Oxfam Distorts, BBC Reports: Jews Stealing land and water from Palestinians


A guest post by Gidon Ben-Zvi, who blogs at Jerusalem State of Mind

On July 5, the BBC published the shocking results of a study recently conducted by the UK charity, Oxfam.

Regurgitating stale stereotypes, the thrust of Oxfam’s report is that Palestinian communities in the Jordan Valley area of the West Bank live in a ‘wretched reality’ as a result of settlement expansion and the related restrictions imposed on Palestinians on the use of land, water and movement – all of which, Oxfam claims, are destroying the viability of a future Palestinian state.

Oxfam is correct in its assessment of the Palestinian economy as a veritable basket case. Where this integral part of the “global movement for change” veers into tired dogma is in its singling out of Israel for approbation. Blame Israel first, investigate the facts never.

Regarding Israel’s restrictions on Palestinians’ access to water, this is an old myth that’s occasionally gussied up and tweaked for contemporary audiences. Truth is, Palestinians’ share of aquifers actually increased dramatically once control of the West Bank passed from Jordan to Israel in 1967, despite Israel’s limited water supply.  Indeed much of the water related issues in the Palestinian territories are caused by the failure of the PA to implement Israeli approved projects.  Over half of the wells approved for exploitation of the territory’s Eastern aquifer, for instance, have still not been drilled, though Israel approved permits for the project in 2000. (You can read a detailed fisking of the claim that Israel doesn’t supply Palestinians with enough water, here.)

Palestinian swimming pools in the West Bank. See more such images here: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=12&x_article=1486

Another piece of propaganda passing for fact is the unexamined belief that Israeli settlements are being built on land that has been set aside for a future Palestinian state. While Palestinians can and often do challenge Israeli land seizures in court, the very definitions of private and state land in the disputed territories are a legal morass.  Based on titles and deeds, land that is registered becomes private property. But what if there are no documents to prove ownership?

What’s now commonly referred to as the West Bank is territory that fell under the successive administrations of the Ottoman Empire, the British mandate, Jordan and now Israel. During the Ottoman Empire, only small areas of the West Bank were registered to specific owners. Often, villagers would hold land in common to avoid taxes. The British began a more formal land registry based on land use, taxation or house ownership that continued through the Jordanian period.

Legally speaking, and in stark contrast to the BBC’s assertion that settlements are considered illegal under international law…”, it is worth noting Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip in a war of survival. In fact, Israel’s seizing of land in 1967 was, arguably, the ONLY legal acquisition of this territory in the 20th century. As such, the ultimate fate of all disputed territory is a matter to be left for the oft-stalled final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

While the 1993 Oslo Accords attempted to find a resolution to the issues of settlements and borders, a settlement freeze was never a precondition for peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

With regards to the Jordan Valley, its strategic importance along the eastern border of the West Bank makes Israel’s withdrawal a virtual non-starter in future peace talks with the Palestinians.

Since the end of the 1967 war, every Israeli government has considered the Jordan Valley to be the “eastern border” of Israel with Jordan. Most of the strip lying in present-day Israel and the West Bank has been declared state land by the Israeli government. As part of the Oslo Agreements, the strip was classified as Area C, with the exception of the enclave around Jericho

Next, Oxfam goes for the trifecta by reporting that the Palestinians could generate an extra £1bn ($1.5bn) a year if restrictions on their movements, along with the aforementioned land encroachment and water theft, were removed.

Like any other country, Israel must balance humanitarian and economic concerns (of Palestinians, in Israel’s case) with the very real security concerns of its citizens. Barriers, checkpoints and other limitations on mobility are an unfortunate yet vital necessity. Once a comprehensive peace agreement is signed between the Israelis and Palestinians, such security measures will become unnecessary and summarily voided.

For now, however, the best that can be hoped for is the occasional easing of restrictions on movement – dependent, of course, on the diminution of security threats. And Israel has made concerted efforts to oblige. In 2010, for example, Israel issued more than 651,000 entry permits to West Bank residents wishing to travel to Israel, an increase of 42 percent over 2009. In 2009-10, Israel removed more than 200 roadblocks and reduced the number of manned checkpoints from 41 to 14.

