Israel Policy Forum

Israel Policy Forum describes itself as a nonpartisan U.S. organization that advances policy ideas and educates community leaders to support effective American engagement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its stated mission is to build support for a secure, Jewish, democratic Israel and constructive U.S. policies advancing a two-state resolution. It also identifies U.S.-Israel relations and regional diplomacy as areas of work, alongside Palestinian national aspirations, regional security, stability, and cooperation.[1]

The organization’s stated policy framework holds that a two-state outcome should provide security and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians. It supports efforts to preserve the prospects for a viable, independent Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel, and says a resolution should acknowledge both peoples’ national aspirations and connection to the land. Its principles say that any eventual arrangement should be accepted by Israelis and Palestinians.[6]

IPF’s principles also emphasize Israeli security needs, robust U.S. efforts and leadership, and regional integration that includes Palestinians. The organization assigns responsibility to Israeli and Palestinian leaders to make and implement decisions needed for peaceful coexistence.[6] A Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion job posting similarly describes IPF’s objective as seeking a viable resolution that ensures Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state while providing for Palestinian national aspirations, and says its work includes policy analysis and programs convening community and policy leaders.[5]

The Center for Israel Education summarizes IPF’s goal as shaping discourse and mobilizing support among American Jewish leaders and U.S. policymakers for a viable two-state solution.[8] In a 2008 primer, Jerome A. Chanes characterized the organization as a newer center-left voice in Israel advocacy and as an agency advocating a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement through active diplomacy.[9] Other sources call IPF nonpartisan.[5][10] These labels describe the organization in different contexts; the supplied accounts do not establish a formal political-party affiliation.

Israel Policy Forum was established in 1993 by American Jewish leaders who supported developments in the Middle East peace process but believed that established American Jewish organizations were not embracing them, despite polling that indicated American Jewish support. Its first public act was a New York Times op-ed-page advertisement backing what became known as the Oslo process. During its first year, its work focused mainly on education within the institutional Jewish community.[3]

Other accounts describe the organization as founded with the support or initiative of then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and, in one report, Shimon Peres. The stated purpose was to enlist American Jewish support for the Oslo peace process and for the diplomatic vision associated with Rabin.[2][11] A 2010 study of Israel-Diaspora relations likewise says IPF formed in the 1990s to support the Oslo Accords. It reports that the organization retained good standing in the organized Jewish community while not galvanizing a large constituency.[12]

IPF moved beyond education into advocacy on Capitol Hill after opponents of the peace efforts in Israel and within the American Jewish community lobbied Congress against policies advanced by Rabin and U.S. President Bill Clinton. Rabin’s assassination and Benjamin Netanyahu’s election altered the organization’s position: American Jews associated with IPF could no longer present their advocacy simply as support for the policies of Israel’s government.[3]

During the Clinton-Netanyahu years, IPF used education and advocacy to mobilize American Jewish support for Clinton’s efforts to advance the peace process. A survey commissioned by IPF in September 1997 found that 89 percent of American Jews surveyed agreed that the United States needed to be even-handed to be effective and credible to both sides in negotiations.[3] The organization’s advocacy framed U.S. policy as serving two purposes: remaining Israel’s close friend and ally while also acting as a credible mediator.[3]

IPF publicly advocated continued U.S. involvement in negotiations. In October 1998, on the eve of the Israeli-Palestinian summit at Wye Plantation, it placed a full-page advertisement in The Washington Post calling for “continuing, balanced U.S. diplomacy” to keep the process moving.[3] The historical account contrasts that position with what it describes as AIPAC’s call for “no daylight” between the United States and Israel. This contrast reflects the account’s framing of a contested debate over the proper relationship between U.S. support for Israel and American mediation.[3]

When Ehud Barak became Israel’s prime minister, IPF again became more closely associated with Israeli government policy. On his first official visit to the United States, Barak met with IPF and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. The historical account presents these meetings as a sign that Barak sought dependable American Jewish support.[3] A Globes report also described Barak as the guest of honor at an IPF dinner at a New York Sheraton, attended by 900 people who paid $1,000 each. At the event, Barak said he was fighting for peace.[11]

