The Charity Commission stands accused of operating a system of two-tier regulation. While it wields a cudgel against innocent Muslim charities to enforce a wider hostile environment political strategy against the community, it has done little to address the mounting concerns about Jewish institutions flouting the rules. Faisal Bodi highlights the double standards.

The relative immunity from accountability that pro-Israel charities in the UK enjoy was very much in evidence recently when a synagogue in north west London hosted a sale of occupied West Bank land amid fierce opposition.

The Great Israeli Real Estate Event held at Edgware United Synagogue (EUS) on 14 June marketed land in a West Bank settlement in an event billed to help “find your dream home”.

Although the organisers denied advertising land in Palestinian territory, Sky News obtained promotional material featuring properties in a host of settlements, all deemed illegal under international law.

The event went ahead despite opposition from over 100 cross party MPs and Lords who wrote a letter calling on the government to ban it. Labour MP Andy McDonald who coordinated the letter said: “It’s an absolute abomination that people have the audacity to come to our capital and trade in lands they do not own.”

True to form, the organisers accused critics of being motivated by anti-Semitism and terrorist sympathies. The Board of Deputies of British Jews, has promoted the event on their website.  The BoD, a stalwart mouthpiece of the Israeli government, called protests outside the event “unjustified” and ‘intimidatory’. It cited the organisers’ contention that the event was marketing land in Israeli Occupied Territories.

Complaints to the Charity Commission regarding the Board of Deputies posting and promoting the event, were rejected by the regulator on the basis that the post referred to was posted on the BoD company NOT charity website.  This would be fine if it represented a consistent policy from the Charity Commission.  Many organisations have a website and activities run by a limited company, whilst also having a similarly named charitable trust.  Amnesty International, IHRC and UK Lawyers for Israel are just three others that have done the same.  However, the Charity Commission stands accused of double standards by opening investigations into charities based on this exact same type of complaint.

The government’s failure to stop the event speaks to the free hand pro-Israel groups enjoy in flouting UK and international laws and regulations. Foremost among these has been the refusal to prosecute some 20,000 British citizens who have travelled to Palestine to take part in the Gaza genocide. All have been allowed to return to the UK without so much as a whimper from the authorities.

Pro-Palestine campaigners have filed a complaint with the official charity watchdog against EUS alleging that it is in breach of the regulatory code. Complaints have also been lodged against the BOD. As registered charities, both are answerable to the Charity Commission which requires that they comply with several requirements:

1) Charities must operate for public benefit: Rather than advancing this purpose, EUS is causing social detriment in helping to sell land that is effectively considered as stolen by the British government. For its part BOD is culpable for aiding and abetting the event.

2) Protect the charity’s reputation: The synagogue’s actions run the risk of bringing the charity and by extension the whole charity sector into disrepute. In respect of the BOD, it represents a glaring failure of due diligence and management.

3) Maintain political neutrality: Hosting this highly controversial event would seem to be a highly partisan action that crosses the political independence threshold.

4) Complying with broader international legal frameworks: According to the Charity Commission’s guidance on international operations, charities must understand the implications of violating domestic and international law.

Previous complaints against pro-Israel charities, including those raising funds to support the Israeli military, have been characterised mainly by foot dragging and/or inaction by the regulator.

In 2015 IHRC made a complaint to the Commission about UK Toremet for facilitating the supply of materials to the Israeli military. Although the Commission found this allegation to be true, its apparent failure to act robustly against the charity allowed UK Toremet to carry on undeterred to the point that it openly raised funds to support the IDF in its genocide in Gaza. IHRC submitted a fresh complaint to the watchdog in 2024.

Contrast this with the Commission’s treatment, nay targeting, of Muslim run charities (including many mosques) over at least the last three decades. Hundreds of them have faced intrusive scrutiny and even sanctions, some of them repeatedly, after complaints from politically motivated groups and individuals belonging mainly to the pro-Israeli Zionist lobby.

In 2016, I wrote: “In 2014 an investigation by the think tank Claystone revealed that 38% of all disclosed investigations initiated between 1st January 2013 and 23rd April 2014 were against Muslim charities.

