Is it really care if it only extends the length of your arm? 

ARTWORK DESIGN Anna Gibson

Trigger warning: Genocide, violence & death 

This article was originally published in April 2024 in the BRICKS #13 The ‘Be Tender’ Issue, which you can order from our online store now.

“Nonprofit culture is doing a land acknowledgment to start a meeting with a funder but everyone fearing for their funding and jobs if they say Israel is a settler state,” Dana White, Advocacy Director at housing justice organisation Miriam’s Kitchen, writes on X. 

This may read like a scene from a satirical sitcom set within a third sector organisation – akin to shows such as Parks and Recreations and The Thick of It – but such displays of hypocrisy have become commonplace within creative and charity spaces in the Global North over the course of Israel’s most recent attacks on Palestine. While at least 33,200 people have been murdered in the occupied Gaza strip since 10th October 2023 (April 2024), according to Al Jazeera – with Oxfam reporting this as a daily death rate higher than any other major 21st century conflict – many international platforms and organisations have been silent. While others have been reprimanding, deplatforming, and firing their employees and collaborators for speaking in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle. With many of these spaces advocating for positive change through socio-political reform, it begs the question: on what foundations are they building a better future, if not those that loudly oppose settler colonialism and active genocide? 

Ignoring the interconnectedness of all our oppressions – rooted in the colonial and capitalist systems that also drive the Israeli settler project – many not-for-profit organisations have attempted to distance themselves from the violence being enacted in Gaza. Yet, when touting strategic priorities that include anti-racism and social justice, their explanations ring hollow. These charities and campaigning groups regularly comment on and mobilise around international human rights violations. In fact, many spoke up in solidarity when Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022; others assisted with evacuating refugees during escalations of violence in Afghanistan. Yet, even in cases where their areas of work overlap with, or directly pertain to, the inhumane experiences of those in Gaza, many such organisations have continued to proceed with business-as-usual, ignoring calls for solidarity from Palestinians on the ground. 

“It’s the elephant in the room; nobody’s really talking about it,” says Amy, Communications Lead at a global health and social development organisation. “Even when, for instance in health, there is definitely a direct crossover which is surprising and saddening.” 

It’s the elephant in the room; nobody’s really talking about it, even when, for instance in health, there is definitely a direct crossover which is surprising and saddening.

Arjan, who works for a mental health charity that prides itself on being an anti-racist workplace, also shares that the organisation has refrained from expressing a position or even sharing resources, “even though they talk really loudly and vocally about all kinds of other related global issues and events, especially where there could be any effect on people’s mental health.” Even when the charity was visited by an organisation supporting the mental health of Muslim women and girls in the UK, who explained the gross impact of the “genocide happening in Palestine right now,” there was a “ringing silence in the room.” 

Arjan rightly asks: “How can we be looking after people’s mental health when there’s a genocide going on? What about the mental health of the people inside that genocide? And what about the mental health of those who are engaged in the struggle, or even just those watching it happen every day through our phones?” 

Countless studies have documented disproportionately high rates of mental and behavioural health issues among Gaza’s youth, who make up nearly half of the population. With over 85% of Gaza’s population, around 1.9 million people, forcibly displaced, ActionAid workers report that refugee women are now using cut-up tent scraps as sanitary pads, exposing themselves to potentially deadly toxic shock syndrome. Unicef has also reported that, with only a third of hospitals partially functioning – and facing crucial shortages of drugs, medical supplies, and fuel – women are undergoing C-sections without anaesthetic. Others are simply unable to access the hospitals because the delivery rooms are full when they go into labour, such as Maha from northern Gaza, who lost her son after giving birth to him in the latrines closest to her tent. 

The Israeli apartheid has long been an environmental and land issue – Israel has replaced indigenous trees with invasive species that destroy biodiversity and cause fires, destroyed orange and olive groves, and pumped wastewater through Palestinian areas of the occupied West Bank. With over 65,000 tonnes of bombs dropped on Gaza between 10th October 2023 and January 2024, some have highlighted the immense destructive impact on the climate – Nina Lakhani noted in the Guardian that, in just the first two months, more planet-warming emissions had been generated than the annual carbon footprint of more than 20 of the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations. LGBTQ+ issues also continue to be a part of the conversation – Israel has long wielded a “pinkwashing” campaign, using “gay rights aims to obfuscate the reality of occupation and apartheid.” 

Despite the demonstrable humanitarian and climate crises underway – and with Israel on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice – many organisations advocating for mental health support, gender equality, safety for refugees, climate justice, and LGBTQ+ rights continue to hold a position of neutrality. When silence is compliance, many who are employed by these charities – and are often accepting lower pay in an attempt to carry out fulfilling and value-led work – have been left feeling betrayed. They haven’t received any validation for the trauma and hurt that they may be experiencing, or been offered explicit support by line managers or leadership. Worse still, some have faced scrutiny, backlash, and censorship. 

“It’s left me feeling kind of dead inside,” adds Arjun. “When the Queen died, a statement went out. And yet when 10s of 1000s of people, especially children, are being shot – nothing is being said? It’s despicable, it’s dehumanising; it’s cruel. It makes me totally despair about any value that this organisation could have. It’s [also] really wounding, actually, on a personal level.” 

