Why I Resigned from the Board of Deputies Under-35 Programme

Editorial Note: The Jewish Stand does not endorse or condemn this position, as always we strive to encourage young Jewish voices – and from a diverse range of backgrounds and opinions – to speak up about issues that matter to us today.

This week, I made the difficult but necessary decision to resign from the Board of Deputies’ Under-35 Observer programme, where I proudly represented the Association of Jewish Refugees.

The tipping point was the outcome of the Board’s investigation into the 36 Deputies who signed and promoted a letter published in the Financial Times on 16 April 2025. The letter, which addressed the war in Gaza, presented itself as a moral counterweight to the Board’s public positions, and was widely interpreted, wrongly, as an official statement of the Board itself. That impression was compounded by a press release and a series of public and media appearances by several of the signatories, who used their status as Deputies to lend the letter weight it did not legitimately possess.

The Constitution Committee of the Board rightly found that this behaviour breached multiple clauses of the Code of Conduct. Deputies are expected not to misrepresent the position of the Board or present their own views as those of the institution. They are also expected not to bring the Board into disrepute. Yet despite these clear violations, the response from the Board’s Executive was, in my view, far too lenient. Of the 36 signatories, 31 received only a notice of criticism — a formal rebuke with no practical consequence. Five Deputies received suspensions of up to two years, though three of those suspensions may be reduced to just six months if an apology is offered.

That is not accountability. It is damage control. It suggests that some breaches of conduct — even those that harm the reputation of the entire institution — can be tolerated, provided they are carried out by enough people, or by the right people.

What made this even harder to swallow was the knowledge that one of the signatories was the chair of the Under-35 Assembly — the very programme in which I was expected to continue participating. I have nothing personal against the individual, but it is difficult to reconcile a leadership role in a flagship youth initiative with having co-authored and promoted a letter that caused such division and reputational harm. If this is the model being presented to the next generation of Deputies, I want no part in endorsing it.

But this resignation is about more than one incident. It speaks to a broader erosion of confidence in whether the Board is meeting its core objectives. We are living through a period of mounting antisemitism, social isolation, and growing hostility toward Israel and Zionism in public life. In this environment, the Board’s mission should be clearer than ever: to defend British Jews against antisemitism, represent our community with clarity and moral consistency, advocate unapologetically for Israel’s legitimacy and security, and support vibrant and meaningful Jewish life throughout the UK.

I no longer believe those goals are being met with the seriousness or urgency they demand. That is not solely the fault of the Board’s leadership — it is a reflection of a broader communal hesitancy to confront uncomfortable truths, to respond robustly when needed, and to prioritise Jewish safety and integrity over public image. Too often, statements are watered down, bad-faith actors are appeased, and internal disunity is papered over rather than resolved.

The Board also promises that it will support its Deputies through training, resources, and meaningful engagement opportunities. In reality, those promises frequently go unfulfilled. Training has been inconsistent. Mechanisms for consultation often feel performative rather than participatory. Even the most serious moments — like this recent disciplinary process — are handled in ways that prioritise optics over accountability.

I do not believe the Board is beyond repair. There are committed individuals doing important work, and I admire them. But I can no longer participate in good conscience in an institution that, in my view, has failed to demonstrate the kind of leadership this moment demands. My resignation does not mean I’m stepping away from communal service — far from it. I remain committed to fighting for our community’s security, dignity, and future. But I cannot do so from within a system that rewards silence and compromise over clarity and courage.

We are past the point where “managing diversity of opinion” can be used as cover for institutional incoherence. At a time when British Jews are increasingly under pressure, the Board must choose — clearly and unambiguously — who and what it stands for. Until that happens, I believe many in my generation will continue to look elsewhere for meaningful representation.