NEW YORK (JTA) —The leaders of several of the largest North American Jewish federations are praising Natan Sharansky’s plans for shifting the focus of the Jewish Agency for Israel from immigration to education and identity building. But reversing the drop in Diaspora dollars will take more than words, some added.

Some major federations in recent years have complained increasingly about sending 75 percent of overseas funding to the agency, with some simply refusing to hand over such a high proportion to the quasigovernmental agency.

For many of the big guns in the federation system, however, the shared history between the agency and the federations creates a moral obligation for the system to keep the agency afloat, even if the organization is more of a hindrance than a boost in some funding circles these days.

How will this sense of allegiance and obligation be impacted as the Jewish Agency adopts such a major shift in focus? Will the bulk of federations continue to set aside 75 percent of overseas dollars for the new focus, with only 25 percent going to the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, which is still heavily engaged in feeding poor and elderly Jews in the far-flung Jewish world?

(It is important to note that a similar debate has been taking place within the JDC over whether the organization should continue to focus on social service needs or identity- and community-building efforts, with proponents of the latter option often carrying the day.)

In a prepared statement, Jerry Silverman, the CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America, which serves as the pass-through for federation money to the Jewish Agency, praised the agency’s new direction.

John Ruskay, the CEO of the system’s largest federation, the UJAFederation of New York – and one federation that has traditionally stood by the agency – also praised the shift, but said it was “overstated.”

“Let me emphasize I have no doubt the Jewish Agency will continue its commitment to promote and facilitate aliyah,” Ruskay said. “Jewish education may be the most effective way to promote aliyah. Even so, we are in a time when pitting aliyah against identity against education against welfare may be anachronistic.”

The Jewish Agency’s new direction also received endorsements from Barry Shrage, head of the Combined Jewish Philanthropies in Boston, and Steve Hoffman, the CEO of the Jewish Federation of Greater Cleveland and the former CEO of the predecessor of the Jewish Federations of North America.

Both executives said the key would be the Jewish Agency’s ability to execute.

“This is sort of an interesting step, particularly if they can free themselves of past viruses and focus,” Shrage said.

His organization is among the growing number of federations that is not abiding by the 75-25 split. In fact, Shrage said, his federation gives “real close to nothing for the Jewish Agency” unless it can designate the funding toward a specific project.

Despite being intrigued by the new direction, he said that will not change without the re-establishment of some sort of planning process.

Hoffman believes the federations should fund the agency while it attempts to transition because the agency needs stability to do implement the changes. At the same time, he said, the federation system is not necessarily obligated to maintain support for the Jewish Agency if it does not work in its new incarnation.

“I don’t think we should be bound to anyone who can’t show us how they will make a difference in our world,” Hoffman said, adding “I believe they will. I think Sharansky will articulate the idea, and I think their new director general is capable of putting the plan into place. But nobody should take anything for granted.”

(This article was adapted from JTA’s philanthropy blog, TheFundermentalist.com.)