Climate of the Debate Over Israel

Opinion 1: By Brian Klug
There is a broad spectrum of opinion among Jews in Britain on the subjects of Israel, Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is reflected in the different positions taken by different Jewish groups. But it is not reflected in the public statements made by those who claim to speak for British Jews collectively or who allow that impression to go unchallenged. This has contributed to a state of affairs within the Jewish world where vocal opponents of Israeli government policies and actions are liable to find themselves excoriated or worse.

Take, for example, the Board of Deputies of British Jews. In many respects this is a
worthy communal organisation that carries out much good work on behalf of, and in defence of, Jews in this country. But it also sees “the defence of Israel” as falling within its remit1. On the Board’s website, the Chair of the International Division (who is also a Vice President of the Board) explains: “The largest [Jewish] community of all – Israel – is under constant threat, physically from terrorist organisations, politically from hostile governments and media, and morally from criticisms from fellow Jews” (italics added). She continues: “Our support, your support, is needed more than ever.”

To whom are the words ‘your support’ addressed? Presumably, not to those Jews who, according to the previous sentence, pose a moral threat to Israel by their criticism; a threat that puts these Jews in the same bracket as ‘terrorist organisations’. Thus, her words implicitly draw a line between ‘in’ Jews and ‘out’: between those whom the Board entreats and those whose criticism of Israel puts them beyond the pale.

Precisely where that line in the sand is drawn is not always clear; it is shifting sand, and the line moves accordingly over time. But the principle – the existence of a line drawn relative to criticism of Israel – is clear. Equally clearly, this line stands in contradiction to the Board’s description of itself as the inclusive “voice of British Jewry”; unless, of course, those Jews who cross the line in criticising Israel have, ipso facto, stepped out of the category of ‘British Jewry’. In other words, to avoid the contradiction, assume that not all Jews are (equally) Jews.

This assumption, conscious or otherwise, has become rooted in much of the Jewish world, not only in Britain but around the globe. It accounts, more than anything else, for the unhealthy climate of debate over Israel today. The launch of Independent Jewish Voices (IJV), a network of individual Jews in Britain, is an attempt to challenge the assumption and to change the climate.

At the heart of IJV is a set of principles set out in our Declaration (available on the IJV website at http://www.ijv.org.uk/). They include putting human rights first; repudiating all forms of racism; and giving equal priority to Palestinians and Israelis in their quest for a better future. Some critics complain that we do not advocate any particular solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Their criticism misses the point. We are trying to change the terms of debate, so that the line in the sand is based on principles that unite people of goodwill, not on group or ethnic loyalty.

Much of the reaction to our initiative has demonstrated what is wrong with the current climate. In the same week in which IJV was launched, Dr. Sidney Brichto, a prominent British (Liberal) rabbi, writing in the Jewish Chronicle, described us as “enemies of the Jewish people”. His response to our call for a more open debate could not be more forthright: “I love debates, but the time for debates between Jews over Israel is over”. He goes on to cast aspersions over the character – and ultimately identity – of certain Jews. “I doubt the motives of these Jews,” he writes, and concludes: “My conscience does not permit me to fraternise with those who undermine the future of my people”. Note ‘my people’, as if those of us who disagree with him have abandoned or betrayed the Jews.

In the subsequent issue, Melanie Philips, in a similar rhetorical vein, described IJV as “the British arm of the pincer of Jewish destruction”. Elsewhere, she has dubbed us “Jews for genocide”.

Clearly we have hit a nerve, for these are far from being isolated fits of invective. At the same time, there has been an astonishing outburst of support from across the Jewish spectrum, including ‘dovish’ Jews in the mainstream and Jews who are unaffiliated to a Jewish community. Evidently, we have struck a chord. The prospect for debate over Israel looks slightly better.

Brian Klug is one of the founders of IJV and Senior Research Fellow & Tutor in Philosophy St. Benet’s Hall, Oxford.


Opinion 2: Colin Shindler

Brian Klug is highly selective in his choice of Jewish communal figures to bolster his argument. Many left wing Jewish academics and writers, such as Norman Geras and Howard Jacobson, opposed the initiative of Independent Jewish Voices. They were never approached to sign the IJV letter probably because they did not distance themselves sufficiently from Zionism or turn a blind eye to issues such as the proposed boycott of Israeli academics - many of whom were founders of the Israeli peace camp. Neither did they ignore the rise of Palestinian Islamism in place of Arafat's rationalist nationalism nor regard it as enlightened and progressive. Despite the fog of publicity, this is not so much a split in the Jewish community, but more a split in the Jewish Left as the outcome of frustration with the situation in the Israel-Palestine conflict. The IJV initiative is Sharon's posthumous victory in fragmenting the Jewish peace camp.

The central issue has been trumpeted as the lack of communal space to espouse alternative views. Yet groups such as the British Friends of Peace Now or the annual Limmud conference have been in existence for more than 20 years. Whereas such cries of censorship may have been true in Britain at the time of the Lebanon war in 1982, there is a much more open Jewish media today, and through the advances of technology a multitude of ways of expressing alternative views. After all, will the Guardian turn down someone like Harold Pinter from expressing his views on the say-so of the 'all powerful' Board of Deputies?

It is probably true that a majority of British Jews, if asked, would wish to see further evacuation of the settlements on the West Bank and the establishment of a contiguous viable Palestinian state, probably along the lines of the Clinton Parameters. Any representative body should not merely offer an arena for debate, but also be prepared to act on such views. Yet no one from the long list of IJV signatories, it seems, has actually ever been elected as a member of the Board of Deputies and argued this position. The ambiguity of Independent Jewish Voices is that it wants to be represented, but does not wish to participate. The list of celebrities comprises a stream of the disappointed and the alienated. Moreover, several of the signatories were not previously known to be Jewish, while others were not inclined to parade their Jewishness in public.

The IJV initiative is very much a Diaspora matter. It is more about the politics of identity than freedom of expression and representation. Some signatories have spoken of their embarrassment and shame about Israeli policies.Yet this is more than expressing an identification with Palestinian suffering. In one sense, they reflect a part of the liberal intelligentsia in Britain which is highly selective in its outrage - which never speaks about Chinese dissidents, Burma or Zimbabwe, but focuses solely on Western failures - and of course, Israel. There is another part of the Left which does not close its eyes to human rights abuses wherever they occur. This difference is also reflected in the opposition to the IJV initiative.

For the IJV, how to relate to Israel is an ongoing problem. There is a real distaste for what is perceived to be crude displays of Jewish tribalism which others understand as acts of solidarity. Should Israel be regarded as merely a fait accompli that you have to live with or is it a good thing in itself? If you disagree with Israeli actions, how do you make yourself heard?

The IJV initiative is unlikely to influence a hard working Jewish community composed of small businessmen, accountants, estate agents and taxi drivers. One left wing critic labelled them ‘freedom fighters from Hampstead’. IJV's tactical weakness is that it approaches the community from the outside and is not embedded in the mundane reality of its existence. A UJIA survey in 2004 of British Jews indicated that 78% of the respondents identified with Israel and is a pillar of their identity.They might vehemently disagree with the policies of an Israeli government, but they do believe that the Jews have a right to national self-determination.

The IJV has received something of a drubbing in the Jewish press and within the community despite widespread communal opposition to the Jewish settlements on the West Bank.The IJV may coalesce as a community of sorts and produce further well-heeled initiatives in the future, but it has made little impact so far on the Jewish reality on the ground.

Colin Shindler is Reader in Israeli and Modern Jewish Studies at SOAS. His latest book,‘What Do Zionists Believe?’ has just been published by Granta.