The unfolding crisis at Friends of the Israel Defense Forces is a cautionary tale of what happens when institutional power goes unchecked, governance norms are ignored and ethical lines are blurred. The leaked internal investigative report and subsequent revelations from current and former insiders paint a troubling portrait of a once-respected organization now grappling with serious accusations of mismanagement, fundraising improprieties and a toxic internal culture.
At the center of the controversy is FIDF board chair Morey Levovitz, accused of consolidating de facto control over the organization — at times functioning as CEO without formal authority. Under his leadership, FIDF reportedly entered into an exclusive and irregular agreement with a travel company run by a close acquaintance, bypassing a competitive bidding process. FIDF chapters that attempted to seek more cost-effective travel alternatives were allegedly punished by being denied access to IDF bases during their visits to Israel.
Levovitz also sought reimbursements totaling more than $53,000 for luxury travel — costs typically covered personally by past board chairs. Equally troubling are allegations that fundraising campaigns “double-sold” donor-named projects — such as amphitheaters or memorials — to multiple donors, leaving supporters confused and disillusioned when visiting sites that they had supposedly funded in full.
Perhaps even more damaging to the organization’s internal credibility are claims that sexual harassment complaints were mishandled or ignored altogether, and that staff were routinely subjected to a culture of bullying and intimidation. Multiple longtime employees report being fired without explanation, and many who raised concerns say they were marginalized or silenced. One pattern cited repeatedly is the sidelining or dismissal of Israeli-born staff — raising further questions about how internal dissent and cultural dynamics were managed.
These are not petty grievances. They reflect a systemic failure of oversight at the highest levels. While much attention has understandably focused on Levovitz, the situation also raises uncomfortable questions about the broader executive leadership of FIDF. How did these practices take root? Who enabled them, or failed to challenge them? And do those currently occupying key positions within the organization have the necessary experience, judgment and independence to lead FIDF through a process of rehabilitation and renewal?
Thus far, FIDF’s response has been tepid. Rather than confront the issues directly, FIDF has opted for silence and containment — retaining crisis PR consultants, issuing noncommittal statements and instructing employees not to speak publicly. This approach has backfired.
Donor confidence has plummeted, with multiple sources reporting a sharp drop in contributions and many longtime supporters withholding funds until meaningful changes are made.
But while the damage is real, it is not irreparable. FIDF’s mission — providing support and care to Israel’s soldiers and bereaved families — remains vital. That noble mission should not be tainted by the failures of a few individuals.
The board must act decisively. That begins with the removal of compromised leadership, but it doesn’t end there. Transparency is essential. The full findings of the internal report should be made public, and the organization must articulate a clear path forward — one grounded in integrity, professionalism and accountability.
FIDF’s work has long served as a bridge between diaspora Jewry and those who serve on the front lines of Israel’s defense. That bridge can still be preserved — but only if the organization is willing to do the hard work of rebuilding trust.