IPF was described as a leading catalyst for “pro-Israel, pro-peace” activity before the Camp David II summit. The historical account says Clinton recognized the organization’s central role by unveiling his plan for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at an IPF gala, shortly before leaving office.[3] IPF’s own historical account likewise says that it served as a base for influential American Jewish support for the peace process during the Clinton administration and that Clinton publicly announced the “Clinton Parameters” at an IPF event.[2]

After the violence of the second intifada, IPF’s account links its work to support for the Gaza disengagement plan, which it presented as a step toward renewed negotiations. It also says the organization hosted Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for a speech that signaled his forthcoming political transformation. Later, IPF delivered policy recommendations endorsed by senior diplomats to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, supporting the Arab Peace Initiative and the Annapolis international peace conference.[2]

IPF’s advocacy extended beyond the immediate Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. In the years after Camp David II, it sponsored “Foundations for a Future Peace,” a project by Middle East scholar Stephen P. Cohen. The project argued that peace should not be portrayed as the enemy of religion and traditional faith, warning that otherwise national conflict could become more deeply religious in character. In the same period, IPF sponsored a U.S. diplomacy task force that proposed addressing interconnected issues involving Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute together.[3]

IPF supported Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan in 2004 and 2005. An account of the organization describes it as the leading Jewish force backing the plan. After disengagement, IPF launched a campaign urging assertive U.S. efforts to turn Israel’s move into a process leading to a viable Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel.[3]

The organization later faced a period of reduced influence as peace efforts faltered after the second intifada. A Times of Israel account says IPF was folded into the Center for American Progress in 2009 and left it in late 2011, after which Jewish communal leaders were guiding an effort to reposition it as a voice for the broad American Jewish mainstream.[10] A separate profile describes IPF as having declined in the early 2000s and revived itself in 2012.[13]

In 2016, IPF led an effort to present a two-state proposal to the next U.S. president, with public and private presentations planned for Jewish communal leaders and members of Congress. The initiative brought together working papers by Commanders for Israel’s Security and the Center for a New American Security. One paper proposed immediate Israeli steps to prepare for two states; the other addressed longer-term security arrangements intended to meet Palestinian sovereignty aspirations and Israeli security needs.[14]

Recommendations associated with the initiative included a settlement freeze, encouraging settlers living outside the security fence in the West Bank — known by its original, indigenous Jewish name of Judea and Samaria — to move inside it, and establishing a precursor to Palestinian sovereignty in predominantly Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. The proposals were described as departures from Netanyahu government policy, while IPF sought to make its advocacy more bipartisan in the United States.[14] A contemporary report quoted IPF policy director Michael Koplow describing the objective as providing “real tangible plans” and options for addressing security.[14]

IPF’s Two-State Security Project, launched in 2016, focused particularly on Israeli security concerns about a future Palestinian state and the possible loss of Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank. The organization presented the project as a way to develop policy ideas for a viable two-state outcome and equip policymakers and American Jewish leaders to discuss both security and two states.[15]

IPF says its research and analysis are intended to inform U.S. policy and American Jewish engagement with Israel. Its listed research areas include the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israeli politics, U.S.-Israel relations, and the future of two states. It describes its broader method as combining policy analysis with programs that convene policymakers and community leaders.[4]

The Congressional Research Service includes Israel Policy Forum among examples of U.S.-based, Israel-focused organizations. Its report also cites IPF publications on distinct policy topics: Alex Lederman’s 2021 article about the possible role of the Shin Bet in reducing violent crime in Arab-populated areas, and a 2021 article by Shira Efron and Ibrahim Eid Dalalsha asking whether reopening the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem was subject to Israeli discretion.[16]