Going forward, Oxfam may want to consider laying off the double standards and obsessive condemnations of reasonable responses to terror vis-à-vis Israel. Continuing to do so only serves to cheapen its stated purpose of building “a future free from the injustice of poverty.”

As for the BBC, its publication of the Oxfam report lends credence to the widely held belief that the broadcasting organization relies solely on the Palestinian perspective, and consistently parrots the narrative of “partisan, agenda-driven” Israeli organizations critical of Israel.

68 comments on “Oxfam Distorts, BBC Reports: Jews Stealing land and water from Palestinians

  1. “On July 5, the BBC published the shocking results of a study recently conducted by the UK charity, Oxfam.”
    “As for the BBC, its publication of the Oxfam report lends credence to the widely held belief that the broadcasting organization relies solely on the Palestinian perspective, and consistently parrots the narrative of “partisan, agenda-driven” Israeli organizations critical of Israel.”

    So the BBC reports on an Oxfam study. I’d hazard a guess that the BBC reports on ALL significant Oxfam studies, since Oxfam is one of the biggest UK based foreign aid charities. Does that mean the BBC is biased in favour of the Palestinian cause? The idea is laughable. This is the same BBC that wouldn’t broadcast an appeal for charitable help for civilians injured and made homeless by Cast Lead.

    The rest of the piece isn’t even worth demolishing. It’s self-evident nonsense.

    As for the

    • Stilling waiting for sources, other than Israel Shamir/Shlomo Sand, that Jews are descended from “Converts”(And I mean, Genetic evidence, not some screeds by your favorite anti-Semites). Your entire position has been “demolished”, on the other hand, on this site.
      Please peddle your anti-Semitic tripe elsewhere.

      • Under international law, any Israeli settlement in the West Bank or East Jerusalem is considered illegal.

        The so-called Levy report holds no credibility, since it rejects the rulings not only of the International Court of Justice but also of… the Israeli Supreme Court itself. Which is why Netanyahu is likely to shelve it.

        • In fact, international law makes a clear distinction between land occupied during a war of aggression and land taken as a result of a defensive war.

          Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip in a war of survival. Thanks for reading and responding to my essay…

            • Maybe you must demaqnd from the Russian government to return Karelia to Finland, the Konigsberg area to Germany,The Kurili-Islands to Japan, write a letter to the French government to inmediately evacuate Elsace, the Slovaki Rebuplic to return Szigetkoz and the Felvidek to Hungary (btw mention Transylvania to the Romanians too.
              International law according to Nat…

              • “The French government to inmediately evacuate Elsace”
                Errr… did you mean Alsace?
                Alsace has been a French territory for centuries. People living in Alsace are full-fledged French citizens who speak French.

                What’s the relationship with Israel’s illegal settlements in the Palestinian territory, where settlers rule over Palestinians who have not been given any rights?

                Are you advocating for a binational state granting equal rights to Israelis and Palestinians?

        • Which ruling of “the Israeli Supreme court” did Levy violate? (I’ll help you here: none. You’re lying, as usual).
          Edmund Levy WAS a Supreme Court Justice, so he probably would be the first to spot any such a discrepancy.
          In Israel, as in all other countries, local law trumps any International imposition or interference. Hence, since no Israeli statutes forbid development in Judea & Samaria, they are perfectly legal.
          (By the way, the Levy commission specifically addressed the issue of the international standing of the West Bank. There has never been a conflict vis-a-vis Israeli regulations, regarding outposts built on Government land(!)).

          • The so-called Levy report ignores all the Israeli Supreme Court rulings stating that the international laws of occupation do apply in the West Bank, but also the diplomatic agreements that Israel has signed, such as the Oslo Accords. Levy’s opinion completely ignores several decades of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Israel.

            In any case, Netanyahu will most likely shelve the report and let it take dust, as it was already ridiculed by American officials.

            • “Levy’s opinion completely ignores several decades of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Israel.”
              Where? Which? What?
              Sources; Links; Any sort of corroboration would do here Nat; ANY.
              As for the Oslo accords, Israel has full civil administrative responsibility in Area C. Hence, it is fully sovereign there with respect to development and construction.

              • The so-called levy report is not serious. It does not even mention the rules of international law which the entire international community considers to apply to the West bank, and it does not even mention the Palestinians,which is a bit clumsy considering 2,5 millions of them live in the West Bank.

