According to the constitution of the World Jewish Congress, the association's purpose is to "foster the unity, and represent the interests, of the Jewish people"; a weighty mantle to assume, especially given the sheer diversity of the various strands of world Jewry. Despite all the pomp and circumstance surrounding the WJC's 13th Plenary Assembly in Jerusalem, it was clear that the body had no chance of living up to such lofty expectations, precisely because of the make-up of the delegates and their failure to adhere to their own code of practice.

Instead of staying "politically non-partisan and represent[ing] the plurality of the Jewish people", the gathering was simply an opportunity for out-and-out posturing, from the top down. Ron Lauder, scion of the cosmetics family and WJC president, made it his mission from the off to express unambiguous support for the Israeli government, an example repeatedly followed by the rest of the delegates.

While the WJC is a fairly toothless and unrepresentative organisation, the high profile of its leadership means it has the pulling power to attract guests from the uppermost echelons of Israeli politics. Thus, in the space of eight hours, delegates were treated to live performances by the cream of Israeli politics: Shimon Peres, Bibi Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat, all appearing before an adoring crowd of disciples.

The overriding message from the stage was that Israel had conducted an incredibly moral and well-behaved war in Gaza; the overwhelming response from the audience was that they agreed entirely.

It was painful to witness the way in which the various government ministers were resoundingly applauded for Cast Lead. The more I've learned about the devastation wreaked by the IDF on Gaza, the more contrite I've become about my initial support for such an attack on Hamas. However, I was in a tiny minority at the WJC, and forced to listen to delegate after delegate standing up to congratulate Peres, Barak and Isaac Herzog for their roles in the operation.

"The spokesman's English was flawless, which really helped get Israel's point of view across," kvelled one eager attendee. "We all thought your PR campaign was brilliant this time round." Perhaps, but what about the savage bombing campaign in the first place? English-speaking apologists for the mass-killing of civilians are all well and good for an Israel-right-or-wrong audience in Anglophone countries, yet not so effective with Pakistani and Indonesian viewers who don't understand English, but who comprehend entirely pictures and video of dead women and children.

Barak asserted that "he found the support on the [Israeli] street heartwarming, with people proud of the IDF … and their attempts to minimise civilian casualties," a statement cueing yet more sycophantic applause from the audience, and a delegate responding: "We are very impressed by the way you handled this terrible war."

Peres maintained that objecting voices in Britain should be ignored, asking: "Did they protest the bombing of Israelis in the 90s?" He then chose to belittle the British activists and the BBC in one fell swoop: "With respect, the world is a bit wider than [just them] – they don't criticise us in India, and the majority of the US population understands what we're doing too."

Minister Herzog also mentioned the BBC in passing, noting that their decision not to air the DEC appeal "shows that people understand that there are two sides to every story", the implication being that any money donated to destitute and suffering Gazans will, by definition, be turned into weapons by Hamas (despite DEC assurances to the contrary).

Instead of adhering to the millennia-old Jewish tradition of healthy discourse and heated debate, as witnessed in every stage of the oral law's dissemination, the new way of thinking appears to be to show a constantly united front, particularly when it comes to Israel. As one prominent delegate told me chidingly, "It's better to stay silent than to criticise Israel, especially at the moment."

The "Keep it in the family" rhetoric was nothing new, but made all the more chilling precisely because if that's the way the leadership of the WJC try to "foster the unity of the Jewish people", they're getting into a dangerous game. Not least because they are playing right into the hands of those who would paint all Jews as ardent Zionists, and all Zionists as apologists for Israel's misdemeanours.

Just as numerous Jews routinely distance themselves from Israel's actions by declaring "not in my name", they should do likewise with regard to the WJC. Because, for all the self-important cheerleading going on inside the halls of the Inbal Hotel, the WJC represents only itself and its cosy group of acolytes. Shimon Peres is not the president of the Jewish people; nor is Ron Lauder. And the more Jews speak out against the manipulative stances of both men, the better for the real interests of world Jewry – such as security, integrity and communal continuity.