From warfare to lawfare: Israel’s other battleground (3)
Far away from the carnage in Gaza there’s a small army of lawyers in Britain battling against critics of Israel. UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) uses its members’ legal skills to combat “attempts to undermine, attack and/or delegitimise Israel, Israeli organisations, Israelis and/or supporters of Israel”.
But how, exactly, does it go about that? In a four-part report Brian Whitaker investigates …
1. The complaints department
2. Siding with the hardliners
3. A war against charities
4. Protecting Zionism
3. A war against charities
The term “lawfare” is a blend of “law” and “warfare”, defined in the Collins Dictionary as “strategic use of legal proceedings to intimidate or hinder an opponent”. Lawfare cases often fail in court because they rely on weak legal arguments but that doesn’t matter much so long as it causes a nuisance for the targeted organisations by forcing them to spend time and/or money defending themselves.
The Zionist Advocacy Center (TZAC) in New York is a serial litigator with a history of failed cases accusing non-profit organisations of having terrorist connections. David Abrams, the lawyer behind TZAC, sees it as a way of supporting Israel. “I’m a pro-Israel advocate,” he told an interviewer. “Perhaps it’s not a coincidence that most of these designated terrorist organisations are anti-Israel. Going after terrorism is almost the same thing as supporting Israel.”
The most ludicrous of TZAC’s failed lawsuits, in 2015, was a $91m claim accusing the Carter Center (founded by the former US president) of providing “material support” to terrorists. The claim arose out of a meeting in Ramallah hosted by the Carter Center and aimed at reconciling the various Palestinian factions. Representatives of Hamas and the PFLP were among those attending and, according to TZAC, the evidence of unlawful “material support” for them consisted of water, fruit and cookies seen on the table in a photo of their meeting.
Laughable as such claims might be, they are no joke for the defendants. The British charity Christian Aid spent five years and £700,000 fighting another “material support” case from TZAC which was eventually dismissed by a New York court on the grounds that it fell outside the court’s jurisdiction.
TZAC was one of several pro-Israel organisations accused of practising lawfare in a report by the Washington-based Charity and Security Network. Another of those named in the report was UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), based in London.
Contrary to appearances, UKLFI presents itself as an anti-lawfare organisation. It accuses such bodies as the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of waging lawfare against Israel. Interviewed on Israel’s i24 News channel, UKLFI legal director Natasha Hausdorff cited a request to the ICJ from the General Assembly for an advisory opinion on Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories. She told viewers:
“What we are witnessing is a perpetuation of lawfare … the abuse of these international legal institutions against Israel. It is another plank, if you will, of a continuing war against the Jewish state and it is one that is done with pseudo-legal language … We can see exactly what it is that those countries that were leading that resolution [for an advisory opinion] are hoping to achieve and, as I say, it is the perpetuation of lawfare against the Jewish state.”
In Britain, UKLFI has targeted numerous charities — not with lawsuits like TZAC in the United States, but with complaints to the Charity Commission (the official regulator). The commission’s main task is to ensure that charities are properly managed and comply with the law. “Deliberate wrongdoing, illegal activity, criminality and serious abuse,” it says, “will be dealt with rigorously and decisively.”
The activities of charities must also benefit the public in line with their stated charitable objects. They are allowed to campaign and engage in political activity relevant to their charitable purposes but this must not become their only activity or the reason for their existence. The rules are complicated and in the event of a breach the commission’s usual approach, at least initially, is to try to resolve any problems and bring the charity back into compliance rather than resorting to punitive measures. In a worst-case scenario, though, it can shut the charity down.
The Rio cinema
One of UKLFI’s recent complaints to the commission involved the Rio cinema in Hackney which happens to be registered as a charity (it has a “cultural outreach” role with special screenings for school groups, the over-60s and other community groups).
For a number of years the Rio had screened the final of the Eurovision Song Contest in collaboration with Eurovision Party London. This year, though, amid controversy over Israel’s participation while slaughtering Palestinians in Gaza, the cinema announced it would not be screening the contest.
