Giving alms or arms?

Haaretz ^ | April 19, 2004 | Sharon Sadeh

[yonif]

LONDON - Two days after the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin last month, while Israel was taking blows from all sides, including sharply worded criticism from British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown made an extraordinary announcement: "The U.K. has been a leading country in implementing UN freezes of terrorist assets and taking appropriate domestic action," Gordon told the House of Commons. "I can announce that I have today instructed the Bank of England, under the Terrorism Order, to add further names to the list of those whose assets are to be frozen, including five senior members of Hamas. This action has been taken because ... [these] individuals are or may be persons who facilitate or participate in the commission of acts of terrorism." The five Hamas leaders on Brown's list were Khaled Meshal, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Musa Abu Marzuk, Osama Hamdan, and Imad Khalil al-Alami.

While Brown was praising Britain's hard-line policy, it turns out that there are serious questions as to the British government's ability to supervise registered charities, which are the type of organization that Security Council Resolution 1373 has identified as a preferred means for terror organizations to raise money. An investigation by Haaretz has revealed that the Charity Commission (England and Wales), responsible for 185,000 associations and nonprofit organizations dealing with some 25 billion pounds each year, cannot discover who receives the aid outside of Great Britain. "There is a possibility that money that was raised in the U.K. has been used for terrorism ... " Kenneth Dibble, director of the Charity Commission's Legal Services Department, said in an interview with Haaretz.

This problem is very troubling for Israel, which has been trying to decide for some years how to crack one particularly hard nut, the Palestinian Relief and Development Fund, also known as Interpal. Within a short time after it began operating in Great Britain in August 1994, Interpal became one of the country's largest charities. According to the Charity Commission reports published at the end of March 2004, Interpal "provides aid to, assists, guides, and comforts poor and needy Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Jordan, and Lebanon."

Israeli officials find this description laughable. A senior official in the Defense Ministry said that Interpal is one of the biggest fund-raising arms of Hamas in Europe. "We know for a fact that this association is used to find terror activities." The U.S. has come to similar conclusions. In August 2003, it decided to ban Interpal activities on its soil because of concerns that the organization was aiding Hamas.

Despite repeated efforts by Israel to put an end to Interpal's activities in Great Britain, which included firm messages from Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom to his counterpart Jack Straw, the British did not budge. An investigation by the Charity Commission in September 2003, carried out as a result of the U.S. decision to ban Interpal's activities, failed to turn up anything untoward. The report on the investigation claimed "the U.S. authorities were unable to provide evidence to support allegations made against Interpal within the agreed timescale".

Israel has trouble understanding the British. According to a senior defense establishment source, "MI-5 knows the truth, and so does the British government. The problem is that the laws regarding charity funds operating in Great Britain date from a time before terror was perceived as an existential challenge; they were not updated with other legislation after the September 11 terror attacks."

Diplomatic sources involved in the efforts to curb the activities of these associations say "On paper, it is a wonderful organization. Its books are in order, there appears to be no evidence of any unusual activity within Great Britain. The problem is proving where and to whom the money flows."

This is precisely the rub. In a conversation with Haaretz, Dibble confirmed that the Charity Commission's ability to act is very limited outside of the country; it must show unambiguous proof that will stand up in court in order to be able to stop the activities of a suspect organization. The decision-making process also takes into consideration how its actions will impact the needy recipients of the aid collected by the association. "There is an issue that a charitable organization that is possibly accused of terror activities is operating in an area of the world where there's an enormous need for humanitarian relief," Dibble explained, "and therefore its activities should not be stopped lightly. It is only right that if its activities are to be stopped it has to be on the basis of clear evidence that in fact these funds are actually being used for terrorism."

When asked whether, considering that the Charity Commission seems to be dealing more with administration and monitoring than with the identity of the end user of the contributions, how they know for certain that the money does not fall into the wrong hands, Dibble responded,

"Our primary concern is whether the trustees of the charity are operating the charity in accordance with the legal requirements and compliance, and this is tested not only through their accountability, financial state and books but also by the application of the funds in this country."

