Board of Deputies to Affiliate with World Jewish Congress

The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the representative body of British Jewry founded here in 1760, will shortly affiliate with the World Jewish Congress as a “participant member” with complete autonomy. A recommendation to that effect will be placed before the outgoing executive of the Board at its final meeting April 29. Elections of a new Board will be held during May and June and while the recommendation leaves it to the incoming Board to take a formal decision, affiliation with the WJC appears assured barring a major upset in the elections.

The move will bring to an end a long standing argument that has been going on since the World Jewish Congress was established in 1936. The Board of Deputies for many years considered itself dedicated to Zion and the Jewish people, but organizationally apart. Membership in the Conference of Jewish Organizations (Cojo) was as far as it was prepared to go in international cooperation. But now the Empire has gone, Britain is in the Common Market and the Board is prepared to join the World Jewish Congress alongside other Jewish communities across the globe.

The initiative was taken by Dr. Nahum Goldmann, WJC president who wrote to Board president Michael M, Fidler following some verbal negotiations. Goldmann guaranteed the Board autonomy and freedom of action. “In the event of the Board of Deputies joining the Congress,” he wrote, “the Board’s constitution shall prevail where it is at variance with the constitution of the Congress. The Board shall continue to make approaches to Her Majesty’s Government; the Board shall have the right to make representations in the name of British Jewry to the European Economic Community, independently of the Congress and even when at variance with it; the Board shall have the right to represent British Jewry at the religious level, and also the right to be at variance on this with Congress should it feel impelled to do so.”

Dr. Goldmann said he would recommend that the term “constituent member” be changed to “participant member.” This is a delicate distinction on which some members of the Board, still unable to overcome isolationist tendencies, feel strongly. A special subcommittee of the Board dealt with Dr. Goldmann’s letter and the implications of his invitation. It recommended “favorable consideration as early as possible after the elections.”