The organization’s policy work has included both analysis and direct engagement with U.S. officials. A 2025 annual report describes bipartisan outreach, briefings and education for congressional offices, and meetings with Democratic and Republican staff about Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, and regional dynamics. It says IPF pressed for the continuation of the U.S. Office of the Security Coordinator during a State Department reorganization and raised the office’s profile in hearings and fiscal year 2026 appropriations discussions. The report also says IPF’s questions were raised in Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs proceedings.[17]

IPF’s 2019 elections website was described as offering current analysis, translated videos about the elections, podcasts, and aggregated polling data.[8] The organization has also produced educational material for community leaders and policymakers, seeking to translate policy ideas into accessible discussion. Its issue coverage has included security, diplomacy, Israeli politics, and the prospects for a two-state outcome.[4]

In September 2025, IPF and the Institute for National Security Studies released the joint paper “Fracturing the Axis: Degrading and Disrupting Iran’s Proxy Network.” The publication examined changes in Iran’s proxy network and implications for Israel and the United States. Its analysis was based on an INSS workshop in late April 2025 and follow-up conversations in July, and it named 14 authors, including Shira Efron and Michael Koplow.[18]

The paper recommended strengthening governments in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq; improving U.S.-Israeli coordination against weapons smuggling and financing; advancing diplomacy on Palestinian statehood and regional normalization; and avoiding unilateral West Bank actions that the announcement said could weaken Palestinian institutions and create opportunities for Iran to destabilize the region.[7] Its announcement concluded that the region presented “a historic opportunity to turn tactical victories into strategic gains.”[7] These are the publication’s policy judgments and recommendations, rather than neutral descriptions of settled outcomes.

IPF Atid is the organization’s young-professionals community, established to engage and empower a next generation of leaders. A Hebrew Union College job posting lists chapters in the Bay Area, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, New York, and Toronto. It says the chapters bring young leaders together for policy briefings, community programs, and local leadership opportunities.[5]

The program’s named leadership initiatives include the Shared Values Project, the Charles Bronfman Conveners Program, a Delegation to Israel, and a Leadership Summit. The Washington role described in the posting includes oversight of the local IPF Atid chapter and support for national leadership initiatives.[5] IPF is based in New York City and has an office in Washington, D.C.[5]

A 2018 report described IPF Atid as a program for post-college professionals aged 21–39, launched the previous year. It said the program organized events, conversations, and discussions with experts for rising Jewish and foreign-policy professionals, and had networks in New York, Washington, Chicago, and Los Angeles. At the time, the report described four active chapters in major cities and online reach among thousands of participants in dozens of cities during its first year.[13]

The inaugural IPF Atid mission to Israel took place from July 14 to 21, 2019, and included 15 Generation Y Jewish professionals. The participants traveled in Israel and the West Bank, meeting Israeli, Palestinian, and Israeli-Arab security and political figures, activists, journalists, entrepreneurs, artists, and peers. The itinerary included Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, settlements, refugee camps, and Jerusalem. The contemporary opinion account said the program aimed to help young American Jews engage with the conflict through direct exposure to differing perspectives and informed discussion.[19]

That account also reported that IPF Atid members delivered a letter to Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2019, before the AIPAC Policy Conference. Signed by Atid members and more than 400 other young Jews aged 20–40, the letter urged Netanyahu to articulate a two-state vision and warned that some government policies were straining signatories’ connection to Israel and ability to advocate for it. The article further said IPF Atid was instrumental in introducing the Partnership Fund for Peace Act of 2019, H.R. 3104, which proposed a fund to support Israeli-Palestinian economic cooperation and people-to-people exchange, with the stated aim of preserving the possibility of a two-state solution.[19]

IPF’s 2025 annual report described that year as the largest and most ambitious to date for IPF Atid. The organization reported engaging 4,000 young professionals and recording 3,600 participants across seven chapter cities. It also reported 400 events in 23 cities, more than 1,750 first-time participants, and more than 7,700 listserv subscribers; 40 percent of participants, it said, came through community referrals.[17]

