Dear Friends,

Naomi and I have just returned from a brief visit to Australia where, amongst other engagements, we were privileged to meet again with one of Israel’s greatest friends, John Howard, the former Australian Prime Minister who plans to visit Israel in the near future.

Much has happened during the two weeks we were abroad and I am looking forward to resuming writing once I catch up with my backlog. By then, we are likely to have a clear understanding of the direction in which the talks with Palestinians are heading.

Alas, despite magnificent speeches and enthusiastic editorials, I fear that it is delusionary to imagine that we can achieve peace with a partner like Abbas. Despite statements tailored for Western audiences, he displays no genuine inclination to promote peace within his own constituency where he remains aligned to the policies of his predecessor Arafat, and personally identifies with incitement against Israel. In the unlikely event that he underwent a genuine change, there is little cause for optimism that his own Fatah forces - not to mention Palestinian public opinion - would reject terror and hatred against us. And that does not even take account of the pivotal role of Hamas as Iran’s surrogate in the region.

Nevertheless, on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, we remain confident and resolute about the future and count our blessings that we are the most fortunate generation of Jews since the Exile 2000 years ago.

May our prayers be answered and may our leaders be endowed with wisdom and integrity. May it also be a year of peace and security for the State of Israel, good tidings for the Jewish people and may all good people throughout the world be blessed with serenity, happiness and fulfillment.

Naomi joins me in wishing you and all your loved ones Shana Tova - a year of good health, happiness and tranquility.

Ketiva ve’Chatima Tova!

Isi and Naomi Leibler

The disclosure by The Jewish Week of the $7 million fraud at the Claims Conference has revived former concerns and exposed new problems relating to the management of this important Jewish organization.

Initially, Claims Conference officials trivialized the fraud by insisting “that nobody was responsible because there was no deviation from standard procedures” and denying that there was any failure in oversight. Incredibly, the treasurer subsequently revealed that $7 million was “only the tip of the iceberg,” prompting KPMG auditors to refuse to sign off on the accounts. That such a gigantic loss from funds destined for restitution is brushed aside in such a cavalier manner highlights a serious lack of accountability.

Three years ago, in the wake of the March of the Living scandal exposing a failure in oversight when a consultant was paid over $700,000 without any plausible explanation [first reported in The Jewish Week], there were calls for an independent forensic audit to review the broad spectrum of control within the organization. Had that call been heeded, this multimillion-dollar fraud may have been averted.

It is also inexplicable that after being defrauded of millions of dollars, the Claims Conference has the chutzpah to appoint “the biggest and best PR organization” in the U.S. to refurbish its image when it already employs a full-time public relations bureau.

However, the biggest scandal is the ongoing plight of the remaining elderly survivors living under wretched conditions. The Claims Conference has an investment portfolio of more than $1 billion, which increased over the past year by more than $30 million. Instead of expanding the portfolio, surely more of this money could have been allotted to ease the lives of the elderly ailing survivors living in poverty.

According to Claims Conference’s chairman, Julius Berman, $70 billion has been distributed by the organization. I would challenge him to facilitate an independent authority to review and disclose the substantial funds directed to projects unrelated to easing the condition of Holocaust survivors or even Holocaust memory. For example, Birthright is a worthy cause, but surely not justifying substantial subsidies from restitution funds simply because a visit to Yad Vashem is incorporated in the program.

The reality is that despite an external façade of governance, the Claims Conference operates like a private club or personal fiefdom.

Aside from conflicts of interest in which directors representing organizations receiving grants determine policies, the principal weakness is the centralization of control by the chairman and his arrogant response to anyone questioning his judgment.

Berman has been in office for more than eight years. This is unhealthy in any democratic organization, but especially so in one dispensing billions of dollars.

It is also noteworthy that both the U.S. and the Israel special Claims Conference Advisory Committees for Social Welfare Allocations are chaired by Berman. This is unconscionable and exemplifies the absence of checks and balances, raising questions about the entire decision-making process of allocating funds.

Only a few months ago, Haim Roet, an Israeli Claims Conference director, resigned, informing Berman, “I am too experienced and old to be a rubber stamp for the autocratic majority of the Claims Conference Board and its management.”

In response to complaints of a lack of “transparency and accountability,” a leading barrister in the United Kingdom, Jeffrey Gruder, was commissioned by the Board of Deputies to examine “both documentary and financial records of the Claims Conference.”

This presumably also related to charges by former owners of properties in East Germany and their heirs that the Claims Conference had defrauded them, selling their properties without approval and refusing to pass on the funds. There were also complaints that lists of Jewish property owners “disappeared” and that properties were auctioned without adequate oversight, allegedly enabling selected German real estate agencies to enrich themselves by indulging in questionable sales practices. In the U.S., there is also pending legal action seeking compensation and damages for unjust enrichment of the Claims Conference at the expense of the rightful heirs to recovered assets.