The sheer scale of the revelations surprised even those who have suspected Charity Commission bias. Muslims comprise less than 5% of the total UK population so to be over-represented over seven-fold in investigation statistics revealed much about the operations of the statutory regulatory body governing UK charities.”

Interpal is a prime example. In 1996 the charity which provides assistance to Palestinians, was placed under investigation after a Sunday Telegraph article claiming it supported terrorism. In 2003 a new investigation was opened after the US State Dept and the Board of Deputies of British Jews alleged that it supported terrorist organisations. This was followed in 2006 by a three-year inquiry following a BBC Panorama programme which accused Interpal of funnelling funds to organisations with links to Hamas. In all cases, after lengthy investigations that severely impacted the reputation and the day to day work of the charity, Interpal was cleared.

In 2010 Muslim Aid, another household name in the Muslim community, was investigated by the Commission for allegedly funding groups linked to a banned terrorist organisation. The probe found the claims to be unsubstantiated.

The focus on Muslim charities intensified after the appointment of William Shawcross as Chair of the Commission in 2012. Shawcross had previously served with the notoriously Islamophobic think thank, the Henry Jackson Society, during which time he had stated that “Europe and Islam is one of the greatest, most terrifying problems of our future….”

During his tenure, the Commission implemented a new code called “extremism and radicalisation” under which it tagged 55 Muslim charities with this label without their knowledge. They were to be subject to increased monitoring. The Muslim think tank Claystone said of the policy: “There are no written criteria for applying or removing this label and thus it lends itself to non-evidence based targeting of particular groups. We don’t know the criteria used to apply these extremist tags by the commission. It’s all very subjective for a quasi-judicial body.”

Shawcross left the Charity Commission in 2018 but he seems to have left in place a two-tier system of accountability whereby Muslim organisations are subject to an a priori assumption of guilt and treated with more suspicion and scrutiny than others. Examples abound of the Commission bearing down on mosques and other organisations for politically motivated reports of alleged infractions, mainly although not exclusively, by the pro-Zionist lobby.

Complaints are often based on the flimsiest of contexts but are used to justify wide-ranging and intrusive investigations, going well beyond the original complaint against the charity and pressurising them to make reforms that go beyond what is required by the law such as adopting a speakers’ policy and/or drawing a list of approved speakers. In fact, it is hard to see the complaints and the speed and force with which they are handled as anything other than a concerted campaign to harass, intimidate and silence Muslims. The publicised cases only scratch the surface of a much bigger problem. Much of the Commission’s bullying goes unreported because most charities are anxious to avoid the negative headlines that come with protesting their fate.

It remains to be seen if the Charity Commission will do anything meaningful to prevent UK Toremet from continuing to financially support the Israeli military, or indeed against other Zionist charities that are openly flouting the rules. If one were to pass judgment based purely on the number that have openly been supporting the Israeli genocide, it would suggest that they remain undeterred by the regulatory regime.

Last year, the Commission was forced to issue a warning to the UK Association for Welfare of Israeli Soldiers (UK-AWIS), which fundraises for Israeli soldiers, for posting a “distressing” video on its website appealing for donations to support the Israeli military. In January 2025, the Commission issued a warning against Chabad Lubavitch Centres North East London and Essex Limited after receiving a torrent of complaints in relation to the charity raising money for an Israeli soldier.

Also last year, the UK Lawyers for Israel, a powerful Israeli advocacy body, was the subject of a complaint by the human rights group CAGE for abusing its charity status to promote Israeli apartheid and shield the country from accusations of war crimes. And in 2024 the watchdog opened an investigation against Achisomoch Aid Company, a Jewish fundraising organisation after the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) accused it of facilitating donations to an Israeli charity providing equipment to soldiers fighting in Gaza.

As pro-Israel charities come under increased scrutiny for their support of the genocide, so too is the Charity Commission being hawkishly watched for evidence of double standards in enforcing the regulatory regime. Only time will tell if it can shake off the accusations of two-tier justice and emerge with some of its tattered reputation repaired.