Sanjana, writer and Communications Officer at a youth employment charity, shares that she was reprimanded by her organisation in response to a post on her private Instagram. The photo, which featured a protest sign with the words, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” was flagged for being “potentially offensive.” Although this phrase often has faced criticism – deemed as “pro-Hamas” or “antisemitic” by Israel and its supporters – as Nimer Sultany, a lecturer in law at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, told Al Jazeera, the adjective expresses “the need for equality for all inhabitants of historic Palestine.” 

Sanjana explains the impact that this propaganda has had on her organisation and the repercussions for employees. “I think that they’ve found what they think is a legitimate reason to reprimand me, but, more widely, they don’t want us to be political. They don’t want us to be speaking about this stuff – online or publicly”, she says. “It’s left me [with] a distinct lack of belonging. I feel like I’ve been a bit othered at work now, like I’ve been painted with a certain brush – which, as a woman of colour, I’m not not used to, but it’s a shame. I got into the charity sector to do good.” 

Sanjana adds this backlash comes within the context of her organisation remaining “silent on Palestine,” both internally and externally. Despite overlaps between their work in social mobility and global inequalities, and public-facing values including “bravery, inclusion and trust,” the charity’s leadership is not only creating a hostile work environment for staff, but also shirking their broader responsibilities to the movement in order to tow the line. Within a climate where everyone, from politicians and students to poets and actors, has been facing a ‘McCarthyite backlash’ for standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people, it’s unsurprising that charities are playing it safe. However, this doesn’t make it right. 

There’s a clear disparity between the values that they [the organisation’s leadership] claim to have and the way that they’re dealing with anything deemed political. They claim to champion young people and want to create positive change in the world. But when it comes to the lives of Palestinians, they’re not happy about that.

“There’s a clear disparity between the values that they [the organisation’s leadership] claim to have and the way that they’re dealing with anything deemed political. They claim to champion young people and want to create positive change in the world. But when it comes to the lives of Palestinians, they’re not happy about that,” shares Sanjana. “A lot of our funding comes from big corporations. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that they’re not wanting us to speak about Palestine, and are not speaking about Palestine themselves. [They’re] trying to be apolitical to no doubt keep funders happy, which, for me, is very alarming and doesn’t add up.” 

Positioning themselves as ethical, value-led and non-hierarchical, many charitable organisations claim to create space for progressive rhetoric and challenging conversations. They post job adverts that boast a compassionate workplace with a focus on staff wellbeing and share colourful infographics quoting revolutionaries such as Angela Davis and Marsha P. Johnson. Yet, when liberatory positions on current events conflict with the priorities of funders, we’re reminded with a jolt that the majority of charities are at the mercy of the master’s tools – and the master’s boot. Many are funded by governments or companies that have vested interests in conflicts around the world, or have biased Trustee Boards with veto power over both external and internal communications. In such organisations, this has led to a fear-led culture, one where their lobbying power is dampened by the financial sway of some of the most powerful institutions in the world. 

This influence is all too apparent in cases such as this, where many companies in the Global North have much to gain from the success of Israel’s settler colonial project – and also donate significant money to charities. For example, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is partially funded and sponsored by weapons manufacturers such as Northrop Grumman and Airbus, and awarded Raytheon “a perfect score for corporate equality” in 2021. The emergence of this information led to protests outside their New York office in February 2024, with activists calling for HRC to “cut off all ties to apartheid states & occupations & investigate the integrity of its institution for human rights.” Western governments also have vested interests in the success of these companies – for example, many British MPs hold shares in BP and BAE. Within this climate, lobbying organisations that publicly oppose Israel’s actions risk losing funding or parliamentary support for their campaigns. However, in the process of preserving their own interests, they also have begun to abandon the world they claim to want to create. 

Some organisations claim that they would no longer exist to do good work if they lost this support; others deny links between struggles to shirk responsibility. However, a shift in ways of working for the charitable sector is not impossible – organisations can take a stand and still keep standing. In 2019, the Royal Shakespeare Company, a major British theatre company, ended its partnership with BP, citing pressure from young climate activists as a grounding reason for this decision. Even back in 2016, medical humanitarian organisation Médecins Sans Frontières announced that it would no longer accept funds from the EU and member states in protest against hostile attitudes towards refugees arriving in Europe. And, on its website, environmental campaigning organisation Greenpeace makes a promise not to “accept donations from governments or companies – so we’re not swayed by any interests except what’s best for our planet’s life-support systems”.    

Charities exist to fill gaps created by the inadequacy of the state. However, by relying on the financial backing of political and corporate parties, they surrender their potential to create change that challenges or dismantles current social, economic and political systems – however oppressive and harmful they may be. Through shackling their very existence to validation from individuals and institutions they exist to lobby, these organisations lose their ability to hold themselves accountable. Unfortunately, the repercussions of their cognitive dissonance are felt the deepest by the people that build these spaces from the ground up, and those that look to them for guidance and support. Phrases such as “community care” and “open door policy” are meaningless when this care does not extend beyond the limits of identity, nation borders, or even four walls. Charities must address the role they play in upholding oppressive systems and recommit to their stated values through this lens. Only then will they be able to take care of their teams and achieve lasting change that improves the lives of those most marginalised on a global scale – whatever their specific policy area may be. 

Enjoyed this story? Help keep independent queer-led publishing alive and unlock the BRICKS Learner Platform, full of resources for emerging and aspiring creatives sent to you every week via newsletter. Start your 30-day free trial now.