What must now be done?

An independent forensic audit review should be implemented immediately. In addition an independent committee should be appointed to review the structure of the organization and ensure that conflicts of interest are removed from the decision-making progress.

The board should be restructured to genuinely represent the Jewish people, eliminating representatives from defunct organizations and incorporating those with legitimate claims to be party to policy and allocation deliberations.

There should be term limits for senior elected officers. This would allay the fears of survivors that the money is being withheld in order to maintain the organization even after the survivors have passed away.

Above all, the Claims Conference should submit to full oversight by an objective regulatory body with authority to review not only the flow of funds but also the decision-making process.

Instead of hiring a public relations firm to enhance its image, the Claims Conference should appoint an ombudsman to ensure that survivors and heirs are treated with respect.

But the absolute priority must be to ease the plight of the remaining ailing survivors. In view of the appalling suffering they endure, every cent not committed to heirs should now be diverted towards resolving this humanitarian crisis. And if some projects need to be frozen, so be it. It is obscene that elderly survivors are denied the opportunity of living out their few remaining years in dignity.

Isi Leibler who lives in Israel, is a former official at the World Jewish Congress and is active in numerous Zionist organizations. 

ileibler@netvision.net.il

This column was originally published in the New York Jewish Week

Isi Leibler Interviewed on Israel National News radio with Walter Bingham

In the wake of my recent columns concerning the Claims Conference I received a number of heartbreaking letters from Holocaust survivors describing the appalling conditions they or their loved ones are enduring. I wish that these descriptions of the indignities that some destitute survivors are obliged to experience could be circulated to those serving as directors to the Claims Conference.

I am however concerned that despite the anger which is being generated as people become aware of what is taking place, the chairman of the Claims Conference and his inner circle are determined not to change their approach. They intend to weather the storm, assuming it will die down in the course of time and that the directors that comprise the board will not pressure them into reforming the organization or take steps to ameliorate the desperate conditions of the elderly and ailing survivors.

I would urge those of you who share my view that something must be done urgently to improve the plight of survivors to act now and demand that remedial action be taken immediately, even if this requires freezing or suspending other projects.

It is a waste of time to write to the Claims Conference. However you should call on those organizations that are represented on the board and urge them to instruct their directors to raise this issue and demand an immediate independent review and investigation of the organization and its decision-making process.

Since I last wrote about this matter, further information has come to my attention.

I learned that Julius Berman not only occupies the chairmanship of the advisory committee for disbursements in Israel and the United States, but has also taken upon himself to chair seven of the key committees of the organization, including the all-powerful Allocations Committee! This is surely an unconscionable breach of governance and centralized control of a public organization that should not be tolerated. It reaffirms my charge that this important organization has been transformed into the personal fiefdom of Berman and his inner sanctum. I believe this strengthens the demands for a full inquiry into the vast amounts of funds diverted from ailing survivors to organizations and charities that have no direct bearing on the Holocaust.

Linked here is a broadcast of an interview with Israel National Radio following my columns in the Jerusalem Post on the Claims Conference.

ileibler@netvision.net.il

Like many Jews, as a youngster I associated Holland with windmills and tulips and a heroic people which bravely defended Jews during the Nazi occupation.

Alas, I subsequently learned that the record of the Dutch towards the Jews was nothing of the sort. There were tens of thousands of Dutch righteous gentiles who risked their lives to save Jews but there were far more collaborators, over 25,000 of whom even volunteered for the Waffen SS. Overall, the Dutch authorities willingly assisted in the deportation of the Jews. Anne Frank and her family were amongst those denounced to the Nazis. Of the 140,000 Jews living in the Netherlands before the war, over 100,000 were murdered.

Today, there is a popular misconception that the Dutch are an easygoing, tolerant, multi-cultured people.

In truth, Dutch society has become polarized as a consequence of the massive influx of non-Western immigrants, predominantly Muslim, who have shattered social stability. Muslims currently comprise one million out of a 16 million population, a disproportionate number of whom have police records.

Together with indigenous anti- Semites, some radical Muslims have effectively exploited the culture of permissiveness to violently promote their objectives.

Verbal and physical violence has escalated, climaxing in November 2004 with the brutal public street murder in Amsterdam of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh who was shot and stabbed to death by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Muslim radical.

Although this had a major impact on Dutch society, it did not become the watershed one may have expected. However the status of the 30,000 members of the Jewish community, already subjected to increasing anti- Semitic incitement and violence primarily emanating from the Moroccan Muslim community, continued to deteriorate.

The leading daily newspaper NRC Handelsblad published an article in June stating that anti- Semitism in areas of Amsterdam has become the norm rather than the exception. It identified areas in Amsterdam in which Jews with skullcaps or distinctive garb cannot walk in the streets without being affronted, spat at or even attacked.