              • In their 2005 judgment ruling that the disengagement from Gaza was legal, ten justices of Israel’s Supreme Court summed up the attitude of the government and the Court itself in the following words:

                “According to the legal outlook of all Israel’s governments as presented to this court – an outlook that has always been accepted by the Supreme Court – these areas are held by Israel by way of belligerent occupation….The legal regime that applies there is determined by the rules of public international law and especially the rules relating to belligerent occupation.”

                Possibly since Justice Levy was the sole dissenting judge in that case, the Levy report ignores this statement and many other similar rulings of the Court. Instead of advising the government on the legal situation, it looks as if Levy simply rehashed the opinion that was rejected by all his colleagues.

          • In 2005, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that “According to the legal outlook of all Israel’s governments as presented to this court – an outlook that has always been accepted by the Supreme Court – these areas are held by Israel by way of belligerent occupation….The legal regime that applies there is determined by the rules of public international law and especially the rules relating to belligerent occupation.”

            http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/bombshell-for-the-settlement-enterprise-in-levy-report.premium-1.450170

            Levy is only a lawyer, who has no ability to decide that the Supreme Court of Israel must be dissolved because he does not like its ruling.

            Netanyahu is an intelligent man. He’s already buried the report.

            • In 2005, the Israeli supreme court made no such ruling. Either provide a link to it, or shut up(Levy was then sitting, and presiding).
              The article you provided is behind a pay-wall, but, as a subscriber, I can tell you, it includes NOTHING of the kind.
              Not only are you LYING, but you’re doing a poor job at it; you’ve employed the basest form of mendacity: outright distortion(citing links that contain nothing of what you alleged).
              Levy is not “just” a Lawyer.
              He’s A FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, For God’s sake.
              LEARN TO READ, Moron.

              • In 2005, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that “According to the legal outlook of all Israel’s governments as presented to this court – an outlook that has always been accepted by the Supreme Court – these areas are held by Israel by way of belligerent occupation….The legal regime that applies there is determined by the rules of public international law and especially the rules relating to belligerent occupation.”

                http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/bombshell-for-the-settlement-enterprise-in-levy-report.premium-1.450170

              • This is a ruling dating back to June 2005. Please check the Israeli Supreme Court’s ruling online.

                • Why don’t you check them?
                  Guess what- I have.
                  Not a SINGLE ONE, mentions anything remotely similar to what you’ve written, and there were at least 10 cases debating the situation in Judea & Samaria, mostly in the realm of Admin. detention.
                  Nat, you’re a liar.

                • A regular liar. It is her contribution to the propaganda war against Israel to spread lies.

                • Why even bother? Levy’s report is already taking dust on a shelf because Netanyahu knows how ridiculous its content is – it even ignores Israeli law and rulings!

                • Why bother?
                  Because, “Ben”, you can’t otherwise claim that the Levy report “ignores Israeli Law and rulings!”…
                  Keep yourself and Nat on a leash.

                • In their 2005 judgment ruling that the disengagement from Gaza was legal, ten justices of Israel’s Supreme Court summed up the attitude of the government and the Court itself in the following words:

                  “According to the legal outlook of all Israel’s governments as presented to this court – an outlook that has always been accepted by the Supreme Court – these areas are held by Israel by way of belligerent occupation….The legal regime that applies there is determined by the rules of public international law and especially the rules relating to belligerent occupation.”

                  Possibly since Justice Levy was the sole dissenting judge in that case, the Levy report ignores this statement and many other similar rulings of the Court. Instead of advising the government on the legal situation, it looks as if Levy simply rehashed the opinion that was rejected by all his colleagues.

                • In any case, the report you mention, was written by one Kremnitzer, not an unbiased party; and he discussed the disengagement from Gaza, nothing regarding the West Bank.

                • The panel’s members of the “Levy report” were meticulously chosen: Former Supreme Court Vice President Justice Edmund Levy had opposed the 2005 disengagement, former Tel Aviv District Court Judge Tchia Shapira is a sister-in-law of right-wing ideologue Israel Harel, and Alan Baker’s professional positions are widely supported by the right.

                  This panel was bised from the start.

                  http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/while-israeli-settlers-celebrate-levy-report-netanyahu-will-have-to-deal-with-semantics-of-occupation-1.449942

                • According to the Levy report, there is no occupation.