In response to that, UKFLI accused the Rio of “creating community division at this sensitive time when antisemitism is at an all-time high” and commented:
“Hackney/East London is an area with a rich and culturally diverse community, including many members of the Jewish faith. By showing support for Palestine and derision for Israel, the Rio is creating a hostile environment for Jewish inhabitants. It breaches the express charitable object of not distinguishing between religious, political or other opinions.”
UKLFI announced it had reported the cinema to the Charity Commission, adding that it was pleased to see Michael Ellis MP — a member of Conservative Friends of Israel — and a number of Jewish organisations had done so too.
The Charity Commission is still considering the complaints against the cinema. In an email last week it said: “We have opened a regulatory compliance case and are currently reviewing information supplied by the charity’s trustees. This will inform any next steps.” It added that the opening of a regulatory compliance case is “not a finding of wrongdoing” and “all concerns are assessed against our published regulatory and risk framework to inform any action or response.”
Anger over apartheid report
In 2022 UKLFI complained to the Charity Commission about a 280-page report from Amnesty International which argued that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians fits the legal definition of apartheid. Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, apartheid is a particular type of crime against humanity characterised by “an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime”. The 1973 Apartheid Convention similarly defines it as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them”.
Amnesty’s findings were not much of a surprise — Human Rights Watch had earlier reached a similar conclusion — but the reference to apartheid triggered a furious reaction from Israel’s supporters. UKLFI denounced the report as a collection of “misleading and inflammatory allegations that will exacerbate the serious problem of antisemitism in the UK and around the world.”
In Britain, Amnesty operates partly through a charitable trust — which provided UKLFI with the hook for a referral to the commission. Material on Amnesty’s website relating to the apartheid report had invited people to donate through the charitable trust, and UKLFI chief executive Jonathan Turner commented: “In our view, this is ‘dog-whistle’ fund-raising, taking advantage of widespread racist prejudice against Jews to raise money in the knowledge that accusing Jews of crimes goes down very well with many people.”
A spokesperson for Amnesty International UK said this week: “Following the UKLFI complaint, the Charity Commission asked a number of questions about Amnesty UK’s charitable trust and the Israel apartheid report. The trust answered these questions and the responses were noted by the commission. There has been no further correspondence with the Charity Commission in relation to the UKLFI’s February 2022 complaint.” The commission says it closed the case in October 2022 “with the issuing of advice and guidance to the trustees”.
Alleged terrorist connections
Other charities targeted by UKLFI have included War on Want, Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) and Education Aid for Palestinians (EAP). The tenor of its complaints was that they had links with terrorism and were engaging in activities beyond their stated charitable objects. MAP’s charitable objects, for example, are “relief of sickness” and “advancement of education” in the Middle East. UKLFI’s complaint alleged that MAP was not advancing education but spreading propaganda and that “relief of sickness” did not allow MAP to provide “medical care for injuries caused by armed conflict”.
On the question of terrorist connections, a frequent allegation in UKLFI’s letters is of charities having links with local NGOs which in turn are said to have links with the proscribed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). One local NGO mentioned in the complaint against MAP was Addameer, a human rights organisation based in Ramallah and focused on the conditions of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.
According to UKLFI senior figures in Addameer were also officials of the PFLP and Addameer was “an official PFLP affiliate” (based on a list in a document from 1967). As for the links between MAP and Addameer, UKLFI’s evidence of was remarkably thin. Its complaint cited three occasions when MAP had “relied on evidence” from Addameer or quoted its public statements. The other connections cited were that MAP had “promoted” a film screening about prisoners where Addameer would be speaking and “publicised” a meeting between Addameer and British MPs.
The complaint against War on Want, submitted in 2018, made similar allegations about connections with local NGOs, though it was mostly devoted to arguing that health conditions in Gaza were not as bad as War on Want had portrayed them — the implication being that the charity’s focus on Gaza was motivated by antisemitism.
The Charity Commission has not disclosed the outcome of these complaints but statements from the charities and UKLFI indicate that they didn’t result in any drastic action. War on Want said it eventually received a letter from the commission saying the matter was closed: the commission did “not consider any further regulatory action or engagement to be required” and had “not identified any issues that we need to take forward”. MAP and EAP both said they had received a similar response.
