January 29, 2013
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=4458
 |
I rubbed my eyes as I observed
yet another botched initiative by the well-intentioned leadership of the
Board of Deputies of British Jews. Its plenum, by a vote of almost to
2:1, endorsed a linkage with the British branch of Oxfam International,
one of the largest global charity organizations with branches in over 90
countries.
The Board of Deputies will send
30 representatives to a training weekend with Oxfam where they will be
taught how to raise funds in the battle against global hunger in order
to “tackle injustices in the international food system”. The cost, about
$13,000, will largely be borne by Oxfam.
It is unprecedented for an
umbrella body like the Board of Deputies to enter into partnerships with
charities. The Board struggles to fulfill its clearly defined
constitutional obligations. Besides, Jews are renowned for their
generous philanthropic contributions, and there is thus no rational
reason why it should seek to highlight such non-Jewish activity.
But even if the Board felt an
obligation to become visibly engaged with a charity, it is staggering
that it chose to do so with Oxfam, an organization which has a notorious
reputation for engaging in anti-Israeli initiatives totally beyond the
normal province of a charity.
Oxfam’s hostility towards Israel
goes back for over a decade. One of the worst examples occurred in the
wake of the Durban hate fest, when the Belgian branch produced huge
posters with oranges dripping in blood titled “Israeli fruits have a
bitter taste: reject the occupation of Palestine, don’t buy Israeli
fruits and vegetables”. Following a storm of protest this blood libel
was withdrawn.
In 2009 Oxfam effectively
promoted BDS by terminating its relationship with actress Kristin Davis,
one of its principal spokespersons, because she had endorsed Israeli
Ahava cosmetic products.
Oxfam’s director Jeremy Hobbs
proclaimed that “the people of Gaza are living in the world’s largest
prison but have fewer rights than convicts”. Oxfam called for ending the
boycott of Hamas and repeatedly condemned the “illegal” Israeli
presence in East Jerusalem. It was party to a document urging the
international community to demand that Israel “provide compensation for
the damage caused during Operation Cast Lead and other Israeli military
action”.
Following the 2010 Gaza flotilla
incident, which Oxfam considered “a direct result of the Israeli
blockade in Gaza”, it denounced Israel’s “appalling use of violence and
killing of civilians”.
Oxfam has condemned Israel’s security fence which played an important role in bring an end to suicide bombings within Israel
To this day Oxfam calls for the specific labeling of goods produced over the green line – clearly a form of boycott.
In addition Oxfam cosponsors
initiatives with bodies that have clear records of supporting terrorists
such as the London Muslim Center and Islamic Relief.
It is thus inexplicable why a
Jewish representative body would associate itself with a charity which
prides itself on maintaining a consistent record of hostility towards
the Jewish state.
Even more bizarre was the fact
that the Board was encouraged by other Jewish establishment bodies.
These included the principal PR organization promoting Israel, the
British Israel Communications and Research Center (BICOM) and the United
Jewish Israel Appeal (UJIA), the principal Israel fundraiser whose
former leader had the dubious record of having urged British Jews to
speak out against the policies of the democratically elected government
of Israel.
Astonishingly, even the British
ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, intervened, telling the London
Jewish Chronicle that the Board should engage with Oxfam as well as with
other bodies which criticize Israel. It is unprecedented for a British
civil servant, an ambassador to Israel, to intervene in such a
controversial domestic issue. What motivated him to do so on this
occasion?
In justifying the initiative,
Board President Vivian Wineman sought to calm his constituents by
remarking that working with Oxfam did not mean the Board shared its
views. However, he opined that his executive felt obliged to “engage”
with bodies that were hostile to Israel.
He stated that after meeting
with Oxfam, he was satisfied it would not boycott Israel or associate
itself with organizations linked to terrorism. If it did, the Board
would terminate the association.
However Oxfam refused to modify
ongoing political attacks on Israel or suspend its campaign to oblige
Israel to label all products produced over the green line.
The Board also failed to explain
why, if it sought to “engage” with organizations hostile to Israel, it
chose a charity which it was unlikely to influence, rather than
concentrating on “engaging” with more relevant organizations such as the
government and political parties. In this context few would hail the
Board’s promotion of the case for Israel in the broader political arena
as a stellar success.
Clearly some British Jews would
be happier if the Board was seen to be more “balanced” or “evenhanded”
in relation to Israel. There are undoubtedly pressures from elements
within the Jewish establishment – the “trembling Israelites” - that are
discomforted at being perceived as a pro-Israel lobby. Perhaps they
sought to distance themselves from this by displaying their
broadmindedness and commitment to society at large by linking to an
anti-Israeli charity.
During the debate, there were
repeated remarks that dealing with Oxfam may not be good for Israel but
it was good for Anglo-Jews to be seen as helping charities providing
food for children. Senior vice-president Laura Marks conceded that it
was highly unlikely that the Board would succeed to persuade Oxfam to
modify its policies towards Israel, but gushed that the Board’s
involvement would at least result in “helping Oxfam understand our
values as Jews, to help them to see that we share values with them”.
It should be noted that those
opposed to this initiative were not calling for a Jewish boycott of the
charity. They argued, with irrefutable justification, that there was no
rationale for the official organ of the Jewish community to provide an
imprimatur to an organization which has a consistent record of hostility
to the Jewish state.
There is also the issue of
Jewish dignity. What sort of message is the community sending to the
British public and for that matter what example is it providing to
Jewish youngsters, when it associates itself with such an organization?
Following the plenum vote,
Jonathan Hoffman, one of those leading the opposition to the association
with Oxfam, said it was a sad day for British Jews and undermined
Israel. “To Israel’s enemies it says, even the Board supports an
organization hostile to Israel – look how isolated Israel is. To
Israel’s friends it says, the Board’s not serious about fighting
delegitimization. How can it be when it rushes into a tie-up with one of
Israel’s most hostile charities?”
Despite obtaining a plenum
majority to endorse their initiative, it may well be a Pyrrhic victory
for the leaders of the Board because the divisions created will not soon
be healed. British Jews who are passionate supporters of Israel and at
the forefront of Jewish activity will not easily forgive their leaders
for shamefully linking them with an organization consistently displaying
double standards and bias against Israel. According to the Jewish
Chronicle, numerous outraged constituents have already threatened to
withdraw their communal levy payments from the Board.
The writer’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com.He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom
Some of my recent articles:
Daunting Challenges facing Netanyahu (January 24, 2013)
Liberal Jewish Israel Bashers: Ignorant or Malicious? (January 17, 2013)
Hagel Nomination Conveys Chilling Message (January 10, 2013)
Bayit Yehudi: Don’t Blow this Opportunity (January 7, 2013)
No comments:
Post a Comment