"Beyond that," Dibble added, there are some difficult issues on how funds are applied internationally, but at the end of the day, the trustees themselves are responsible for the proper application of those funds. Where funds are applied in a local situation, particularly where there is civil disorder and lack of structure, there is clearly a high risk of lack of accountability and there is a further risk that the commission's jurisdiction cannot be applied directly in a foreign state. What the commission has done in the past and will do in the future [is to] actually send out investigators to ensure or seek out an audit in the foreign jurisdiction."

Security sources in Great Britain told Haaretz that the main obstacle with regard to Interpal is the lack of desire on the part of the U.S. to transfer classified information that the FBI has amassed on the fund to the British because of concern that the information will be leaked to a third party. Speaking about the U.S. decision to ban Interpal domestically, Dibble said, "It was certainly sufficient for us to take action and to freeze the assets of the charity. We were led to believe that there is substantial evidence that will support the U.S. government approach and which will be disclosed to us but no evidence was given to enable us to continue our action against the charity." Dibble confirmed that if the commission had decided to close down Interpal, they would have had to explain clearly how they had arrived at the decision. "If an action by the commission was challenged we would have to disclose the bases upon which we acted." The U.S. concern over the information coming to light was justified, Dibble said.

Israel has also gathered information on the fund, and has disclosed it to the British as part of intelligence-sharing between the two countries. However, the commission cannot use it to enforce the law because it cannot be aired in court. Hence, the catch: the Charity Commission cannot operate without hard evidence, but such evidence is too sensitive to reveal. At the same time, the threshold of evidence needed to ban an organization in the U.S. is much lower than the threshold in Great Britain. It is therefore not at all certain that even if the evidence were to be revealed, it would lead to a curbing of Interpal in Britain.

Along with its difficulty in monitoring the activities of charity organizations abroad, the commission has made a conscious decision to avoid invasive investigation of mosques and Islamic organization administration, which over the years have become the focus of anti-Semitic and anti-American incitement. In fact, surveillance was stepped up after the September 11 attacks; beforehand the British authorities turned a blind eye to the turbulent rhetoric emanating from many mosques out of concern that interference would anger the Muslim minority.

The British security services are now much more aware of what is going on in the mosques, and carry out regular surveillance.

But according to Dibble, "The commission has no way of monitoring internally what is going on within organizations of that kind. What we can do is respond to complaints and concerns where the influence goes beyond what is legitimate."

"So you have on the one hand this potential to influence and to act in a particular way, which may raise security concerns," Dibble continued, and on the other hand the right of these organizations to freedom, to practice religion and freedom of speech in a certain confine. So it is getting the balance of the two rights in a particular case. We prefer to be engaged with the trustees and try as much as we can to achieve our ultimate aim consensually with them. However, we would want to come down very hard where we have evidence of inappropriate activity."

To strengthen his case, Dibble brings up the dismissal of the extreme preacher Amu Hamza, who praised the September 11 attacks and threatened suicide attacks in Great Britain if it intervened in Iraq. Abu Hamza controlled the most important mosque in the North London neighborhood of Finsbury Park, terrorizing its board of trustees and gathering numerous loyal followers. According to Dibble, it very quickly became clear that Finsbury Park belonged to the "extreme cases where trustees could not bring order or control within the mosque [and] the commission had to take steps and remove him," starting the year-long process that ended with Abu Hamza's dismissal. Dibble admits that "the due process took us a long time, but in the end it was successful."

Interpal vs. the British Board of Deputies

While Israel is trying to decide how to convince the British to put an end to the activities of Interpal, the fund filed a libel suit against the British Board of Deputies, one of the largest Jewish organizations in Great Britain, that called Interpal a "terror organization" on its Web site.

The organization later withdrew its comments, after the Charity Commission decided in September 2003 to allow Interpal to continue its activities. In its retraction the board stated that its description of the fund was "incorrect in U.K. terms."

Interpal was not satisfied with the statement, which it did not view as enough of an apology. The suit is now at an advanced stage. Interpal chairman Ibrahim Hewitt and Board of Deputies director general Neville Nagler refused to comment.

[yonif]

Ping.