What did it mean?

was surprised by your muddled editorial (Let’s ensure that the House of Israel is never divided, 28 January). It ranged from argument amongst communal leaders, Holocaust Memorial Day, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the Colleyville Synagogue siege with all to be seen in the light of rather dubious lessons drawn from the Altalena affair.

As that event demonstrates, Jewish unity has to be based on clear principles. In 1948, the Israeli government was right that there could only be a single military command in the new state. However, that did not mean that the politics of the state would be monolithic. Israel’s political pluralism allowed the key protagonists, Ben-Gurion and Begin to actively advance their views and seek support for them.

Israel, and the Zionist movement, has always seen intense political debates. We should never confuse such democratic debates with divisiveness Professor John Strawson London N19

Study last week’s paper as closely as I could, I could not divine what you were referring to in your editorial.

Is there some split we’re all supposed to know about and regret? Was it cleverly coded and I missed it because I’m out of touch? Did you avoid reporting on whatever this split is because it would just be too upsetting to your readers? Or did you just pull out a standard editorial off the shelf for whenever there’s nothing much to say one week, just to rally the troops?

Or was the secret in the last line which was missing from my edition. I think we should be told!

Clive A Lawton

Bristol

Please note: we normally only accept letters by email. Individual letters cannot be acknowledged. Letters may be edited. Email address for correspondence is: letters@thejc.com. Please supply postal address.

The JC is regulated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation and, as such, we take all complaints seriously. If you have an issue you’d like to raise, Ipso can be contacted on 0300 1232220.