Rising Antisemitism on College Campuses

    It’s been one month since Hamas terrorists brutally murdered over 1,400 innocent Israeli civilians – including babies, children, women and the elderly – and the international community was jarred back to the reality of the evil in this world.  

    Subsequently, an antisemitic backlash to the Israel-Hamas war has ensued. According to the Anti-Defamation League, a nonprofit that fights antisemitism, in the weeks following the Hamas attack, there have been nearly four times as many instances of harassment, vandalism and assault directed at Jewish people and communities in comparison with the same period in 2022.  

    On college campuses in particular, there has been an alarming rise in threats against Jewish students. This week, a Cornell University student was arrested following online threats he would “bring an assault rifle to campus” and “shoot up” a dining hall where Jewish students eat. At Stanford University, an instructor was removed from the classroom after trying “to justify the actions of Hamas” and singling out Jewish students. In response to “an extremely disturbing pattern of antisemitic messages,” the Biden administration announced this week it would partner with campus law enforcement to provide federal resources to schools.  


    Universities Slow to Respond Following Hamas Attacks 

    Sadly, in the wake of Hamas’ barbaric terrorism, many people tacitly supported their actions. Yet as anti-Israel rhetoric and actions have intensified among some groups, leaving Jewish students feeling scared and unsafe at American universities, too many higher educational institutions have hypocritically equivocated at the moment they should have stood firm in their opposition to antisemitic hate and violence. Encouragingly, charitable donors are uniquely positioned to hold higher education accountable to its commitments to the safety, dignity and rights of all people.    

    Days after the attacks and amid pressure from donors to respond, universities released statements expressing concern. The responses ran the gamut from clear moral condemnation to near sympathy for the attackers. Meanwhile, pro-Palestinian student groups hijacked the conversation with their shocking statements and protests thereby coopting the universities’ responses.  

    Harvard’s reaction illuminates this point. It took days for the most elite university to release a statement, prompting former Harvard President Larry Summers to say: “The silence from Harvard’s leadership, so far, coupled with a vocal and widely reported student group’s statement blaming Israel solely, has allowed Harvard to appear at best neutral toward acts of terror against the Jewish state of Israel.” The university released multiple follow-up statements, but failed to strongly condemn a student statement that held Israel responsible for Hamas’ violence, prompting other alumni and donors to chide the university. 

    In comparison, University of Florida President and former U.S. senator Ben Sasse sent a letter to students and alumni explaining why it was unacceptable that his peers at other institutions were taking a neutral approach: “I will not tiptoe around this simple fact: What Hamas did is evil and there is no defense for terrorism. This shouldn’t be hard. [They] have been so weakened by their moral confusion that, when they see videos of raped women, hear of a beheaded baby or learn of a grandmother murdered in her home, the first reaction of some is to ‘provide context’ and try to blame the raped women, beheaded baby or the murdered grandmother,” he wrote.   

    The neutral approach that some colleges have taken – those that even chose to speak out —stands in stark contrast to letters and commitments made after the murder of George Floyd and the social justice protests of 2020. Many of those statements condemned the officer, the criminal justice system and systemic racism inherent in all institutions against Blacks. This leads us to wonder why those who embraced social justice and the equal rights and protections of all people haven’t stepped up now to defend their Jewish counterparts or condemn the slaughter of 1,400 people. What message does this send to Jewish students, faculty, donors and alumni? 

    As Sasse said on another occasion, “You got so many universities around the country [who] speak about every topic under the sun, Halloween costumes and microaggressions. But somehow in a moment of the most grave, grotesque attacks on Jewish people since the Holocaust, they all of a sudden say there’s too much complexity to say anything.” 


    Donors Can Help Combat Antisemitism on Campuses 

    Now, as violence and intimidation against Jewish students are rising, donors and alumni need not sit on the sidelines in dismay. They can use their voices and dollars to move administrations to stand against antisemitism in word and deed.  

    Philanthropic giving to higher education last year totaled $59.5 billion, including $23 billion from individual donations, according to a 2022 survey of U.S. universities by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education. People giving $1 million or more made up less than 1% of donors but 57% of total donations.  

    While higher education giving is a rewarding and meaningful use of philanthropic dollars, it can be challenging for both donor intent and grant compliance. Nonetheless, accountability is a critical element of higher education funding. Academic institutions must be held accountable for the misuse of donor funds and that includes indirectly supporting activities that can be destructive to civility, undermine academic freedom or promote violence. 

    Recently, major higher education donors have ended their financial support and relationships with institutions over their response to the attack. For example, venture capitalist David Magerman, hedge fund billionaire Cliff Asness, private-equity billionaire Marc Rowan, former U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman and other high-profile donors cut ties with the University of Pennsylvania in protest of the university’s support for a festival featuring antisemitic speakers and its subsequent conflicting messages on the Hamas attack. Magerman, who is calling on other donors to do the same, noted, “I was just pushed over the edge by the equivocation of the response.” 

    At Harvard, retailer Leslie Wexner announced he was pulling funding from Harvard over its refusal to support Israel. Meanwhile, a group of prominent alumni including Utah Sen. Mitt Romney and investors Seth Klarman and Bill Helman published an open letter criticizing the school’s leadership for creating an increasingly hostile environment for Harvard’s Jewish students and providing steps the university can take to remedy its actions. 

    Perhaps the removal of charitable dollars will nudge universities to action. Academic institutions may say their hands are tied or attempt to hide behind claims they are protecting academic freedom and free speech. However, that rings hollow when we consider the alarming censorship on campus today. Let’s remind them of their sundry diversity, equity and inclusion efforts – from speech codes to removal of faculty — that have been weaponized against opposing viewpoints on campus. There is something deeply wrong when people argue “words are violence” but make excuses for and even celebrate one of the most inhumane acts of violence on a civilian population – including at least 30 Americans – in recent memory.  

    While faculty and students have the right to their viewpoints, the university has a responsibility to ensure everyone’s physical safety and – given their outspoken stance on social justice – to speak out when atrocities like the unprompted murders of innocent Jews occur in the world. And when they forget, donors should remind them.