This is not an ideological battle between left and right, religious and secular, Israel and the Diaspora. It is a test of whether Zionist institutions still honor the rules that confer legitimacy on them. The Jewish National Fund—Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael (KKL)—was never meant to be a prize captured by a faction, but a national trust held on behalf of the entire Jewish people. When leaders show contempt for representation, they disqualify themselves from stewardship.
The candidacy of Eyal Ostrinsky brings this issue into focus. The question before delegates is not whether they agree with his worldview, but whether the system itself will survive his rise.
KKL was established in 1901 because the Zionist movement understood that land, resources, and national institutions could not be treated as party property. Theodor Herzl warned that Zionism would fail if it became sectarian, insisting that legitimacy must be grounded in broad consent rather than ideological enforcement. David Ben-Gurion later reinforced this principle, arguing that national institutions must represent the full spectrum of the Jewish people, even when politically inconvenient.
Menachem Ussishkin, one of KKL’s most influential architects, described the Fund as a guardian of collective ownership, not a tool for partisan control. Across decades of fierce internal conflict, one rule held firm: electoral legitimacy guaranteed institutional participation. That rule is now being broken.
For the first time in the history of the World Zionist Organization, entire elected parties are being deliberately excluded from representation despite winning clear mandates. Kol Yisrael, supported by tens of thousands of international voters, has been shut out. Eretz Yisrael, representing right-wing Israeli voters and sitting Knesset mandates, has likewise been boycotted. These parties are not being proportionally limited, rotated, or negotiated with; they are being barred outright. This did not happen during the Labor–Revisionist wars, the Oslo Accords, the disengagement, or any prior ideological rupture.
When elections produce winners who are denied participation, voting becomes ceremonial and legitimacy erodes. This exclusion reflects a broader pattern of institutional manipulation. Student representatives have faced pressure to resign or accept the rotational dilution of traditionally protected seats. Efforts have been made to weaken long-standing student representation on the WZO Executive Committee, and in prior cycles, student terms were shortened and replaced by political allies. The same approach is now applied to entire voting blocs.
What emerges is a method of consolidation through exclusion—gaining control by narrowing the field rather than governing a pluralistic one. This is not the behavior of confident leadership; it is the behavior of those who believe power must be seized and protected.
KKL is more than just a debate platform. It manages real assets with meaningful impact. Much of its funding comes from Israeli public land and property revenues paid by citizens of all political, religious, and cultural backgrounds. These funds belong collectively to the Jewish people, not to any ideological group or unelected authority. Any leader who treats KKL as a political tool rather than a fiduciary trust violates its fundamental mission. A chairman who cannot accept legitimate dissent cannot be trusted to oversee shared resources. This is not just a philosophical issue; it is a national matter.
To understand why this decision matters, it’s crucial to grasp what KKL truly signifies. Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael is not just a symbolic charity or an environmental project; it is one of the most influential tools shaping Israel’s future—an institutional asset whose scale and potential are often underestimated.
In a country where land controls housing affordability, regional development, agriculture, and sovereignty, those who lead KKL hold the power to decide whether Israel expands or stagnates. With strong leadership, KKL could spark a housing boom, revitalize peripheral regions, expand agriculture and vineyards, boost exports, and reconnect Jews—especially young Jews—to the land of Israel. Such leadership could trigger an economic, cultural, agricultural, and environmental revival exactly when Israel needs it most.
During a time of rising antisemitism, a strong and serious KKL can also bolster Jewish confidence, identity, and continuity by transforming land into a sense of purpose and belonging. This role is not merely administrative; it is civilizational.
Beyond questions of legitimacy, there is a fundamental failure of vision. After October 7, Israel does not need another political operator skilled in internal maneuvering. It requires leaders who can run institutions, foster innovation, and turn national assets into engines of economic and strategic resilience.
KKL was created to make the land productive, defensible, and sovereign—not to oversee abstract values or factional bargaining. Land cultivation, agriculture, vineyards, and value-added industries such as Israeli wine are not symbolic; they are state-building tools that create jobs, boost exports, attract tourism, and strengthen attachment to the land. Nothing in Eyal Ostrinsky’s record suggests the operational seriousness or imagination required to meet this moment.
