The disapora’s relationship with Israel

Israel’s Kotel ruling appears an affront to many diaspora Jews. Whether one disagrees or not with this controversial decision, Israel is a sovereign nation and its prime minister has primary responsibility to his own citizens as he sees it, and his government’s policies are an internal matter. If being a safe haven for world Jewry is not enough for disgruntled Jews, then perhaps they should make aliyah and become constituents.

Melvyn Lipitch,

London, W14

Prime Minister Netanyahu might have done British Jewry a favour by finally revealing his disdain for the diaspora, as you contend in your leader “Not interested” (JC, June 30).

The leadership of the Board of Deputies, for so long little more than an extension of the Israeli Embassy in matters concerning Israel, should now feel free to criticise the policies of the Israeli government when they are seen to be against the interests of British Jews. Roger Winfield, rabbis in England, one gets the impression their vitriol is co-ordinated and nothing less than loshen hara. It basically stinks of simple jealousy because Rabbi Dweck is a dynamic and widely respected man who is trying to revolutionise their out-of-date views.

He was correct in pointing out that many of the most senior rabbis are not without blemish, and thus who are they to pass judgment? We do well to remember two chief rabbis are currently incarcerated in Israel and there are many other Charedim in authority who are also convicted felons. So this shiur may have been seen as the opening salvo on the subject — though ultimately dangerous as the Charedi community is no different from any other mafia organisation — and one doesn’t break omertà without consequences.

James Espir,

Herzylia Pituach, Israel

The treatment been a disgrace. In any other profession, differences of opinion are mutually respected but not so among certain sections of the rabbinate. Furthermore, it is highly problematic whether one rabbinic authority has the right to interfere in the opinions expressed by another.

The origins of the Spanish & Portuguese Jews Congregation go back to 1657 and it is difficult to understand why, centuries later, the S & P Congregation should be expected to adhere to halachic interpretations made by other, parvenu rabbinic authorities who do not share their history, culture or traditions. It is high time that individual congregations be left to manage their own affairs, rabbinic and otherwise, without outside interference from others who have assumed self-appointed roles as “halachic enforcement agents” for the rest of the Jewish community. Diana Mohr,

Broadstairs, Kent