 | By Jonathan Hoffman
January 14, 2010 | Share |
I am disappointed that the Charity Commission has decided not to take regulatory action against War On Want (this decision is not on their website but was sent to me by letter).
It remains my view that War On Want publishes material that contravenes the Commission's requirement to be “factually accurate” with a “well-founded evidence base” (see the Commission’s CC9 leaflet).
Background:
In May/June 2008 War On Want published a leaflet (arttached) called Up Front Sixty Years.
The leaflet stated that:
- the “continuing occupation [of land by Israel since 1967], along with the illegal Separation Wall, has destroyed any semblance of a Palestinian economy”.
- “In defiance of UN resolutions, international law and global outrage, Israel has also continued to occupy the land it captured in 1967.”
- “Israel’s recent blockade of Gaza has led to devastating poverty and food shortages”
- And Gaza was called “…..the largest open-air prison in the world”
I complained to the Commission that these statements were factually inaccurate. In July 2009 the Commission concluded that no further regulatory action was required. I requested a decision review and this was accepted, at Board level. I was offered the opportunity to make an oral presentation to Board members and I accepted. I submitted documents from the Hague Regulations, the United Nations, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the BBC Trust, the government of Israel, the World Bank and extracts from the Statistical Abstract of the United States in support of my case. I recommended that the Commission consult expert witnesses (as the BBC Trust did to assess complaints about their Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen (decision issued April 2009)).
The Commission accepted the validity of the evidence I produced. But it was unwilling to give it greater weight than the counter-evidence produced by War On Want: “The Panel concluded that in some circumstances it is possible to have more than one view which has a sufficiently well founded evidence base.”
It is hard to reconcile this conclusion with the requirement for “factual accuracy” especially as the Commission noted that War On Want “has undertaken political activities in the past, some of which it considered were very close to the boundary of what is acceptable for a charity to undertake”. It is also hard to understand why the Commission did not use expert witnesses, like the BBC Trust did. They stated “it might be difficult to find an expert who would be perceived by both sides of the debate to be neutral” but all that matters is that the Commission is satisfied regarding a witness’s expertise.
On the other hand I welcome the Commission’s dismissal of War On Want’s contention that my complaint was ‘vexatious’ and ‘politically motivated’. In addition I welcome the recognition that although I complained as an individual, my concerns reflect concerns elsewhere in the Jewish community. I hope this encourages others to complain when they see inaccurate statements about Israel by charities.
Falsehoods about Israel disseminated by charities contribute directly to antisemitic discourse and thereby increase the threat to Jews. History shows that antisemitism starts with Jews but never ends there. Charities are not required to take a balanced view of the Middle East conflict, but they are required to be accurate in the facts they use to support their arguments.
Trustees of all charities must be more aware of the material disseminated by the officers of the charities in their stewardship and must be prepared to intervene if they doubt its factual accuracy.
moshetzarfati2
15 January, 2010 - 10:02
Rate this:
Jonathan, you say that "Falsehoods about Israel disseminated by charities contribute directly to antisemitic discourse and thereby increase the threat to Jews." That's highly debatable.
But what about what Ehud Olmert said last year, when he was still PM, that Israel's actions contribute towards hostility to Jews?
Also, it could be argued that what War on Want said in its leaflet wasn't really all that far from the reality--most Israelis, in fact, would agree with its sentiments.