Bondi Beach should have dispelled any lingering illusion that Jewish vulnerability is theoretical or distant. Like the Nova Festival on October 7, it showed that Jewish visibility without preparedness invites catastrophe, and that denial is not a strategy. These moments expose the cost of institutional drift—leadership focused on internal power struggles rather than strengthening Jewish resilience, cohesion, and seriousness at home and abroad. Zionist institutions were created not only to manage land and budgets, but to safeguard Jewish continuity in moments of crisis. When they lose that focus, Jews pay the price.
Warnings about this conduct have come from within the liberal Zionist ecosystem itself. USA AZM has publicly criticized the actions of Eyal Ostrinsky and Yizhar Hess, signaling that these concerns are not partisan inventions. When ideological allies raise alarms, they should be treated as governance warnings. Institutions rarely collapse because of external enemies; they decay when insiders decide the rules no longer apply.
What makes this moment especially dangerous is the concentration of power without proper oversight. With Yizhar Hess set to influence the World Zionist Organization’s executive agenda and Eyal Ostrinsky ready to control JNF-KKL, agenda-setting and budget authority would be held by a small ideological group. During a time of severe housing shortages, post-war rebuilding needs, economic hardships, and urgent aliyah and Hebrew continuity issues, this consolidation risks shifting focus from land development to internal political interests.
Even if there is no misconduct, five years of ideological drift and institutional paralysis would be disastrous. Because of the large scale of public assets at stake, it is essential for the Knesset and the state comptroller to require full transparency: how much money KKL controls, how it is spent, and if that spending supports its national mission.
Oversight is not interference; it is the essential safeguard when national institutions are facing a legitimacy crisis. If this unchecked process continues, the president of Israel, the prime minister, and the nation’s top leaders will have failed not only their citizens but the Jewish people worldwide, especially when institutional accountability is most crucial.
The precedent set by this vote will outlast the individuals involved. If Eyal Ostrinsky is elected chairman of KKL, it will signal that representation is conditional, elections are reversible, and institutional access depends on ideological compliance. Once established, this logic will not remain confined to today’s targets; it will inevitably be turned against students, centrists, and future majorities.
Zionist institutions do not collapse overnight; they hollow out quietly, rule by rule, exception by exception. Zionism was built by people who planted, built, and took responsibility — not by those who narrow institutions to secure power. In a post–October 7 and Bondi world, KKL deserves a guardian who unites and builds, not a gatekeeper who consolidates and excludes.
Footnotes & Governance References
[1] World Zionist Organization Constitution – Democratic Representation
The WZO Constitution establishes that representation within Zionist institutions is derived from delegates elected to the World Zionist Congress, and that affiliated bodies and national institutions are to reflect proportional electoral strength.
[2] World Zionist Organization Constitution – Equality of Factions
Recognized Zionist movements and parties that receive mandates are entitled to participation in WZO organs and national institutions, subject to proportional arrangements rather than ideological exclusion.
[3] Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael (JNF-KKL) – National Trust Doctrine
KKL’s founding resolutions (Fifth Zionist Congress, 1901) and subsequent governance practice define it as a national trust of the Jewish people, obligated to steward land and resources for collective benefit rather than partisan advantage.
[4] Fiduciary Responsibility of National Institutions
WZO and KKL governance norms impose fiduciary duties of loyalty, fairness, and non-discrimination on officers and board members, particularly where public or quasi-public assets are administered.
[5] Student and Youth Representation Precedent
Student and youth representation within WZO executive bodies has been historically recognized as a protected category, reflecting Zionism’s commitment to democratic continuity and generational participation.
[6] Prohibition on Abuse of Institutional Power
Zionist governance norms prohibit manipulation of representation, forced resignations, or exclusion of duly elected delegations for the purpose of consolidating institutional control.
Adam Scott Bellos is the founder and CEO of The Israel Innovation Fund and the author of Never Again Is Not Enough: Why Hebraization Is the Only Way to Save the Diaspora. He writes and speaks on Israeli politics, Zionism, Jewish leadership, and the structural failures of Jewish institutions in Israel and the Diaspora following October 7. His work focuses on rebuilding Jewish peoplehood through the revival of the Hebrew language, cultural sovereignty, security, and ethical leadership, including initiatives such as Shomrei Ha’Am, Wine on the Vine, and the Project Maccabi. Bellos is a frequent commentator on Israel–Diaspora relations and argues for a return to disciplined, morally serious leadership rooted in the liberal-democratic revisionist tradition of Herzl, Jabotinsky, and Menachem Begin.