High horses in Anglo-Jewry’s Israel advocacy
In what is a bit of a storm in a teacup that anglo-jewry is prone to brew up when discussing Israel, 42 of its self-declared “committed Zionist.”members published an open letter in Haaretz to Israel’s representative in the uK, ambassador mark regev. addressing the letter to him as “dear mark,.”many of the 42 signed with their titles, ranging from “Baroness,”“dame,” “lord,” “sir,” “dr.” to “rabbi”– one insisting on “senior rabbi.” all 42 signatories, both titled and untitled, expressed themselves to be fully entitled to publish an open letter to “mark.”
moved by an “unprecedented level of concern” about Israel’s plans to “annex” or, as the Israeli government puts it, to extend Israeli sovereignty and/or law over territory in the West Bank where Israel claims rights, the letter states the annexation is not a “constructive step” and would, in their view, be “a pyrrhic victory” that would intensify Israel’s challenges “without yielding any tangible benefit.”
according to the 42, it would have grave consequences for the palestinians; Israel’s international standing would suffer; be “incompatible with the notion of Israel as both a jewish and democratic state” and have “adverse consequences for Israel’s security and its future as a jewish democracy” and be “perceived as evidence of Israel’s rejection of negotiated peace and a two-state solution.” the palestinian authority itself could be “fatally” undermined, and it could “destabilise” peace with jordan and egypt, and “undermine” growing cooperation between Israel and sunni arab states, and, all this, as the list goes on, “while emboldening Iran and its proxies.”
Generously, the 42 are not opposed to “unilateral steps” by Israel as long as they “enhance Israel’s security, advance peace and protect Israel’s existence as a jewish and democratic state.” the 42 even go the extra mile to “appreciate the crucial role palestinian violence, abandonment of negotiations and rejections of offers” made by “previous Israeli leaders have played”– which the 42 might not know included the current prime minister, Benjamin netanyahu, who is pushing for the ‘annexations.’
Israel’s international reputation would be damaged enormously, and, oy vey, the european union, and especially Germany and France, will tell Israel off in no uncertain terms, and she won’t get invited to the next Zoom dinner party on the pandemic-stricken international conference circuit. the Boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel will be energized and calls for sanctions will go “mainstream.”
the diaspora–Israel relations would suffer “profoundly.” and, just think of what annexation would do to British jewish communities: it will polarize it, “increasing the divisive toxicity of debate within them.” and, by this, the 42 found yet one more thing to blame Israel for: the level of intercommunal rudeness in anglo-jewry. It would be only Israel’s fault if “large numbers of diaspora jews” don’t engage with Israel “at all.” Fund-raisers, you have been warned.
you have been warned by these 42, with their “proud advocacy” of Israel, helped as it was “by Israel’s status as a liberal democracy, defending itself as necessary but committed to maintaining both its jewish and democratic status” that, if they are asked to make Israel’s case in the uK, as they have been on many occasions, they will not be able to do so for the annexation.
defending Israel for land annexations or “extending sovereignty” however small – as the 42 “will no doubt be asked to point out”– or large, will make a “principled global defense of Israel a near-impossible task.” “mark” is then asked to convey the 42’s collective opinion that the policy of annexation “lacks merit” and poses an existential threat to, in this order: (a) the “traditions of Zionism in Britain” and (b) “Israel as we know it.”
regev responded in a letter to the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News, giving the history of the annexation plans and security reasoning for these.
the 42 are consumed by Israel’s democracy, and the word “democracy” in different forms appears five times in their missive. Because, apparently, Israel “extending sovereignty” over lands allocated to her control in various plans for her existential security – not “pyrrhic victory” – and that of the 132 jewish settlements in judea and samaria, and as agreed on by the current Israeli coalition, is somehow so “undemocratic” and “unprincipled” that the 42 will withhold their advocacy for Israel. they have perched themselves high on their high horses and have staked the moral high ground, but are liable to topple over.
Indeed, luciana Berger, one of the 42, is actually well-versed in democracy, and became a founding member of a political party in the uK whose sole aim was to dash the referendum result for Britain to leave the eu.
so undemocratic is Israel that it held three general elections in the past year, with a fourth remaining a possibility if the coalition falters. Israel also currently has an “alternate prime minister” since one is not enough.
about those illusionary “negotiated peace” talks that Israel risks “evidencing” as rejecting, it depends on where they are held, as the sunni arab states know: around a half-empty table, which palestinian authority president mahmoud abbas refuses to sit at for some specious excuse or other; or in a palestinian classroom, lined with antisemitic textbooks or, perhaps, in a throwback to the old days, near a window, where the latest bomb can be clearly heard across the city.
the 42 anglo-jewish signatories would do well to get off their high horses and not lecture Israel on its jewish and democratic status.
The writer is a specialist on Mandatory Palestine and is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society.