Michal Cohen, CEO of the Rashi Foundation
Published in ejewishphilanthropy, June 8, 2026
Over the past three years, funders have been deeply engaged in Israel’s north. Foundations, federations and private donors stepped forward at a moment of profound crisis to support displaced children and families, help young people who lost their educational and social frameworks, strengthen municipalities operating under extraordinary pressure, assist struggling businesses and invest in community resilience.
In effect, we filled a vacuum. We did not do this because philanthropy is meant to replace government. We did it because the needs were immediate, the challenges were immense and the people of the North could not wait.
Now, after months of advocacy and procedure, the Israeli government has approved a ILS 5.6 billion ($1.95 billion) recovery and growth plan for the North. This is particularly important since the scale and nature of the challenges facing northern Israel require what only government can provide: long-term official commitment, public responsibility and major resources.
But a vital new question has now arisen for those of us who care deeply about the future of the region: What comes next for philanthropy?
The easy answer would be that government has now taken over and philanthropy can step back. But reality is not that simple.
Anyone who has worked for social change knows that funding alone does not create impact. The journey from a budget approved in Jerusalem to meaningful change in places like Kiryat Shmona, Metula, Shlomi, Tzfat, Nahariya, and dozens of small communities located mere yards from the border is long and complicated. Resources must drive action. Specialized programs must be designed and implemented. Municipalities must gain the capacity to manage new investments intended to produce optimal outcomes. Local communities must be actively engaged. Planning and work processes must undergo professional upgrades.
History is filled with well-funded public initiatives that never achieved their full potential because of the gap between policy and execution. With this in mind, Israel’s North is where funders now have the greatest opportunity to make historic impact — not as a substitute for government, but in enabling the nascent government initiative to succeed.
The question is no longer how much money will be invested in the North. It is whether that money will actually change reality there by creating stronger communities, better educational outcomes and economic growth.
Philanthropy can help answer that question in three ways.
First, by investing in implementation capacity. Some of the most important work ahead will not be the launch of new programs, but rather helping municipalities, community organizations and regional partnerships execute them effectively. Strong management, strategic planning, leadership development and cross-sector collaboration will bridge the gap between resources allocated and results achieved.
Second, by continuing to serve as an accelerator for social innovation. With its professional capabilities and agility, philanthropy can create successful models for governments to adopt and scale up by testing new approaches, responding to emerging needs, learning from failure and adapting quickly.
Third, by continuing to identify and meet critical needs not covered by government budgets. No government plan, however ambitious, can address every challenge facing a region as complex as northern Israel.
Perhaps the most important challenge for philanthropy is knowing what not to do.
Not every gap should be filled. Not every national responsibility should become a philanthropic project. The goal should not be to create dependence on philanthropy, but to strengthen the systems, institutions and communities that will sustain themselves long after philanthropic funding ends.
The philanthropy of the emergency phase was defined by speed and responsiveness. The philanthropy of the recovery phase will be defined by leverage. Its success will not be measured by how many programs it funds, but by how effectively it enables public resources to create lasting large-scale change.
The approval of the government’s recovery plan is not the end of philanthropy’s role in northern Israel; it marks a shift to a more strategic one. The question is no longer whether philanthropy has a seat at the table. It is how we can use that seat to ensure that northern Israel flourishes far into the future.