The same report says the second Shared Values Project cohort met in Tel Aviv from October 16 to 19, 2025, bringing together American and Israeli Jewish leaders committed to democratic values. IPF reported that after the summit, 95 percent of participants recognized a connection between U.S. and Israeli efforts to support a secure, Jewish, democratic Israel, compared with 45 percent before the program. These figures are outcomes reported by the organization itself.[17]

For 2025, IPF reported holding 61 community programs, a 14 percent increase from the prior year, with 5,864 attendees and 31 institutional partners across 11 cities in the United States, Canada, and Israel. It counted 2,021 in-person and 3,843 virtual attendees, and said the program calendar included 25 multigenerational events and four intensive cohort programs.[17]

The available material identifies several people in roles associated with IPF. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy identifies Shira Efron as the organization’s director of research and Neri Zilber as a policy advisor who hosts the Israel Policy Pod.[20][21] The 2025 INSS joint publication included Efron among its authors.[18]

The Jewish Agency for Israel identifies Roei Eisenberg as serving on the Israel Policy Forum board as IPF Atid National Chair.[22] The research and policy profiles illustrate links between research and public communication.[20][21] Eisenberg’s profile adds a governance and young-leadership connection.[22] These profiles do not purport to be a complete staff or board roster.

IPF’s significance lies in its role as one of the institutional vehicles through which American Jewish support for Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy became organized outside older consensus bodies. Chanes places it among newer center-left voices, while Sasson cites its independent lobbying after Oslo as part of a broader fragmentation into partisan advocacy networks.[9][23]

Mirsky observed that IPF maintained good standing in the organized Jewish community but did not galvanize a large constituency.[12] Taken together, the sources indicate that its influence has rested more on policy development, elite advocacy, and communal discourse than on mass membership.[9][23]

IPF’s work has taken place amid debate within American Jewish organizations and U.S. policy circles about support for Israeli governments, diplomacy, and the two-state framework. Accounts describe it at different points as center-left, centrist, or nonpartisan, reflecting the varied contexts in which its role and positioning have been discussed.[9][10] A 2000 Globes article placed IPF among organizations identified with liberal Democrats on which Barak preferred to rely, while noting reported complaints from AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents that Barak had been cold toward them. The account does not establish that IPF was formally affiliated with a party.[24]

The organization’s public advocacy has also differed from that of other U.S. groups on specific questions. Theodore Sasson’s account says that after the Oslo Accords were announced, IPF and Americans for Peace Now lobbied independently in support of the pact. Sasson places IPF among left-leaning organizations supporting a two-state solution, dialogue with Iran, and the Arab Peace Initiative.[23]

Sasson also reports that during a Gaza ground offensive, IPF joined Americans for Peace Now and Brit Tzedek in lobbying Congress to press for an immediate ceasefire. He contrasts this with AIPAC’s effort to secure a statement of unqualified support for Israel’s position in the war, and says that the congressional resolutions ultimately more closely reflected AIPAC’s position.[23] These accounts describe particular advocacy positions and political disputes; they do not, by themselves, define every aspect of the organization’s work.

Descriptions of IPF’s mission and principles include statements published by the organization itself.[1][6] Its history and policy pages likewise describe its role, priorities, and research areas.[2][4] The 2025 annual report supplies participation and program figures.[17] These accounts are useful evidence of stated aims and reported activities, but the figures and assessments remain IPF’s own reporting.

The organization’s advocacy for a two-state resolution, robust U.S. engagement, and specific recommendations on regional diplomacy and Israeli policy concerns contested political questions.[6][7] The joint 2025 paper’s analysis of Iran’s proxy network and its proposals concerning Palestinian statehood, regional normalization, and unilateral West Bank actions should therefore be understood as the authors’ policy analysis and recommendations.[18][7] Historical characterizations of IPF’s influence and of other organizations’ positions likewise reflect the sources’ respective accounts.[3][23]