                  So why keep all these checkpoints and soldiers in the West Bank?

                  And why is the West bank administered by the Israeli Civil Administration rather than the Government of Israel, since there is no occupation?

                  And how come only settlers have the right to vote, not Palestininas, even though they li e in the same West Bank and there is no occupation?

              • The so-called Levy report does not even bother to mention dozens of statements and declarations by almost all the countries in the world and the many international bodies that actually do recognize the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza.

                Nor does it mention the advisory opinion of the International Court in Hague. The same goes for all of the experts on international law, who in a rare consensus, agree that this is a clear case of occupation.

                it does not even mentions rulings of the Supreme Court of Israel.

                The report is an attempt to change reality by denying it. This is childish.

              • Commentary 101, the so-called Levy committee was convened as an advisory committee only. It was decided that all its recommendations would be subject to Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein’s review and approval. I bet you dinner that Weinstein will not approve them. He cannot approve them for a simple reason: the Levy Committee refused to take into account international law and the rulings of Israel’s Supreme Court.

                • Israel (much like the US) has withdrawn from the Rome Statute, and hence, doesn’t recognize the primacy of the Hague or its judgements; clearly, rightfully so.
                  As for “international law/consensus”, etc: the prevailing opinion, of yore, was that the Earth was flat, and the universe-geocentric; that too, was an international understanding.
                  We all know where and how that ended.

                  Eppur si muove

      • My understanding of genetics is fairly basic but I have read around the subject of the genetic origin of Jews, particularly those from Eastern Europe. I conclude as follows:

        1) Many of the studies are by Jews and others who start out believing in the Middle East origin theory and find what they were looking for.
        2) Depending on which genetic markers are studied and which other populations are compared to East European Jews quite different conclusions can be reached. There is no simple answer that is agreed by most serious geneticists.

        You ask for genetic evidence that most Jews are descended from converts and I offer you this:

        http://www.biology-direct.com/content/5/1/57

        The author, Zoossmann-Diskin , concludes that East European Jews originated in Italy and were indeed mostly converts. You will find critics of this article, which tends to confirm my point that “There is no simple answer that is agreed by most serious geneticists.” There is no doubt though that Zoossmann-Diskin is a respected academic geneticist who has published extensively.

        • 1. “Many of the studies are by Jews…”; so I take it we shouldn’t trust Jews, or only those who support our points of view?(You brought up Zoossman-Diskin, who’s Jewish).
          2. As you yourself had pointed out, ZD could not positively conclude that EEJs were not descended from the Land of Israel, AND, that the “distances”(parametrized), that he calculated were, quote, “…the same is also true for all the Non-Jewish populations except for Greeks and Russians.”, which clearly indicates, that even among other ethnicities, such variations are common; but you won’t go and chime that Poles(for instance) originated solely from converts.
          3. ZD made no such conclusion; quote “The close genetic resemblance to Italians accords with the historical presumption that Ashkenazi Jews started their migrations across Europe in Italy and with historical evidence that conversion to Judaism was common in ancient Rome., That is(if at all, notice the migration contention), WHEN Judea was still a Roman province, and hence, these Jews are legitimate heirs to the Land of Israel(Province of Judea).
          4. My post brought evidence by 5 academics (not just one, who suited your intentions), which asseverate, genetically, to the contrary.
          (So there’s hardly a “consensus”(on the “convert” diatribe), that you’re so ready to invoke).
          http://cifwatch.com/2012/07/05/on-the-death-of-a-terrorist-named-arafat-a-cif-watch-tweet-which-went-viral/comment-page-1/#comment-77085
          Finally, even if we somehow twist the argument in your favour, EEJs still do not constitute all Jews.
          My point still stands(that you’re lying, and probably an anti-Semite); you have not yet demonstrated any substantial evidence to refute it.

          • You (deliberately?) misunderstand my point about “Jews and others who start out believing in the Middle East origin theory”. Of course there are Jewish scientists on all sides of this issue, but some Jews (and Christians) have looked to genetics to support a particular view of history based on the Old Testament, just as there have been archaeologists with similar motivation. This is nothing to do with not trusting Jews.

            I have no wish to extend this discussion on the substantial issue – so will leave you with the last word on that.

