The Israel Hayom Summit brought together some of the most influential voices in the Jewish world. But nearly three years after October 7, are our institutions truly grasping the scale of the opportunity — and the urgency to rethink how we engage Diaspora Jews, embrace AI, understand changing audiences and turn Aliyah into long-term belonging?

The Jewish World Is Facing a 2026 Challenge With a 1990s Playbook

Three years after October 7, our institutions still risk missing a historic opportunity. They are asking for more Israeli emissaries (Shlichim) without asking whether the current model works, failing to prepare for the AI revolution, overlooking the diversity of Diaspora Jews, and measuring success by how many people arrive in Israel rather than how many build a life here.

The Israel Hayom Summit in New York brought together some of the most influential voices in the Jewish world. There were discussions about antisemitism, Jewish identity, the next generation, Israel-Diaspora relations and the future of the Jewish people.

But listening to the conversation, I kept coming back to a more uncomfortable question: Are the institutions responsible for connecting the Jewish world actually equipped to lead it through the next decade?

I don’t say this as an outsider criticizing an industry I don’t understand. I spent years working with Jewish communities, Hillel chapters and organizations focused on strengthening the relationship between Israel and the Diaspora. I care deeply about this mission.

But I also spent more than a decade in the technology and business world, working with founders, CEOs and investors, building marketing and growth engines and turning ambitious strategies into measurable results.

Looking at these two worlds side by side, I see a growing disconnect.

And I think it’s time we talked about it.

At the summit, Jewish Agency Chairman Doron Almog called for more Israel emissaries (Shlichim)  to strengthen the connection between Israel and Diaspora Jewry. He spoke about a network of more than 3,000 emissaries and argued that more are needed. I agree that personal connections matter but I don’t think the answer is simply to send more people.

The question is not just how many emissaries (Shlichim)  we send. It’s who we send, what we expect them to achieve, how we measure their impact ( KPIS), and who is managing their system.

1. More emissaries won’t fix a broken model:  When I served as an emissary on an American campus, I was part of a group of roughly 100 Israeli emissaries.

Looking around that group, I noticed something: it did not reflect the diversity of Israeli society. Most of the people around me came from relatively similar backgrounds:  predominantly Ashkenazi, secular, from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, and, in my experience, often holding centrist or center-left political views.

I was the only Shabbat-observant emissary in the group of around 100. I was also among the very few who lived in Israel’s geographic periphery (Sderot). This is not a scientific survey of every emissary cohort. It is my personal experience, but it raises an important question: When we send Israelis abroad to represent the Jewish state and Israeli society, which Israel are we actually sending?

The diversity of Israeli society is one of our greatest strengths: religious and secular, center and periphery, different ethnic backgrounds, political perspectives and life experiences — all of these are part of the Israeli story.

Yet if our emissary system does not adequately reflect that diversity, we risk presenting a narrow version of Israel to communities that are themselves diverse.

There is another issue. Some of the young people I encountered seemed to approach the experience primarily as an opportunity to spend a year in the United States – an adventure, a break, a chance to live abroad. That doesn’t mean they didn’t care or didn’t work hard. Many were committed and did meaningful work but the system cannot rely on goodwill and personal motivation alone.

Many emissaries are young, with limited professional experience. They are placed in complex environments, university campuses, Jewish communities and organizations, and expected to influence identity, strengthen Israel-Diaspora relations and sometimes respond to highly sophisticated political and social challenges.

What are their actual objectives? What does success look like after six months or a year? How do we measure whether they changed someone’s relationship with Israel, strengthened Jewish identity, built lasting relationships or influenced a decision to make Aliyah?

I don’t believe there are sufficiently clear, consistent KPIs across the system to answer these questions and if we cannot measure the impact of the existing network, why is the first response to expand it?

The Jewish Agency describes its emissaries as a select group of outstanding representatives who undergo training and serve in communities, schools, campuses and other settings. That’s an important mission but a strong selection process and training are only the beginning. They must be followed by professional management, clear goals, ongoing development and honest evaluation of outcomes.

More emissaries mean more budget. But more budget does not automatically mean more impact.

2. The management question: Where are the business and technology people?

This brings me to a broader institutional challenge. The Jewish Agency has a long history of leadership drawn from the worlds of the military, politics, public service and education.  These backgrounds bring important experience and perspective. I am not questioning the contribution of those individuals, but where is the complementary leadership from the worlds of business, technology, product, data and organizational growth?

Where are the people who have built and scaled organizations, managed complex international teams, developed audience strategies, implemented technology, and built systems that are accountable for measurable outcomes?

This is not about turning a Jewish institution into a startup or a corporation its mission is fundamentally different but mission does not exempt an organization from the need for excellent management.