In May, an outdoor commemoration ceremony for the last transport of 3,000 Jewish children deported during the Holocaust was disrupted by bikers shrieking “Heil Hitler” during the recitation of Kaddish.

Anti-Semitism also manifests itself in anti-Israel demonstrations where cries of “Hamas Hamas - Jews to the gas”; “Jew cancer”; and “Hitler let one get away!” are frequently heard. Football stadiums have become notorious arenas for anti-Israel and anti-Semitic chants. About half of the registered criminal utterances reported on the internet throughout Holland in 2009 were against Jews. It is believed that if full records were accessible, the proportion would be much higher.

LAST MONTH, the 280-year-old synagogue in Weesp became the first Jewish house of worship in Europe since the war obliged to cancel Sabbath services after the police had warned congregants of threats of violence.

In a recent letter to members of Parliament, the Jewish community stated that anti-Semitism was rampant, noting that the Jewish community is obliged to provide its own security at schools and all public functions, the costs for which have become unbearable.

Surveys among teachers in the major cities indicate that one out of five teachers have difficulties in relating to the Holocaust because of the hostile response from Muslim students. The Chairman of the Orthodox Rabbinate, Binyomin Jacobs, protested that “today there are many schools which simply stop providing lessons relating to WWII and the Holocaust due to fear of negative reactions from pupils from Muslim backgrounds”.

Jewish schoolchildren feel intimidated and the school authorities are either indifferent or unable to assist them. To avoid harassment, some children are obliged to change schools and even hide their Jewish identity.

A few weeks ago a local Jewish TV station (Joodse Omroep) broadcast scenes of anti-Semitic harassment in the streets recorded by a hidden camera which followed a rabbi accompanied by two students. This provided chilling testimony of the intimidation to which Jews are subjected.

In response, the Dutch police announced that they might use “decoy” Jews - police dressed in traditional Jewish garb - to entrap anti-Semitic hooligans. Rabbi Jacobs responded by stating that such initiatives would be futile unless accompanied by greater emphasis on education, stressing that not only Muslims were engaged in anti-Semitic agitation.

“I witness Dutch non-Muslim youngsters also shouting at me in the street” he stated.

Ironically, the major escalation of anti-Semitism in Amsterdam took place between 2001-2010, when Marius Job Cohen, a Jew, was mayor. Cohen’s grandparents were murdered in the Holocaust but he frequently expresses indifference to his Jewish origins. Now as leader of the Dutch Labor party he participates in attacks demonizing Israel as exemplified in the party’s platform in the recent elections.

Such behavior towards Israel is particularly shameful coming from the country whose UN peacekeeping force in 1995 in Srebrenica stood by while 8,000 Bosnian men and boys were massacred by the Serbs (there are reports that some even took part in seperating the women from the men). The Dutch peacekeepers then fled to Zagreb, where they held a beer and music fest in the presence of the crown Prince and the prime minister.

HOWEVER, THERE is now a potential for positive change on the political horizon. At the recent polls, contrary to expectations, the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) headed by Geert Wilders surged from its pre election nine seats to winning 24 out of the 150 seat Dutch parliament.

Nicknamed Mozart because of his blond hair and voted politician of the year in 2007, Wilders displays contempt for the hypocritical political correctness displayed toward Islam that has enveloped Europe. He resolutely calls for tough action against intimidation and threats from Islamic fundamentalists.

He describes Muslim migrants as a “Trojan Horse” and warns of the danger of Europe being transformed into Eurabia and European civilization coming to an end.

Wilders is an outspoken friend of the Jewish people and considers Israel to be “the West’s first line of defense”. He lived in Israel for two years and has visited the Jewish state more than 40 times.

Contrary to defamatory allegations directed against him, Wilders abhors fascism and publicly condemned politicians like France’s Jean-Marie Le Pen, the late Haider and other racists with whom he swears he would never associate.

His controversial call for the banning of the Koran (which he compares to Mein Kampf and claims incites to violence) and the production of a film depicting the brutality and denial of human rights prevailing in Muslim countries led to his being charged with incitement and hatred. The court proceedings became transformed into a political arena when the judge refused to hear the majority of witnesses Wilders presented.

Should Wilders be convicted of promoting hate speech it will have problematic implications in a country like Holland where calls for “death to the Jews” are regular occurrences and rarely prosecuted.

The trial outcome will also be a curtain raiser on what to expect from other European countries in the years ahead.

ileibler@netvision.net.il

This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post

Over the years I have encountered many cases of incompetence and blunders on the part of those responsible for promoting the case for Israel on a global level, but nothing quite as bizarre as what I experienced a few days ago. A number of British Jews wrote to me complaining bitterly that the Israeli London Embassy was promoting a tour by Haaretz journalist Gidon Levy.

For those who are unaware, Levy is regarded as one of the most extreme and outspoken of the Israeli anti-Zionist journalists, notorious for demonizing Israel and supporting the most anti-Israeli groups. He repeatedly brackets Israeli behavior with that of the Nazis, accuses Israel of practicing apartheid and committing war crimes, and defines himself as anti-Zionist. He accuses Meretz, Peace Now and others on the far left in Israel of lacking the courage to open “the 1948 file.”

So when I was informed that the embassy was promoting his visit, which was under the auspices of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign I refused to believe it, and requested evidence substantiating such an accusation.

I subsequently received the following transcript, which I was informed had been issued by Michael Brodsky, the director of public affairs at the London Embassy.

“Gideon Levy from Haaretz will be in conversation with Jon Snow at 8.15pm on Tuesday 24th August and it will be taking place at Amnesty International UK’s Human RightsAction Centre.

Attendance to the event is free but needs to be pre-registered.

The event is presented by Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Palestine Solidarity Campaign & Verso.

Here is a link to further information.

Michael Brodsky

Director of Public Affairs Department”

My initial instinct was that the e-mail was a hoax and I urged my informant to obtain further clarification from the embassy.

I was then informed that Brodsky had indeed released the communication, justifying it on the grounds that it was being directed “to a small group of Jewish activists in order to inform them about an anti-Israeli event taking place in London.”

Yet according to Zalmi Unsdorfer, Chairman of Herut UK, the e-mail was distributed to people who were neither “activists” nor in a position to organize a protest. Unsdorfer sent a formal protest to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Under the auspices of our current ambassador, the UK Israel embassy has established a reputation for being one of the most effective Israeli embassies in the world. Ambassador Ron Prosor is articulate, courageous and has earned the respect of friend and foe alike.

But there is little doubt that there is something wrong with the management of the embassy if a communication of this nature can be dispatched on the embassy e-mail network.

Even if the public affairs director had good intentions, for an embassy to dispatch such a communication reflects an abysmal lack of judgment and sensitivity. We are surely entitled to expect a greater level of sophistication and professionalism from Israeli representatives occupying such sensitive roles.

ileibler@netvision.net.il

This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post

Powered by Podbean.com

A recent editorial in Haaretz reprimanded the IDF for cutting down a tree inside Israeli territory near the Lebanese border on the absurd grounds that the authorities should have been more restrained and sensitive to the political tension in Lebanon.

If this approach were adopted by our government, it would result in a total collapse of Israel’s deterrence. Rather than discouraging our enemies from conducting acts of aggression and terror out of fear of reprisal, we ourselves would become reluctant to take any defensive measures out of concern that they could be construed as aggressive acts or provocations by our hostile neighbors. In such a bizarre climate, we would be failing to carry out the minimal steps required to maintain the security of our borders and the welfare of our citizens.

A FEW days before the unprovoked attack by the Lebanese army, a grad rocket had been launched from the Gaza Strip which could easily have led to major loss of life in the heart of Ashkelon. Subsequently, missiles were launched on Eilat, again fortunately not resulting in Israeli casualties but killing an innocent Jordanian.

These terrorist attacks took place shortly after we agreed, under enormous pressure from the Obama administration, to participate in a UN investigation of May 31’s flotilla incident when Turkish Islamic extremists sought to break our legitimate naval blockade of Gaza.

Ironically, that took place simultaneously with widespread media coverage of classified documents released by WikiLeaks about the inadvertent killing of civilians by US and allied forces in Afghanistan.

Needless to say, there were no calls from UN Secretary General Ban Ki- Moon for an inquiry or any suggestion that the death of these innocent civilians were war crimes.

On the other hand, when the Lebanese army deliberately killed an Israeli officer after the IDF had obtained advance UNIFIL approval to clear trees in what was indisputably acknowledged to be within the Israeli border, the UN’s meek response was limited to a call for restraint.

Our indefatigable ally, the US, has been arming the Lebanese army at an alarming level, despite its awareness that Hizbullah and Syria are the dominant forces in Lebanon, and despite the fact that these weapons would almost certainly be turned on us in the event of a conflict orchestrated by the Iranians.

Yet even under these circumstances, the initial US State Department response to the border killing paralleled the mealymouthed UN call for restraint, and failed to condemn the perpetrator. It was only after Israel protested bitterly that the US finally criticized Lebanon.

OVERALL, IT would seem that we have still not internalized the lessons of the past. We live in a region of scorpions, in which compromise and goodwill extended in the face of aggression has time and again encouraged our enemies to intensify their acts of terror until a full-scale war erupts.

We should surely have absorbed the lessons of the Kassams. Those who belittled their impact and derisively referred to them as primitive “Kassam Shmassams,” failed to appreciate that our failure to respond vigorously allowed the world to view such attacks as part of the Middle East routine.

Had we responded initially with vigor, the attacks would not have escalated and we may well have avoided the Gaza war.

One need only remember Ehud Barak’s undertaking when we withdrew from Lebanon. “If they so much as cross the border, we will smite them with all our might.”

Ariel Sharon said the same after the Gaza withdrawal. And after the Second Lebanon War, Ehud Olmert also made empty threats but failed to respond to Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza until the south was literally being inundated .

When Binyamin Netanyahu was elected, he pledged to respond promptly and vigorously to all terror attacks. Indeed until recently, we had relative quiet. Now under Iranian direction, Hizbullah and Hamas are once again testing us in order to gauge how far they can go.

They are confident that the Americans will exert maximum pressure on Netanyahu to display restraint so as to avoid provoking a war which would divert attention from Ahmadinejad’s nuclear ambitions and destroy prospects for direct negotiations with the Palestinians.

But the reality is that we find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. If we are again persuaded to act with restraint in the face of aggression, we will merely empower the terrorists. If we seek to retain our deterrence, our response to such acts of hostility must be immediate and forceful and not wait until Israeli blood has been shed.

If we respond swiftly and demonstrate that Hamas and Hizbullah will pay a major price if they attack us, we will almost certainly incur the wrath of the UN, Europe and regrettably, probably also the US. Yet the lessons of the past decade demonstrate that Hamas and Hizbullah are afraid of being held responsible by the people they rule for any suffering inflicted on them as a result of unprovoked aggression against Israel. This is a brutal area in which alas, paradoxically, might and swift reprisal against terror attacks are far more likely to avert a full-blown war than vacuous dialogue and restraint.

Our deterrent policy should be spelled out.

Netanyahu must avoid repeating the hollow threats of reprisals that transformed us into loudmouthed bluffers and a regional laughing stock over the past decade. He must proclaim that we will respond vigorously to any threats against our civilian population and, unlike his predecessors, commit himself to implementing such a policy.

We no longer have any illusions. The world does not accept our right to defend ourselves, but we cannot afford to await intervention or retribution from third parties when our civilians are endangered. It will represent a continuation of former government follies if we stand by with folded arms and fail to immediately respond to acts of terror. On the other hand, if we convey a strong message to our foes that if they deliberately spill Israeli blood there is a major price to pay, we may in fact avert the worst scenario of another brutal all-out war.

ileibler@netvision.net.il

This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post

It reflects adversely on the Claims Conference when its chairman, Julius Berman, stoops to personal abuse in response to the troubling concerns I raised concerning the organization’s management and policy over the past few weeks (click here to read Berman’s response). When Berman accuses me of being motivated by “malice” and indulging in “diatribes” and “scandal mongering”, he exemplifies the intimidating approach employed to silence critics and the arrogant response frequently encountered by those seeking clarification on restitution matters from Claims Conference executives.

Yet Berman failed to factually refute a single statement in my article, side-stepped the major issues and falsely accused me of alleging that the FBI discovered the $7 million fraud in his organization. He cannot deny that the Claims Conference only informed the public after the New York Jewish Week had exposed the theft.

Berman fails to appreciate that his executives trivialized the fraud by denying that there was a failure in oversight and “that nobody was responsible because there was no deviation from standard procedures.”

This related to a fraud in excess of $7 million which the Treasurer now reveals is “only the tip of the iceberg” and obliged the auditors to withhold signing off on the accounts. That such a gigantic loss from funds destined for restitution is brushed aside in such a cavalier manner highlights a serious lack of accountability.

Nor can Berman justify how, in the wake of having been defrauded of millions of dollars, the Claims Conference can have the gall to appoint “the biggest and best PR organization” in the US to refurbish its image when it already employs a full time public relations bureau.

THREE YEARS ago in the wake of the March of the Living scandal which also involved a failure in oversight, I urged the Claims Conference to launch an independent forensic audit to review the broad spectrum of control within the organization. Had they acted then, this multimillion dollar fraud may have been averted.

Berman’s insensitive spin that “no survivor payments were affected during the fraud” is disingenuous. In fact, when the fraud was discovered, the Claims Conference suspended for three months all Hardship Fund payments to legitimate claimants, including many in dire need.

He confirms that the Claims Conference has an investment portfolio of over a billion dollars but fails to mention that this portfolio increased over the past year by over 30 million dollars whilst conceding that today tens of thousands of survivors remain in abject poverty. Instead of expanding the investment portfolio, I reiterate that “more of this money should be employed to ease the lives of the elderly ailing survivors living in poverty”.

According to Berman, $70 billion has passed through the Claims Conference. I would challenge him to facilitate an independent authority to review and disclose the substantial amounts of funds directed to irrelevant projects - some utterly undeserving, others worthy but unrelated to easing the condition of Holocaust survivors or even Holocaust memory. For example, Birthright is a worthy cause, but surely not justifying substantial subsidies from restitution funds because a visit to Yad Vashem is incorporated in the program.

THE REALITY is that despite an external façade of governance, the Claims Conference operates like a private club.

Aside from conflicts of interest in which directors representing organizations receiving grants determine policies, the principal weakness is the centralization of control by the chairman and his arrogant attitude to anyone questioning his judgment.

Berman has been in office for over 8 years. This is unhealthy in any democratic organization, but especially so in one dispensing billions of dollars. While not implying personal malfeasance, in the absence of adequate checks and balances and after a long period in control, the chairman behaves as though the organization was his personal fiefdom.

Take, for example, the special Claims Conference Advisory Committees for Social Welfare Allocations encompassing the US and Israel - regions which include the largest number of survivors.

That the US section is chaired by none other than the Claims Conference chairman, Julius Berman, highlights a failure to appreciate that in such a highly complex organization, excessive centralization and control must be avoided. But when the same Julius Berman also chairs the Israel section, it is utterly unconscionable. This not only exemplifies the absence of checks and balances, but raises major questions about the entire decision making process of allocating funds.

Only a few months ago, Haim Roet, an Israeli Claims Conference director resigned, stating in a letter to Berman “I am too experienced and old to be a rubber stamp for the autocratic majority of the Claims Conference Board and its management.”

He deplored the fact that the Allocations Committee had ignored a recommendation by the Israel Board members who “are all Holocaust survivors” as well as explicit recommendations by the Knesset. Such behavior, Roet said “is unbelievable and unacceptable” and can only be described as “chutzpa.”

He also protested that Berman repeatedly failed to respond to his communications.

THERE ARE rumblings elsewhere. A leading UK barrister, Jeffrey Gruder QC, in response to numerous demands from members of the UK Jewish community concerned by the absence of “transparency and accountability”, has been commissioned by the Board of Deputies to examine “both documentary and financial records of the Claims Conference”.

This presumably will also relate to allegations by former owners of properties in East Germany and their heirs that the Claims Conference had defrauded them, selling their properties without approval and refusing to pass on the funds. There were also complaints that lists of Jewish property owners “disappeared” and that properties were auctioned by the Claims Conference without adequate oversight, allegedly enabling selected German real estate agencies to enrich themselves by indulging in questionable sales practices. In the US, there are also legal actions pending by heirs seeking compensation and damages for unjustified enrichment of the Claims Conference at the expense of the rightful heirs to recovered assets.

What must now be done?

An independent forensic audit review should be implemented forthwith. The Claims Conference Board should also appoint an independent committee to review the structure of the organization and ensure that conflicts of interest are removed from the decision-making progress.

The Board should be streamlined, eliminating representation from defunct organizations and co-opting new bodies with legitimate claims to be party to policy and allocation deliberations. The Claims Conference should not be allowed to operate as an “old boys’ club” and must be genuinely representative of the Jewish people.

Most importantly, there should be term limits for senior elected officers and directors. This would allay the fears of survivors that the money is being withheld to enable leaders and functionaries to continue maintaining and allocating funds even after the survivors have passed away.

This concern is reflected by the submission of the USA Holocaust Survivors Foundation to the Knesset subcommittee reviewing Holocaust restitution in 2007 which refers to the then-president of the Claims Conference (who was subsequently forced to step down following disclosure of misappropriation of charitable funds of another organization) having opined that “there would be an abundance of Holocaust restitution money left over to be used for the community’s needs … after survivors were gone.”

In addition, the Claims Conference should submit to full oversight by an objective regulatory authority such as the Israel State Comptroller with authority to appraise not only the flow of funds but also the decision making process.

Instead of a public relations firm to enhance their image, the Claims Conference should appoint an Ombudsman to ensure that survivors and heirs are treated with respect.

But the absolute priority must be to immediately ease the plight of the ailing survivors. Time is of the essence. In view of the appalling suffering and indignities being experienced by remaining survivors, every cent not committed to heirs should be diverted towards this humanitarian crisis. And if some projects need to be frozen, so be it. It is obscene that elderly survivors are denied the opportunity of living out their few remaining years in dignity. There is a Jewish obligation on us to raise our voices and cry Gevalt!

ileibler@netvision.net.il

This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post

Throughout his long career as head of the Anti Defamation League (ADL), Abe Foxman has earned a reputation for promoting liberal causes and speaking out against all forms of prejudice and hatred. Nobody would describe him as a conservative.

But today, the American left liberal establishment - with Jews at the forefront - has turned on him with a vengeance. He is being viciously assailed for betraying his Jewish values and even promoting Islamophobia.

The issue which sparked this hostility is a proposal to erect a $100 million high-rise mosque and Islamic Center adjacent to New York’s Ground Zero where 3000 people were killed by Islamic extremists. The sponsor is an Islamic organization known as Cordoba which purports to enhance relationships between Islam and the West and promote a moderate Muslim image. The director, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is not currently accessible and some allege that his image as a promoter of tolerance and bridge building is a facade and that he remains associated with Wahhabi teachings.

Critics substantiate this by relating to the Imam’s refusal to label groups like Hamas as terrorist organizations. They also cite a CBS interview held two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, which includes the following exchange:

Interviewer: “Are you in any way suggesting that we in the US deserve what happened?”

Feisal: “I wouldn’t say that the US deserves what happened but the US policies were an accessory to the crime that was committed.” 

Interviewer: “You say that we are an accessory. How?”  

Faisal: “Because we have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden was ‘made in the USA.’”

In addition, there have been evasive responses to requests to identify the source of funds, prompting the belief that the $100 million project was being provided from Saudi sources.

Although the project was endorsed by the New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on the grounds of religious freedom and supported by many liberals presenting it as an initiative designed to build bridges between American Muslims and the wider community, it has now exploded into a major political controversy.

Foxman was very cautious. He acknowledged that there was no legal limitation on constructing the mosque on the site and did not challenge the bona fides of the Cordoba organization. However, he said that “some legitimate questions have been raised” relating to funding and possible ties with “groups whose ideology stand in contradiction to our shared values… ultimately this is not a question of rights. It is a question of what is right.” Foxman concluded that “in our judgment, building an Islamic center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain - unnecessarily - and that is not right.”

Foxman subsequently compared the proposed mosque at the Ground Zero location to the efforts by Roman Catholic Carmelite nuns to create a convent adjacent to the Auschwitz death camp. In the face of global Jewish protests and out of sensitivity to the victims, Pope John Paul ll justifiably ordered them not to proceed.

Other opponents were far harsher than Foxman in their criticism, suggesting that a mosque adjacent to Ground Zero would be an affront to those who perished at the hands of Islamic extremists. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that “the average American just thinks this is a political statement. It’s not about religion and is clearly an aggressive act that is offensive… and is at best an affront to the families of those who died there and at worst an act of aggression, that would, they say, mark the place where radical Islam achieved a blow against the United States.” 

Opinion polls indicate that most Americans are strongly opposed to the project. 

Not surprisingly, groups like J Street and even less radical liberal Jews hysterically condemned Foxman of defaming his Jewish heritage and behaving like a bigot. Time columnist Joe Klein, notorious for his frequent anti-Israeli outbursts, accused Foxman of having steered the ADL from being “a beacon of tolerance to a slightly potty geyser of toxic foolishness.”

I must confess that were I American, I would oppose such a construction on the same grounds that I would object to the erection of a mosque on a major site in which Israelis had been blown up by suicide bombers. Only an imbecile would accuse me of Islamophobia for harboring such views. 

If the money for the mosque originates from Saudi Arabia, one would surely also be entitled to question the bona fides of those sponsoring the erection of such a mosque when their own country prohibits the presence of any church or synagogue. It will also add credence to views that the erection of a high rise building on such a site by Saudi elements is merely a façade for Islamic triumphalism.

One might also ask whether $100 million might not be better invested in educating Muslims against extremism and promoting tolerance towards Christians and Jews.

But even if we were to dismiss the principal arguments against the erection of a mosque in this location, only ignorant and insensitive leftists could challenge the bona fides of Abe Foxman, a Holocaust survivor, and deny that he is on the side of the angels when he says that if such a project creates pain to the families of the victims of this outrage, that should surely be sufficient grounds for not proceeding.

ileibler@netvision.net.il

This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post

On issues relating to Jewish identity in Israel, Diaspora Jews are not only entitled but are obliged to be party to discussions.

However, the current upheaval over the proposed Rotem conversion legislation has limited bearing on Diaspora or American Jews as it relates only to conversions here.

Ironically however, the brouhaha from US Conservative and Reform groups - while based on false premises - had a positive impact, forcing the government to at least temporarily postpone the legislation.

There was one brief moment in 1998 when current Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman came close to achieving a consensual agreement for conversions that would have been consistent both with Halacha and accommodating the major requirements of the Conservative and Reform Jewish organizations.

Regrettably, it was ultimately sabotaged by hard-liners from both sides. Since then, it has been clear that in the foreseeable future this issue will not be resolved by legislation or fiat and will remain a matter of contention between opposing Jewish groups.

But today we face an impending crisis that cannot await the resolution of this issue.

Since their arrival, 350,000 immigrants, primarily from the former Soviet Union, most having one Jewish parent, remain in a nightmarish limbo.

On the one hand, they consider themselves Israelis in every respect, attend Israeli schools, serve in the IDF and and are willing to lay their lives down for their country. Yet due to historical circumstances beyond their control they are not regarded as halachically Jewish.

As a consequence, 90,000 of them born here, who will soon be of marriageable age are considered “ticking time bombs.”

They will become deeply alienated when they discover that they are unable to obtain state certification for a marriage ceremony or even be buried in a Jewish cemetery.

YET IT is not an insolvable problem. There was an equivalent predicament with the Ethiopian aliya, which in terms of Halacha was far more problematic. But due to the foresight and creative intervention of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef the problem was resolved within a halachic framework.

The proposed conversion legislation introduced by MK David Rotem on behalf of Israel Beiteinu was intended to resolve the problem by broadening the conversion authority to a cross-section of rabbis including those more sensitive to the need to exercise maximum halachic flexibility to those seeking to convert.

However, after Rotem naïvely accepted the haredi amendments, the proposed legislation would in reality have worsened the current intolerable situation and further institutionalized control of the conversion procedure by the most extreme elements. Currently applicants to local rabbinical courts requiring certification that they are Jewish frequently undergo a draconian interrogation. Many are treated in the first instance as if they were not Jewish and even obliged to provide birth and death certificates and marriage contracts going back three generations - documents which are frequently simply unavailable.

Currently, the majority of rabbis approved by the Chief Rabbinate are programmed to dissuade potential converts by imposing the most stringent barriers to conversion at a time when it is in the national interest to encourage Israelis who are not halachically Jewish to become part of the formal religiously sanctioned community. They recently even took the unprecedented step of attempting to retroactively annul 15,000 conversions conducted by the unquestionably Orthodox Rabbi Haim Druckman - a step unheard of in Jewish tradition. This is all the more bizarre because the haredim themselves refuse to recognize the authority of the Chief Rabbinate, which they hijacked merely to coerce the Israeli community to adhere to their stringent standards of religious ritual observance.

PROF. BINYAMIN Ish-Shalom, the founding chairman of the Joint Conversion Institute and Beit Morasha, is recognized as one of the most devoted and committed Orthodox intellectuals seeking to promote Jewish values and build bridges between religious and secular Israelis. But even he concluded that the proposed law will incur “more damage than good and set dangerous precedents with potentially disastrous results.”

He maintains that the proposed legislation would enable the centralized Supreme Rabbinical Court to control the placement of rabbis and thus exclude any Tzohar or centrist rabbi who has a sympathetic approach to conversion. The legislation would also require a beit din to be composed of three municipal rabbis who could not appoint substitute rabbis - making it practically impossible for such bodies to operate.

Ish-Shalom also points out that by providing for review of conversions by the Supreme Rabbinical Court, the proposed law provides a green light to the annulment of any previous conversion undertaken by the state which could inflict additional suffering on converts.

It is noteworthy that Rabbi Haim Amsalem, a Shas MK, recently published a scholarly book promoting a more positive attitude toward converts, especially children of Jewish ancestry who serve in the IDF, which he claims in itself reflects a sincere intention of becoming part of the Jewish people. However, none of the 34 current conversion judges appointed by the state would concur with his position and the entire haredi establishment bitterly attacked him, describing his work as “a mockery of Halacha,” but could not fault the bona fides of his halachic approach.

The immediate problem is the operation of the multimillion shekel state-sponsored conversion enterprise controlled by the Chief Rabbinate, which only converts a few hundred immigrants each year. It should be dissolved and substituted by a process whereby a broader range of Orthodox rabbis should have the authority to form a beit din to process conversions, as has been the case in Diaspora communities throughout the ages.

Those who consider that these conversions are insufficiently stringent are not obliged to recognize them - a situation which already prevails among many haredim, who would not accept within their families those converted outside of their own immediate rabbinical circles.

How are the religious Zionists in the Knesset responding to this? Some, without adequately checking the facts, have foolishly endorsed the legislation and a few have disapproved.

However, the majority privately whisper that the legislation is retrograde but lack the courage to speak out in opposition, fearful of being castigated by the haredim.

If they remain silent on such an important issue, it is high time for them to retire from politics. If their one-dimensional obsession with settlements has led them to abdicating the central religious life issues to haredim, they should become a straightforward settlement party and cease claiming to represent the viewpoint of religious Zionists.

Their deafening silence in this debate is cowardly. There is a desperate need for religious Zionist activists who are willing to promote a religious Jewish world outlook by example, not by coercion, and willing to indulge in dialogue with other sections of the Israeli and Jewish world without being intimidated by haredim.

ileibler@netvision.net.il

This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post