            • Thank you for at least trying to have a cohate, and cogent debate; that’s all that really matters.
              I hope you will come to see the veracity of the cumulus of evidence that avers the genealogy of Jews to be Middle-Eastern-Judean.

    • This is the same BBC that wouldn’t broadcast an appeal for charitable help for civilians injured and made homeless by Cast Lead..

      Somehow I didn’t see the appeal for any help of the Sderot population either. And the same BBC who finds controversial the drilling for gas inside Israel, because it is close to the green line, and fights to the last penny of the British public to avoid the publication of the Balen report.

      The rest of the piece isn’t even worth demolishing. It’s self-evident nonsense.

      For you sencar to demolish the most idiotic UFO conspiracy theories would be a mission impossible.

      • Peter, it would not have occurred to the Beeb to broadcast anything to support Sderot, or anything to do with Israel.

        During Cast Lead, I went into my local Oxfam shop. Heart-tugging posters festooned the windows (without, of course, any mention about the Israelis’ leaflet dropping, and the wilful use of women and children as human shields by Hamas) and I asked the manager what they were doing for the people of Sderot in southern Israel, the shelling of which from Gaza led to Cast Lead. He admitted that he didn’t know that or where Sderot was.

        Says it all, really

      • Peter, according to UN figures 1,400 palestinians were killed during Israel’s operation cast lead, half of them civiliansm including 300 children. 13 Israelis were killed, including three civilians. One of the ten soldiers killed was kiled by friendly fire.

        • Hamas police as civilians and sixteen year olds carrying weapons are children, caught liar?

          • Fritz, people who resort to insulting other people with whom they disagree only reveal their lack of intellectual ability to engage in a debate.

            1,400 palestinians were killed during Israel’s operation cast lead, half of them civilians (including 300 children). 13 Israelis were killed, including three civilians. One of the ten soldiers killed was killed by friendly fire. These are the official figures.

            • A decent person would apologize when making that many factual errors. As you didn`t apologize for your faults but repeated them, you are a customary liar.
              If you picture yourself as an ardent and honest defender of the right cause who is allowed to lie therefore, you belong to the same league as the Islamists.

            • What the flying ~@#* are you on about? I have read all of Fritz’s postings here and he has not referred to newborns at all.

              I think you may be trying to assert that your “official figures” of 300 children killed were all newborns? If so, you are proving the point that such stats are entirely misleading, as there is a world of difference between the mental image of “children” (one thinks of schoolkids, toddlers, newborns) and 16 and 17-year-olds, armed and willing to die in the battle against the evil Zionazis.

        • I agree with you Nat that they should have killed much more Hamasniks and the relation of combatant/civilian deaths should be higher than the present 65%.Sadly your comrades in arms Hamas and co have a funny habit, to fight frm behind civilians especially children.
          And I completely understand your distress caused by the low number of Israeli casualties. Maybe next time you will think twice before messing with us.

    • The issue isn’t whether BBC should report on the Oxfam study. Rather, the question is whether one of the world’s leading news organizations has an obligation to its readers and viewers to present a somewhat balanced version of the news of the day. Oxfam, despite being “one of the biggest UK-based foreign aid charities,” has a troubling history of anti-Israel bias. While no one denies the newsworthiness of an Oxfam study, BBC’s creditability is tarnished when it allows its website to be used to propagate an anti-Israeli agenda – without checking first for facts, contexts or – at the very least – the official Israeli government’s perspective. Thank you for reading and responding to my essay!

      • Oxfam is one of the UK’s most prestigious charities.

        The fact that you do not like this organization does not mean you can suddenly decide that they have a “history of Israel bias”.

        • Gidon has proof of that. Unlike you he does not present his opinions as facts and I suspect that with him it’s not a matter of whether he “likes” them or not.

          And even though Oxfam is “prestigious” it is still biased and tells lies The two are not mutually exclusive.

        • Cold, hard, irrefutable fact: “the international NGO superpowers—HRW, Amnesty, Oxfam, Christian Aid, the International Commission of Jurists—have become important components of the Palestinian political and diplomatic support network…” (NGO Monitor).

          Examples of Oxfam’s anti-Israel slant are plentiful. One incident that made headlines was In 2003, when the organization produced a poster with a picture of an orange drenched in blood. The poster read, “Israel’s fruits have a bitter taste…reject the occupation of Palestine, don’t buy Israeli fruits and vegetables”.

