By Jonathan Hoffman
October 13, 2012
The page 1 lead in the JC this week was a squalid smear story about the JNF which would not even have passed muster for the Morning Star.
It was a story by Simon Rocker about the JNF’s newly published accounts, headed “JNF loses half its revenue”. A completely misleading headline - for one, because the ‘income’ definition referred to excluded KKL voucher income of £7.5 million.
Then in the article we got:
The dramatic fall in its revenues has been blamed on a perceived politicisation of the charity by Mr Hayek
Precisely WHO is 'blaming Mr Hayek', we are not told. Or how many people. Or the basis for the statement. Did Simon Rocker conduct an opinion poll? Or (more likely) is the statement simply a smear of the crudest kind...
Then we get:
A senior communal figure said: ‘This collapse in philanthropic support is the clearest possible signal that the community no longer sees the JNF, under its current leadership, as a credible receptacle for its charitable support for Israel. On the basis of these accounts it is questionable whether the JNF can any longer be described as a major communal organisation. Its long-term sustainability looks uncertain’
So who is this anonymous "senior communal official" pronouncing on what "the community" thinks and why is he scared of commenting on an attributable basis? Is he by any chance the same person who is badmouthing Sam Hayek to Simon Rocker - who then of course reported it as if it is accepted wisdom? And what about the people in Israel whom the JNF is helping - does this "senior communal official" give one jot about them?
Could the "senior communal figure's" insistence on anonymity be because his statement is (a) a lie, (b) mendacious (c) economical with the truth and (d) a squalid smear?
Of course it couldn't possibly be pure spite because the JNF dared to leave the JLC ... how could you possibly imagine that the unfavourable comparison to the UJIA in the article might be a clue as to its provenance?