Oxfam and the Board - what should happen if the red lines are crossed


By Jonathan Hoffman
May 19, 2013
Share

I have been asked to set out what I said today at the Board.

In January the Oxfam tie-up was approved with the following safeguard:

We will discontinue our involvement if OXFAM GB:

1. Supports a boycott of any type of Israeli goods.

2. Partners with or supports any organization that promotes or condones violence.

3. Partners with or supports any organisation that calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.

To ensure that these parameters are rigorously maintained with regard to the Grow Tatzmiach project, the Board will create an oversight committee to monitor Grow Tatzmiach on a continual basis, whose members are to be chosen by the Executive from Deputies who volunteer for this role.

If in the opinion of the monitoring committee the connection is being exploited in any way to the detriment of the State of Israel then the project will be terminated.

Should the monitoring committee (of which I am a member) have ruled on 7 May that one of the three 'red lines' has been crossed, it would be entirely contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the motion passed in January for the Executive to do anything other than abandon the tie-up, without hesitation. Moreover if the monitoring committee has so ruled, surely Deputies after over two weeks have a right to know!

Gary Mond (Deputy for the JNF), speaking in the debate, referred to the many Deputies who had only voted in January for the Oxfam tie-up because of the assurance of the red lines. For those red lines to now be ignored, he said, would turn the Board in general and the president in particular into laughing stocks.

COMMENTS

Rich Armbach

Mon, 05/20/2013 - 09:44

Rate this:

0 points

Asked by whom ? ( this should be interesting )


Mary in Brighton

Tue, 05/21/2013 - 17:29

Rate this:

0 points

Jonathan, have you looked at your calendar lately?


zaheerayin

Tue, 05/21/2013 - 17:33

Rate this:

0 points

Yes, Jonathan, what month comes after May? And what happens in that month?

Hi Mary! ltns


Mary in Brighton

Tue, 05/21/2013 - 17:37

Rate this:

0 points

Hi Zaheer

Your village fair ?


zaheerayin

Tue, 05/21/2013 - 17:41

Rate this:

0 points

Hahaha


Rich Armbach

Tue, 05/21/2013 - 17:46

Rate this:

0 points

If your last win was in the egg and spoon race at primary school, you would be desperate too.


Ben F

Wed, 05/22/2013 - 17:50

Rate this:

0 points

happygoldfish

Fri, 06/14/2013 - 17:55

Rate this:

0 points
stephen sizer is subject to disciplinary procedures under the church of england's Clergy Discipline Measure 2003

the principal complaints against him are that he has deliberately publicised racist websites from his own website, and that he has been "making statements that … most of the Jewish community find utterly offensive, to the point of crossing the line into antisemitism"

rich draws attention to an number of messages, on sizer's own website, from various bishops, denying that sizer is racist …

Rich Armbach: http://stephensizer.blogspot.co.uk/

http://stephensizer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/tanas-alqassis-on-palestine-z...

but these bishops have presumably not seen stephen sizer calmly stirring up racial hatred in the following malaysian tv interview (june 2011) …

"The irony is that the far right in Britain is forming an alliance with Zionists, because their common enemy are the Muslims. And it's ironic that the very people who favoured the work of Hitler are now working with the Zionists, the English Defence League for example, against the Muslims because they share, they view them as a threat."

this is likely to stir up racial hatred since
i] it falsely accuses british zionists of being anti-muslim (ie not just anti-palestinian)
ii] it falsely accuses british zionists of an alliance with the far right


Rich Armbach

Mon, 06/17/2013 - 13:23

Rate this:

0 points

Absolutely no interpretation necessary The ordinary meaning of the words is clear enough. Zionists formed an alliance with the far right as confirmed by among others the CST


happygoldfish

Wed, 06/26/2013 - 17:50

Rate this:

1 point

(i refuse to post on page 2 )

sizer: "The irony is that the far right in Britain is forming an alliance with Zionists, because their common enemy are the Muslims. And it's ironic that the very people who favoured the work of Hitler are now working with the Zionists, the English Defence League for example, against the Muslims because they share, they view them as a threat."
cst: Jewish groups, including CST and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, have repeatedly warned Jews not to fall for the EDL's anti-Muslim racism, and the EDL's so-called 'Jewish' branch has never amounted to more than a handful of members.

Rich Armbach: … that Zionists have associated themselves with the far right is acknowledged by among others the CST …

Rich Armbach: Well I could argue with the CST about how many members there is / was in the Jewish division. While the numbers weren't high it was a lot more than a handful. But both me and the CST agree there were some. That makes Sizers statement true.

(so far as anyone knows, only one jewish edl member ever went on demonstrations)

rich, you are still lying

the cst statement does not even mention zionists, only jews ("so-called Jewish-branch")

and it certainly does not mention any cooperation ("alliance", "associated") between zionists and the far right

even if the cst had said "Zionist-branch", all that would show is that one or two zionists had joined the edl …

that is very obviously the opposite of what sizer intended the milions of viewers to understand ("the far right in Britain is forming an alliance with Zionists"), and is in no sense an "acknowldegment" of its truth by the cst

not only are you claiming an interpretation which is clearly ridiculous

you are also claiming that sizer was telling the truth because he was saying that the tens of thousands of british jewish zionists generally are responsible for the actions of one or two

attributing the guilt of one or two to the whole is the classic example of racism!

first stephen sizer lied
(it was an antisemitic lie, and it was likely to stir up racial hatred)
then rich armbach supported his lie
then rich defended the lie with another lie (about the cst)
finally rich defends sizer by saying, oh, it's not a lie if we interpret it as a classic example of racism!

that's rich!

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS