British Israel Group
The British Israel Group (BIG) is a pro-Israel advocacy group.
Contents
History
The organisation was founded in 2001 by lawyer Avi Lehrer.[1]
Activities
Israel Advocacy/Training Israel Advocates
According to the BIG website Lehrer founded the organisation because 'He was inspired to harness the knowledge of English-speaking ex Brits living in Israel and give them further training in public diplomacy in the cause of enhancing Israel's image.'[1]
The group has a mailing list and claims to have subscribers to its blog in more than ten countries world wide.[1]
Working with Christian Zionists
According to the organisation's website BIG works with Christian Zionist groups:
'BIG also works with the main pro-Israel Christian organisations offering talks, hospitality in Jewish homes and information to visiting groups.'[1]
In January 2003 the BIG organised a meeting between international Christian Zionist groups and BIG members.[2] More than 75 English speaking Jews and Christians were in attendance at the meeting held at the headquarters of the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem.[2] Representatives of Bridges for Peace, Christian Friends of Israel and the ICEJ were at the meeting.[2] Speakers at the event included Avi Lehrer, founder of the BIG, Bret Stephens, editor in chief of the Jerusalem Post. During his remarks Stephens commented that 'AIPAC (the America Israel Public Affairs Committee) doesn't deliver the votes for Israel... it's the Christian Coalition.'[2] He described Christian supporters of Israel as 'a huge reservoir of support' and stated that the Jewish community would be 'stupid to spurn, [Christian supporters of Israel] especially when we don't have so many friends and allies...'[2]
ICEJ executive director Malcolm Hedding also spoke at the event. He remarked that: 'God has been faithful to the Jews and Israel is a fulfilment of God's promise.'[2] Asserting Israel's rights to historic Palestine he commented that: 'No other people have had a 4,000 year engagement with this land'.[2]
Views
Criticism of UNRWA
In a memorandum submitted to the UK parliament's Select Committee on International Development, the BIG criticised the United Nations Relief Works Agency (which aids Palestinian refugees). Conceding that most of UNRWA's funding is used to help impoverished Palestinians the memorandum suggested that refugee status should be stripped from Palestinian refugees and that there was no need for a UN refugee agency operating in addition to the UN High Commission for Refugees. The BIG further recommended that the UK government should not fund the UNRWA:
- UNRWA defines all descendents of Palestinian refugees as refugees as well and tries to maintain their refugee status indefinitely. For this reason the UN maintains two parallel refugee organizations, one for Palestinians (UNRWA) and one for the rest of the world. Thus the refugee status of Palestinians is maintained indefinitely by UNRWA, thereby perpetuating the conflict rather than trying to solve it... For this reason alone, the UK should not provide funds via this organisation.[3]
Criticism of Palestinian and International NGOs
In the same memorandum the BIG recommended that the UK government should, 'as a general rule' support 'local committee' NGOs rather than those national in scope. The BIG also suggested that Oxfam and Christian Aid operations aiding Palestinians ought not to be funded:
- As a general rule, the "local committee" type of NGO is truly dealing with humanitarian aid in a specific area and should be supported. Those Palestinian NGOs that need to be reviewed more critically are those which are national in scope and headquartered in Ramallah. These range from being virtual arms of the PA to completely genuine aid organizations. A useful criterion in distinguishing which national-level NGO falls into which category is the readiness of that NGO to sign the USAID declaration that they do not divert any funds to terrorism (See "Palestine Media Watch" report in Appendix B for a partial list of those not prepared to sign). Lastly, the non-Palestinian NGOs such as Oxfam and Christian Aid are a relatively inefficient means of funding the local NGOs mentioned above. Oxfam for example lists among its partners a Palestinian organization that refused to sign this USAID declaration, and many of Christian Aids partners (listed on their website) are political organisations which spend the funds they receive on political propaganda instead of alleviating poverty, in a move that must surely place Christian Aid in violation of its charitable status.
- In summary, channeling UK funds though local Palestinian NGOs is the most efficient and effective means of alleviating poverty in the territories. However, the methods and organizations via which this aid is channeled to those organizations should be reviewed, and only apolitical organizations entrusted with this important task.[3]
The Palestinian Authority
In the memorandum submitted to the Select Committee on International Development the BIG accused the Palestinian Authority (PA) of having reneged on the Oslo accords in September of 2000 and having 'effectively declared war' on Israel. Due to the PA's alleged belligerence the BIG recommended that the UK government should seek to separate the Palestinian economy from Israel's:
- As Israel has the kind of efficient transportation and tax systems typical in first-world economies, the PA made good use of these resources in the years prior to the breakdown of the Oslo process, to the detriment of the development of the PA's own Gaza port. When the PA reneged on the Oslo process in September 2000 and effectively declared war against Israel, its access to these resources naturally became more limited. It is illogical for the PA to expect that Israel will continue to pursue economic integration with it in the face of continued terrorism. On the assumption that this terrorism will continue, the international community should place an emphasis on the development of alternative port facilities, particularly in Gaza and a land route from the West Bank to Jordan, so that the two economies can be effectively disengaged.[3]
Defence of Israel's West Bank 'Security Barrier'
Remarkably in the memorandum the BIG claimed that Israel's barrier in the West Bank was likely to enhance freedom of movement for Palestinians:
- In the medium and long term, the impact of this security fence (it is a misnomer to call it a wall as only 5% of it is a wall) will be to greatly improve the freedom of movement of Palestinians within the territories. Currently, in order to prevent terrorists crossing the "green line", the Israeli Army has been forced against its will to re-enter the territories and restrict the movement of terrorists and armaments at the local level, causing considerable inconvenience to all. Once the security fence is complete, the hope is that there will be no further cause to place roadblocks at the local level to prevent Arabs from smuggling in explosives using ambulances, or concealed about their bodies, etc., and thus the overall freedom of movement for the Palestinian populace will be greatly improved. The establishment of this fence represents a major victory for the PA, as Israel had not intended to relinquish land to which it has historic rights other than within the framework of a true and lasting peace.[3]
Support for Illegal Settlements
The BIG defended the existence of illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land and claimed that the settlements were had a positive impact upon the Palestinian economy. The illegal settlements, built on Palestinian land, were refferred to by the BIG as 'Jewish Villages'. It further suggested that territory conquered by Israel during the 1967 war had been 'forced upon Israel':
- Israeli settlement in the territories in the period 1967 to 1993 provided a major spur to the previously moribund economy in these areas, when these territories were illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt... Even though these territories were forced upon Israel in a war for Israel's very survival, Israel undertook responsibility for the economic progress of the inhabitants, and statistics show that Israel was very successful in this task... With the onset of the Oslo accords and the arming of the PA in 1993, the latter set about systematically attacking the access roads to the Jewish villages that had been established in the territories and had largely (until that point) enjoyed friendly and economically productive relationships with their Arab neighbors. From that point onwards, due to the PA policy, these peaceful Jewish villages ceased to be a contributory factor in the Palestinian economy. When the PA reneged on the Oslo agreement by launching the "second intifada" in September 2000, safeguarding the free passage of the residents of these villages became an Israeli priority and thus, in an "own goal", the PA's actions led to the restriction of free movement of the Arab residents of these areas.[3]
Advocacy of 'Palestinian Maliquadoras'
The BIG suggested to the Select Committee on International Development that Palestinian integration with the Israeli economy should be ended and that the parts of the West Bank and the Gaza strip ought to be integrated into the economies of the neighbouring Arab states. On the borders with Jordan and Egypt the BIG recommended the creation of maliquadoras factory complexes, on the model of the US-Mexico border:
- Until 1967 these areas [Gaza and the West Bank] were an integral part of larger economic units—the West Bank as part of the Jordanian economy and the Gaza Strip as part of the Egyptian economy—and since 1967 they have been part of the Israeli economy. With the construction of the security fence nearing completion, the period of integration into the Israeli economy is coming to a close and thus the only way forward for the economy in the territories is tighter economic integration with the adjoining Arab countries. To this end, the private sector should be encouraged to establish industrial zones just across the Jordanian and Egyptian seam-line, as per the maliquadoras on the US-Mexico border which have been so successful in promoting economic growth and alleviating poverty in Mexico. The UK and EU should assist the World Bank in providing grants to private sector businesses to establish such factories... the infrastructure of the Palestinian economy needs to undergo a structural change in order to orient itself towards fuller integration with the Jordanian and Egyptian economies. Priorities for UK aid should include transportation projects (roads, railways, etc) for facilitating this integration, and the provision of loans, guarantees and micro-credit to Palestinian entrepreneurs participating as contractors in these infrastructure projects.[3]
People
- Founder - Avi Lehrer
Committee Members circa June 2015
Norman Cohen | Lola Cohen | Andrew Balcombe | Stuart Palmer | Hasja Palemer | Ian Solomon
Contact
Website: http://britishisraelgroup.weebly.com/
Contact Page: http://britishisraelgroup.weebly.com/contact.html
Blog: http://bigarticlesoftheweek.blogspot.co.uk/
Notes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 British Israel Group Website About Us. Accessed 2 June 2015.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Judy Lash Balint, 'Op-Ed: Getting to Know You', Arutz Sheva 7, 29 January 2003, accessed 2 June 2015.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 UK Parliament Website Select Committee on International Development Written Evidence Memorandum submitted by the British-Israel Group (BIG). Accessed 3 June 2015.
