Diamond Mogul Meets a Star-Studded Controversy
By Marissa Brostoff
A group of A-list celebrities who appear in a new photography book wearing shimmering jewels (and not much more) have become caught in a tussle between an Israeli diamond mogul, an international poverty relief organization and a couple of highly irritated public relations firms.
It all started a couple of years ago when 23 female stars, including Mary-Kate Olson, Susan Sarandon, Kate Hudson and Vanessa Williams, agreed to take their clothes off for a good cause. Timothy White, a celebrity photographer, enlisted them as subjects for a coffee table book called “Hollywood Pinups.” White’s proceeds from the book were to be donated to the aid organization Oxfam.
What Oxfam representatives say they did not know is that Lev Leviev, billionaire diamond merchant and major donor to the ultra-Orthodox Chabad-Lubavitch movement, was also enlisted in the project: He provided the gems draped across the stars’ scantily clad bodies.
Leviev has become a controversial figure in recent years for his use of diamond mines in Angola and what detractors say is his extensive involvement in housing construction for Jewish settlers on the West Bank. This January, after articles in Women’s Wear Daily and other publications reported that Leviev was an Oxfam donor, the organization announced on its Web site that it had not and would not receive money from the mogul, citing Leviev’s involvement in the Israeli settlements.
“Lev Leviev began talking about Oxfam as an organization that he supports, and we had no idea who the guy was,” said Adrienne Smith, an Oxfam representative.
In September, Smith said, she was informed by the organization Adalah-NY, an anti-occupation group that has been fervently protesting Leviev, that the diamond merchant’s claim to affiliation was probably based on their “Hollywood Pinups” connection, a link as thin as a string of jewels.
So where does that leave the celebrities who posed for the book?
They have been informed of whence their diamonds came, Smith said. Oxfam has put up a new statement on its Web site denouncing Leviev, and a picture of Kristen Davis, a star of “Sex and the City” — and an Oxfam ambassador — wearing Leviev jewels has been taken off Leviev’s Web site (the reasons for the removal of Davis’s picture are unclear). And the PR organizations that represent Leviev, White, and the celebrities in the book are very, very annoyed.
Advertisements
Advertisements
Leviev has made several fortunes exploiting Russian Jews, impoverished Angolans, and desperate Palestinians. I certainly hope that Oxfam isn't taking money from this jerk!
The refusal by Oxfam to acknowledge the tremendous contributions by Mr.Leviev is a clear cut case of anti-semitism. Those self hating Jews who join the throng in condeming Mr. Leviev are hypocrites. They make no solid tangible contributions to helping the less fortunate, and take food out the mouth of the needy to further their political agendas. I support Mr. Leviev's efforts, and praise him for wanting to help the less fortunate.
It is so easy to condemn Mr. Leviev, but the reality is he should be praised not targeted for character assasination. He is a generous, charitable man, and deserves accolades for wanting to help Oxfam. There are many charities who will very much welcome his support, and they will all be better for it, Oxfam is the loser..
It,s his name, his property, and he has the right to use his diamonds as he sees fit. We dont see eye to eye on everything, but I respect his rights to his property. The political slants this paper assumes is right out of the blind attitudes of Jews in 1936 Germany.
Is it such a CRIME to see that Jews return and populate their OWN homeland? WHY IS IT that the arabs can live ANYWHERE they wish, but Jews seeking to live in their own land are arrested, punished and imprisoned by their (supposedly) own people? Mr Leviev is a hero---first for being a NON-SECULAR Orthodox Jew, willing to give his wealth to benefit Hashem and his people; second for seeing that Jews can fulfill their grant from Hashem, of a homeland, in eternity. WHY are liberal and secular Jews so silent, or even hostile? Why is the Forward apparently on the wrong side of this bogus controversy? WHY is it OK for Jews to be victims? To me it is just more sad proof that liberalism has infected the Jewish soul, and has weakened our willingness to survive. Thank you liberal Jews, and the Forward. You might be able to swiftly finalize what the Nazis could not achieve.
Mr Leviev should give up on the Jew-haters of Oxfam, and find a charity that supports Jews, Israel, and decency. The actions of Oxfam are pure anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism (there is little difference between the two). Why is support for murderous islamist cults so accepted by the left, sadly including many with Jewish surnames? How can these "former Jews" defend the arab vermin, and see this as another case of moral equivalence? How can fully immoral acts be a part of "moral equivalence?" The hoardes of muslim enemies have not changed in 1,300 years. No matter how long we "feed the crocodile" (by giving away more and more land, the crocodile will only get stronger and more evil. I do not dare refer to these "Jewish-surnamed individuals" as "Jews." They no longer act in accordance with Torah, or even self-preservation or common sense. While my Rabbi might disagree and state that these fools are still Jews, I cannot in good conscience extend the definition to de-facto enemies of Judaism.
Alan, how can you say Leviev made "tremendous contributions" to Oxfam? All he did was loan diamonds out to be worn by stars, the most valuable advertising a jeweler can get (worth far more than the cost of transporting the jewels). Opposing the expansion of settlements does not make me (or other Jews) "self hating." You seem to thing that wanting justice and peace for ALL people (including Palestinian farmers and Angolan miners) is somehow anti-semitic. To the contrary, i believe it to be worthy "political agenda" for us, as Jews.
Following some of the links throughout all of these articles about Leviev, I found that his PR firm ACTUALLY SAYS that they are trying to build up his brand by providing diamonds to charities... or something to that effect. That's a joke. I think the fact that he's rejected by UNICEF AND OXFAM now speaks for itself. The reasons they refuse to take his donations, speaks for themselves. The guy builds settlements on other people's land and whether you agree with it or not, it's actually against International Law, which these organizations abide by. Nevermind how unethical and unjust it is. You folks posting on here about the "self-hating jews" who are part of any action against Leviev are a joke. You remind me of early 40s and 50s Zionism...
"Thank you liberal Jews, and the Forward. You might be able to swiftly finalize what the Nazis could not achieve." Right - well, it didn't take long to get to that, did it? Critical of Israel? Have a problem with frum Jews? You're worse than the Nazis!
Thank you for this excellent article. I commend Oxfam for taking a strong stance and upholding its commitment to international law by refusing to accept any contributions from Lev Leviev. An organization cannot promote human rights with funds garnered from a company that violates human rights and international law. I hope that celebrities will start to make similar morally conscientious choices and end any relations with companies that promote the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians through the building of Jewish-only settlements on occupied territories. It has become incumbent on all people to take a moral stance as they did to end the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
Unless you are an anti-Semite, with one standard for Jews and another for everyone else, the Jordanian seizure of the West Bank in 1948, still being held in trust for Jews under the League of Nations' Mandate (ratified by the UN Charter in 1947) did not make it any more "Palestinian" than Israel's recovery of that land in 1948 made it Jewish (again). The General Assembly Partition Plan might have given the Arabs some legal right to the land if they had accepted it and made it binding and not just an unaccepted resolution, but they didn't and chose genocide instead. The only ethnic cleansing in the West Bank was of Jews, in 1948. The Jews settling after the 1967 war did so on vacant land, to which they have a legal claim, unlike the Jordanians or other Arabs (the "Palestinians," included). Maybe they should have followed Arab rules of war and at least dispossessed those they conquered, if not massacred them, but they didn't. "Palestinian land"? Only by an anti-Semitic double standard.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.