Marty Levine
May 24, 2026
On May 13, 2026, the Open Society Foundation (OSF)issued this announcement
The Open Society Foundation today announced a new $30 million, three-year initiative to support organizations working to address an alarming surge of antisemitism and anti-Muslim hate in the United States and around the world. The funding will support efforts to keep communities safe by strengthening interfaith solidarity, expanding education, and combating discrimination and violence.
…grants will support efforts to:
- Protect communities facing heightened threats and violence
- Strengthen interfaith and cross-community partnerships to reduce polarization and build trust
- Expand research and education on antisemitism, anti-Muslim hate, and related forms of discrimination
- Support Jewish, Muslim, and allied voices working to advance justice, safety, and equal rights
- Address harassment and discriminatory rhetoric in public and political spaces affecting Jews, Muslims, Palestinians, Arabs, and other impacted communities
- Safeguard free speech and fundamental freedoms, including protecting space for lawful expression and open democratic debate
The announcement of this injection of new funding into the battle to combat rising hate in our country was well timed. It landed just days after the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) issued its report on 2025 antisemitic incidents in the United States, which told us that “In 2025, ADL tracked 6,274 antisemitic incidents in the United States. This was 33% lower than the 9,354 incidents tabulated in 2024, but five times higher than a decade ago.”
Yet it seems to some in my Jewish community that this was a commitment to be questioned. They were not disagreeing with OSF about the threat of antisemitism in our country. In fact, many of those voices are at the forefront of raising alarm bells.
What concerned them, it seems, was the political posture of what OSF represents and some of the Jewish organizations it has supported. For too many organizations and “leaders” in the American Jewish Community, unquestioning support of Israel is the litmus test applied to every word and deed. OSF has drawn criticism because it has funded organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace (of which I am a member) that are avowedly anti-Zionist and are a major element of the post-October 7, 2023, protest of Israeli policies.
And because of that, even a major infusion of resources to combat a threat to American Jews drew suspicion.
Here’s how eJewish Philanthropy, an online daily covering the world of Jewish communal philanthropy, chose to cover OSF’s new commitment
OSF has also come under fire within the Jewish community for funding initiatives that are openly hostile to Israel, including providing grants for Jewish Voice for Peace, which spearheads and supports anti-Israel campus demonstrations.
Asked about the OSF’s support of anti-Israel groups, a spokesperson for the organization told eJewishPhilanthropy, “We’re a human rights organization and we were created in part to counter discrimination and hatred which are contrary to ideas an open society needs to flourish. Everything we fund is aligned with those values but a lot of the work is focused on many other issues [unrelated to antisemitism].”
This commitment of OSF also potentially deepens the fragmentation in the American Jewish community’s efforts to combat antisemitism, weakening the collective power of legacy organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee and Jewish Federations of North America, which have historically been the communal leaders on the issue.
The Forward saw it important to tell us this about OSF’s gift:
The Soros grants also come with some controversy attached. Open Society has long funded Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups as well as pro-Palestinian organizations in the United States, including B’Tselem and Breaking the Silence and past funding for Al-Haq (a Palestinian human rights organization that has been targeted by the Israeli Government).
It also previously supported Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, a major source for the recent New York Times column that alleged Israeli prison guards have used dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners — a report condemned as a “blood libel” by the Israeli government.
The issue here is again why, for so many of those who claim to speak for the entire Jewish American population, is it necessary to link challenging and opposing Israel directly to Anti-Semitism?
I think that the need to do this goes beyond a difference of political views. The need to use the scourge of antisemitism to defend against challenges to Israel’s policies or to its right to exist as an ethno-nationalist state (The Jewish State) reflects a level of fear and insecurity that is, for me, hard to fathom.
Since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the exile of much of the Jewish population from the land (now Israel) thousands of years ago, Judaism as a set of religious beliefs and practices, as a moral code, as a linkage of peoples over generations has always struggled to understand the importance of that land of Israel. Is it important because it will be the place where, at an unknown time, a messiah will arrive and the world as we know it will be transformed? Is it important because Jews need and deserve a country of their own? Or is it not important at all?
These are questions that Jews have argued about, often vehemently, over centuries.
Among all events, the holocaust may have been the ultimate game changer. After living as a minority, often a picked-on minority, the scope of hatred unleashed by the Nazi government was different. The death and destruction it brought upon the Jewish population was unlike anything before or after. Beyond the death of millions, those who survived were left with the legacy of knowing that it had taken place in broad daylight and that few had called it out, few individuals or countries had challenged it and had acted to stop it. Few had opened their doors or their borders for those lucky enough to escape.
When it was over, we were left as a Jewish community to grapple with the immensity of the loss and the fear that it might happen again. Israel, for many, became the answer. No one will protect Jews other than Jews. A Jewish nation is the only entity that Jews can count on. Israel must exist no matter what it does because without it Holocaust 2 is just around the corner.
The power of that fear seems so strong that it can blot out any horror that Israel may do. Just see the vehement reactions to the Nick Kristoff article on the sexual abuse of Palestinian prisoners if you need more proof. No level of evidence is enough; no time is needed to study his sources because he can’t possibly be correct.
As it has been harder and harder to defend Israel as its aggression and oppression have gotten more and more blatant, it has been just as hard to defend it. And it has needed the added fuel of the fight against antisemitism. This taps into the fear of another holocaust. This evokes the painful memories of the past and moves the discussion of Israel’s actions to an argument about who is or is not a hater.
And so, because OSF has supported organizations that challenge Israel, it cannot help but be feared as it enters into the arena to combat antisemitism. If it is welcomed, and if the programs that it supports are considered to be serious efforts, then they may challenge people to see antisemitism apart from Israel. And that will open a Pandora’s box for the Israel right or wrong, establishment.
Fear is not the way in which we build a secure future. But for some, it is all they can hear.
Post script
After I had finished this post, I came across this note about the cancellation of a presentation at the American Psychiatric Association, which may give a deeper understanding of why even donating to fighting hatred is not enough.
Dr. Mansoor Malik was this year’s Chester Pierce Human Rights Award recipient. His topic was addressing moral invalidation and the denial of suffering among marginalized communities (specifically immigrants, Palestinians, LGBTQ+ individuals, and racial and religious minorities). He did a pre-talk interview with Psych Times you can find online where he talked about extending Chester Pierce’s aggression framework to contemporary human rights abuses.
Fiftenn minutes before the session, APA deleted the abstract from the conference website, removed the co-presenters from the online program, stripped the slide deck, and removed the session’s title (From Microaggression to Mass Violence: Psychological Autopsy of the Gaza Genocide) . They asked everyone to leave because the talk was cancelled. By this time, the room was packed (standing room only). People stayed, so APA cut off the microphones. Most of the attendees still stayed for the full duration but spent the time talking about the last minute cancellation and the irony of APA literally enacting what his talk was going to be about (moral invalidation, the institutional denial and dismissal of suffering). The Chester Pierce Award exists to honor people who confront institutional silencing. The APA literally was the institution doing the silencing at this talk.
If you’re interested in learning more about this link will take you to an opinion piece Dr Malik posted in Mondoweiss about his experience.