Regarding the complaint about MAP, UKLFI quoted a letter from the commission saying that while “no further regulatory action or engagement was/is required at this time, we were clear that should any further complaints or information be received in this matter then it may be necessary for us to re-engage with the charity.” The letter added: “In confirming the closure of the commission’s case, we signposted the trustees to regulatory advice and guidance, specifically in relation to issues raised as part of our assessment of the complaint.”
The main accusation against EAP was that it had links with Hamas. EAP had been proscribed in Israel along with some of its trustees, though not in the UK. A note posted later on UKLFI’s website said the commission had decided there was no need for regulatory action “at this time”. It added: “The commission acknowledges the information that past and current trustees of EAP are designated in Israel but says that since these individuals are not designated in the UK, ʽthe commission is not aware of any reason why these individuals cannot legally be trustees of a UK charity’.”
Student unions under scrutiny
Overall, UKLFI seems to have had more success using the charity rules to combat BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) activity in universities. Student unions are usually registered as charities and, typically, their charitable objects are limited to such things as promoting students’ welfare and advancing education. In UKLFI’s view, that doesn’t allow them to engage in BDS activity.
The Charity Commission has previously expressed concern in that area too. In 2017 it wrote to “a number” of student unions that had endorsed boycotts of Israel, reminding them of their legal obligations. David Holdsworth, the commission’s chief operating officer, said: “The trustees of a students’ union charity considering whether or not to endorse a motion relating to the BDS movement must be clear what this means in practice, and must be able to explain how doing so furthers the charity’s purposes and therefore is consistent with their legal duties.”
This has resulted in some student unions retracting previously-approved BDS motions. At City University in London, for example, union trustees struck out the key part of a resolution passed by students — based on legal advice that it was (or could be) inconsistent with charity law. Reports on UKLFI’s website show that so far this year it has engaged on BDS issues with student unions at Manchester, Liverpool and Nottingham universities, plus Goldsmiths College (London) and the Royal College of Art.
UKLFI’s own charitable activities
There’s more than a touch of irony in UKLFI’s accusations about charities consorting with extremists. Its own charitable arm hosts online webinars with guest speakers and in 2019 it invited Naomi Khan from Regavim — one of Israel’s most extreme Zionist organisations. Her talk was initially postponed amid objections in the Jewish community and when it eventually took place protesters gathered outside.
Regavim is a notorious pro-settler organisation “dedicated to the protection of Israel’s national lands” (e.g. the West Bank). It minutely monitors construction work by Palestinians and Bedouins then takes court action against any that lacks an Israeli permit. The entire focus of Regavim is “protecting the land of Israel and Israel’s sovereignty, from the most basic unit upwards,” Khan said in her talk for UKLFI.
“We start with an almost pixelated view of the country. We look at every inch of ground and we see who owns it, who has permission to do things to it, what they’re doing to it and, if they don’t have permission, what can be done about it.
“We have field workers who go out every day and look at what’s out there. They document, they monitor, they investigate every instance of construction …
“There’s a lot of legwork involved. These young men and women know pretty much every inch of the land of Israel. It’s quite astounding. I can show them a picture of any formation of three rocks and they’ll know exactly where it is.”
They take photographs, she said, and in the last few years they have increasingly used drones “because a lot of our field workers were coming under attack”.
Chief executive Turner defended inviting Regavim, saying: “We arrange events with a wide range of interesting and challenging speakers, including speakers from the left and right of the Israeli political spectrum.” Judging by videos of the talks, though, leftists are in rather short supply.
In another UKLFI talk, Orde Kittrie, a law professor from Arizona State University, spoke about the “scurrilous apartheid charge” against Israel. “Unlike South Africa’s apartheid system, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not about race,” he said. Neither the Apartheid Convention nor the Rome Statute defines “race” and, according to Kittrie, it refers only to physical characteristics such as skin colour.
Israeli courts might disagree about that, however: Israel’s penal code defines “racism” more broadly as relating to “colour, racial affiliation or national ethnic origin”. Similarly, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (to which Israel is a party) defines “racial discrimination” as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin”.
Originally published at https://al-bab.com.
