In recent weeks, a familiar debate has resurfaced in the Jewish community. Urgent and emotional, it is increasingly framed as a choice between security and engagement, but this framing obscures more than it clarifies.

In his “State of World Jewry” address at the 92nd Street Y on Feb. 1, Bret Stephens questioned whether institutions like the Anti-Defamation League are structured for the speed and complexity of contemporary antisemitism. Jonathan Greenblatt, speaking on the “Call Me Back podcast,” responded by emphasizing the indispensability of Jewish security infrastructure and arguing that the threats facing Jews today are organized, global and increasingly normalized. Yet Greenblatt is not advocating a security-only paradigm. He has consistently affirmed that Jewish identity, belonging and peoplehood are essential pillars of communal strength. His point is that weakening the institutions built to confront antisemitism would not be reform; it would be retreat.

Photocreo Bednarek/Adobe Stock

These are not opposing worldviews. They are complementary concerns. The real issue is not that our leaders see this as an either/or situation. The real issue is that our system behaves as if it is an either/or situation.

American Jewish philanthropy remains extraordinarily strong. We fund universities, hospitals, cultural institutions, Israel engagement, security initiatives and start-ups. The challenge here is not scarcity — it’s structure.

Defense organizations operate in one ecosystem, federations in another and synagogues, JCCs, day schools and camps in others still. Advocacy groups measure incidents and policy wins; community institutions measure participation and belonging. Funders reinforce these distinctions by treating security and engagement as separate and often competing priorities. Even when leaders articulate a holistic vision, the architecture they operate within translates nuance into competition: competing budgets, competing priorities, competing narratives.

Our communal operating system forces distinctions that no serious leader actually believes in. It rewards fragmentation, not integration. It treats security and Jewish life as parallel tracks rather than interdependent components of a resilient civil society, and then we ask which deserves more. That binary is not only false — it is strategically unsound.

Thriving Jewish life is itself a security strategy

Security without vibrant community is unsustainable. Consider Israel: No Jewish society faces greater external threat or deeper internal polarization, yet Israel has cultivated one of the most dense nonprofit and volunteer ecosystems in the world; one where civil society mobilizes rapidly, cultural institutions function even during war and community infrastructure does not retreat — it accelerates.

Israel’s resilience is not rooted in uniformity. It is rooted in density. Diaspora Jewish life must aspire to similar density and integration.

How do we build it?

Integrated community tables: Every major community should formalize councils that include defense organizations, federation leadership, synagogue and JCC executives, day school heads and campus professionals. Security briefings cannot occur in isolation from programming strategy. Data about antisemitism should inform educators, not merely alarm them. When we invest in cameras and guards, we must also invest in the experiences that bring people inside those protected spaces.

Resilience-focused philanthropy: Move from binary allocations to pooled funds in which security infrastructure, Jewish engagement and cross-sector innovation are intentionally braided. The question is not whether dollars should flow to defense or community building; it is whether our investments increase communal resilience.

Shared metrics: Defense organizations track incidents and legislation. Community institutions track participation. But what if we measured integration? Are institutions both secure and growing? Are communities with coordinated security infrastructure seeing deeper engagement? Are cross-organizational collaborations becoming standard rather than exceptional?

Cross-sector leadership pipelines: Expect more communal executives to serve in multiple arenas over the course of their careers: advocacy leaders who understand institutional life, JCC and synagogue leaders who grasp policy and threat assessment. Leaders trained in compartments tend to govern in compartments.

None of this requires dismantling Jewish defense organizations. Nor does it diminish the urgency of combating antisemitism. On the contrary, it strengthens our collective capacity by rejecting false choices.

Strategic power in civil society

Diaspora Jews live without sovereignty. Unlike Israel, we cannot rely on a state to enforce security or sustain community. Our civil society must do both: cultivate identity, belonging and resilience, while also compensating for the absence of sovereign authority. A dense, networked, intergenerationally engaged community is not just more joyful; it is more influential. It produces leaders, networks and cultural standing that translate into real-world power, shaping allies and deterring adversaries.

Security alone protects spaces. Integrated civil society builds lasting strength. Without it, we risk preserving institutions while losing the future they are meant to serve.

The most dangerous narrative gaining traction in some corners of our community is that we must choose between security and joy, between advocacy and belonging, between fighting antisemitism and building Jewish life.

We do not.

Integration will not happen organically. It requires governance reform, philanthropic courage and institutional humility. It requires legacy organizations to collaborate differently and community institutions to see themselves as part of a broader security architecture. It requires funders to reward partnership rather than perpetuate fragmentation.

Reimagining, not dismantling, is the work of our time. If we succeed, we will build a Jewish civil society secure enough to be joyful and joyful enough to be worth securing.

The question is not whether we can afford to do both. It is whether we can afford not to.

Michael Schlank is the executive director of the Sid Jacobson JCC in East Hills, N.Y.