If an organization is responsible for engaging millions of Jews across different countries, generations, religious identities and political realities, it needs sophisticated audience understanding, segmentation, data infrastructure and measurable impact.

It needs people who know how to ask: Who are we trying to reach? What do they need? What motivates them? Which channels work? What changes as a result of our investment?

These are not merely marketing questions; they are questions of institutional strategy.

3. AI is not another technology panel. It is changing the playing field.

The summit included discussions about the next generation and the influence of platforms such as TikTok on Jewish identity. That is an important conversation but acknowledging that young people are influenced by social media is not the same as understanding the scale of the transformation taking place.

AI is changing how people discover information, form opinions, learn history, develop identities and decide which sources to trust. A young Jewish student today may interact with an AI assistant before speaking to a rabbi, a teacher, an Israeli emissary or a Jewish organization. The answers they receive may shape their understanding of Israel, Judaism and their own identity.

So where is the Jewish world’s serious AI strategy?

Not a chatbot, not a few digital campaigns, not a technology initiative tucked inside an existing department. I mean a fundamental rethink of how Jewish organizations create knowledge, reach audiences, personalize education, identify emerging needs and build relationships.

Who is training AI systems on credible Jewish knowledge? How are institutions helping young Jews navigate misinformation and competing narratives? How can AI help organizations understand the needs of different communities and engage with them in ways that feel relevant and human?

The opportunity is enormous. So is the risk of falling behind.

4. The Diaspora is not one audience

Another blind spot is the way institutions think about Jewish communities around the world. There is no single Diaspora audience.

A young Jewish professional in New York, a family in Paris, a student in London, a secular Israeli living abroad, an Orthodox community in the United States and a young Jew in a smaller European community may have very different relationships with Israel, Judaism, identity and belonging.

Their motivations, concerns and expectations are not interchangeable. Yet too often, institutional strategies are built around historical structures, familiar relationships and established programs rather than a continuously updated understanding of who these audiences are and what they need.

The numbers emerging after October 7 should force a more serious conversation. At the summit, Almog spoke about approximately 75,000 immigrants arriving in Israel since October 7 and highlighted the significant increase in immigration from France and interest in the UK.

These developments are not just statistics; they are signals of changing relationships with Israel and potentially changing opportunities for engagement, but are we mapping these audiences properly? Do we understand where the strongest opportunities are emerging? Are we allocating resources according to changing needs, rather than simply continuing to operate through familiar structures?

Without that understanding, we risk investing in the audiences we already know how to reach, rather than the audiences we most need to understand.

5. Bringing people to Israel is not the same as helping them stay

At the summit, Masa CEO Meir Holtz offered an important perspective on the challenges facing young Diaspora Jews. He described how, since October 7, some young people have become more hesitant to list an internship at an Israeli organization on their CVs. He also highlighted the recovery in Masa participation, from 8,700 participants last year toward a target of 9,200 this year, with an ambition to exceed 10,000.

Holtz made another point worth remembering: young people should come to Israel because they are moving toward something meaningful, not simply fleeing antisemitism. I agree.

But there is a question that deserves just as much attention: What happens after they arrive?

We celebrate the number of people who make Aliyah, the number of participants in programs and the number of young people who visit Israel.

But how many are still here three years later? How many have found meaningful employment? How many have built social networks, developed a sense of belonging and become active members of Israeli society? How many leave again because the transition from arrival to building a life here is too difficult?

The Jewish Agency does important work in immigration and absorption, including Hebrew learning and support for newcomers this is not a claim that nothing is being done.

The issue is whether the system is sufficiently focused on long-term outcomes — and whether it measures them consistently. An arrival is an event. Integration is a process. Belonging is a long-term outcome.

If we measure only the first, we may congratulate ourselves while missing the bigger picture. The question is not whether these institutions care, it’s whether they are built for what comes next.

I have enormous respect for the people working across the Jewish Agency, Masa and other organizations, many dedicate their lives to this mission, often under difficult circumstances.

But good intentions and decades of experience are not enough to meet a historic moment.

October 7 created a profound shift in the relationship between Israel and Jewish communities around the world. It also exposed vulnerabilities in Jewish identity, education, leadership and institutional readiness.

This is an opportunity to rethink the model, not just increase the budget, add more emissaries or launch another program. We need more diverse representation, clear KPIs and meaningful measurement, a serious AI strategy, a data-driven understanding of Diaspora audiences and a stronger focus on long-term integration and belonging in Israel.

So here is the question I would leave with the leaders of these institutions:

If you were building the Jewish Agency, Masa or the global Jewish engagement ecosystem from scratch today, with everything we know after October 7, and with AI transforming the world around us, would you build them the same way as we did in the 1990s? 

If the answer is no, then perhaps the most urgent thing we need is not more of the same.

It’s a different way of thinking.