          Oxfam was widely criticised because of the poster’s allegedly anti-Israel political message. As a result of intense public pressure, Oxfam removed the poster from their web site.

          In short, it’s not that I like or dislike Oxfam, but rather their blatant lack of even handedness, much less neutrality, when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If Oxfam is truly apolitical, then it should stick to what it knows best: providing humanitarian relief and support. There views on any pressing issues of the day are about as relevant as yours or mine…

    • Again, “researcher”, you are far too inclined to purvey your own opinions as facts.

      Do you by any chance post on CiF?

    • It’s really strange…

      Why would the BBC have more faith in a report written by Oxfam, one of the world’s leading NGOs which has a solid experienc ein assessing humanitarian crises, than in a small website called CIF Watch?

    • On one side we have Oxfam, one of the world’s most prestigious charities, working all over the world and publishing transparent data on how the money donated is spent.

      On the other side we have CIF Watch, a small website located in Israel which does not seem to publish information as to who runs it or who funds it.

      Guess who people will trust?

    • You forgot to mention that COGAT’s information is disavowed by all UN agencies, international NGOs, international and Israeli human rights groups, and international lawyers.

      • “You forgot to mention that COGAT’s information is disavowed by all UN agencies, international NGOs, international and Israeli human rights groups, and international lawyers.
        Proof?

        • Do you not think, commentary101 that if the woefully biased UN disavows something that something may have more than an element of truth in it?

          • Actually, as you can clearly see, I was responding to one of Nat’s classical, “Hit-and-run-expostulations”(tm); that is, “assert, aver something so outlandish, be reproved for it, then run when you have clearly been shamed thoroughly”. Nat and his other personae(Notably Benyamin), are especially adept at that.
            Not that I hope he would ever provide any references, or evidence to support his claims, but, as long as he sees that lying won’t get him anywhere in the company of knowledgeable, cogitating people, it’s worth the while :D.

        • COGAT is the Israeli administration in charge of running the occupation of the Palestinian territory and the Israeli settlements built there in contravention of international law.

          UN agencies and international NGOs are agencies working all over the world, are based in Western democracies and known for their impartiality
          .
          Guess who will people trust to learn the truth?

  2. Pingback: Oxfam Distorts, BBC Reports: Jews Stealing land and water from Palestinians « Jerusalem State of Mind

  3. Let CIF Watchers remember, when thinking of giving to Oxfam, that Oxfam chief executive Dame Barbara Stocking is paid a salary of £109,100 per annum to produce this bilge.

    There is no discussion on the BBC, Duvidl supposes, about whether Dame Suzy Leather of the Charity Commission should cap charity CEOs’ salaries in return for their keeping charitable status. Better still, Parliament could legislate to make the post of chief executive of a British NGO an honorary position, with maybe a knighthood or damehood after ten years for good behaviour. Then we could watch the stockings of this world run and ladder.

    • Thanks Duvid, but I would much rather stick needles in my eyes than give to Oxfam or buy from its shops.

      I support Magen David Adom instead not least because of its sterling work during earthquakes and tsunamis for everyone, not just Jews.

    • Oxfam does publish financial reports.

      Where are CIF Watch’s financial reports?

      How much is Adam Levick paid to run the website and who’s funding it?

        • Interesting… we never got an answer as to who funds CIF Watch or how much Adam Levick is paid to write for it.

          Seems like CIF Watch could use one lesson or two from Oxfam when it comes to transparency.

  4. I’ve stopped supporting all international charities because they’re all, to varying degrees, anti-Israeli anti-semites (and therefore pro-Hamas/Islamists). I’ve even stopped giving to Water Aid because I learnt they advertise in Guardian, that intense I’ve become in my distrust of these “charities”. I wasn’t donating millions, I’m not that rich. But I think I’ve made a point, at least to myself, by not giving them a single penny of my hard earned money. Instead, I now only support local volunteer groups who look after local issues. Oxfam was the one that started my disallussion with charities. Give locally.

  5. Pingback: The Palestinian Arabs: Delegitimising Israel, Islamifying Jesus, & Fooling The World (Plus A Willing BBC) With Fabricated History | RUTHFULLY YOURS

Comments are closed.