Wineman: farewell, Board, here’s what to do next
ON MAY 31, when I step down as President of the Board of Deputies I shall do so with mixed feelings. It will be a pleasure to regain control of my life, to attempt to realise some lifelong ambitions and, above all, to focus more on my much cherished but long-suffering family.
On the other hand, it has been a tremendous privilege to represent a community that is so full of vitality and so rich and diverse that it is the envy not only of Jewish communities abroad but also of other faith communities in this country.
They envy also the fact that it is represented by an elected body that is determined to be cross- communal. This means both that we have to be responsive to public opinion in what is a very divided community but also that we have to work with all groups in it regardless of their attitudes to us or to one another. Our mission to represent and pro- mote the community is unqualified. If a Jew is suffering discrimination or if a community needs political or religious support it is not for us to question their theological beliefs or their social attitudes. We have to help them regardless.
Even the parts of the community which ostensibly sit outside the Board and send very few representatives to it, such as the Charedi community, in reality work very closely with us and benefit from our activities — more closely possibly than ever before.
An example of such co-operation is the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Jews. For the first time, there is an APPG that deals with Jewish matters other than antisemitism and Israel. Jews need no longer be defined by those who hate us. Instead, we can take up in Parliament issues relating to observance, such as shechitah and brit milah, welfare and education, which matter to Jews in general but to Charedim in particular.
Acting in this way is part of the Board’s DNA but it also works to the advantage of the community that it speaks with one voice. Sometimes, as in the case of gay marriage, that voice is nuanced but it is never contradic- tory. As the Talmud says, two voices together cannot be heard. Or, in modern terms, when a minister hears six representations from the community, as happened on Shechitah before the formation of Shechitah UK, he will get confused and his reaction will be to ignore them all.
This ability for people in the community to come together over issues on which they agree — even though there are others on which no dialogue is possible — is one of the aspects of our community of which we should be most proud.
Sitting round the same table, talking politely and even issuing statements on issues of common concern does not imply an identity of views on any other matters.
When the Board of Deputies issued a joint statement with the General Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain condemning antisemitism, or when the Chief Rabbi co-signed a letter with his deputy condemning the Har Nof massacre, this does not imply agreement over their views on Israel or any other matters but simply a recognition that, on matters of common concern, we take our friends where we find them. Even in the religious field, groups
The gaps between us may not narrow but we can still talk in a positive way
make common cause despite their differences. After a bout of communal Orthodox/Reform argument, a cross-communal group was set up more than 10 years ago in conjunction with the Board. The agreement establishing the group was known as the Stanmore Accords for the rather unexciting reason that this was where it was concluded. It recognises that the gaps between the synagogal bodies are not going to narrow but it reasons that it is still possible and advantageous to talk respectfully. Where there is agreement, that fact can be acknowledged and where possible we should all work together in the common interest.
Sadly, we do not appear to have reached this point in the UK Zionist movement. There are those who believe the Israeli government should be more zealous in its pursuit of the two-state solution and more solicitous of the welfare of the Palestinians, whereas, on the other side, there are those who feel that negotiations with people who do not accept that you have any right to be there are a waste of time, and that the last government went soft on its duty to advance the state of Israel’s claim to the entirety of the land of Israel. Clearly such groups are not going to see eye-to-eye. At present, accusations of racism and self-hatred are being hurled by the various sides in the argument. There are even threats of litigation which should have no place in a political debate.
What we need is a Stanmore Accords for the Zionist movement — an agreement that recognises the profound differences that divide Israel’s supporters in this country but which obliges them to talk to each other with respect and to find common ground in the face of our opponents. It should include a recognition of Israel’s right to self-defence and of the need to combat boycotts of Israeli goods and academics. It would not contain a position on the wisdom or morality of the actions of the Israel government. It would exclude likening opponents to antisemites, racists or kapos. It would require Israel’s case to be argued calmly and cogently.
The Board of Deputies would lead on this. In the days when it was led by the Cousinhood, with its aversion to Zionism, a group of Zionist deputies was formed. As Zionism became mainstream in the Board, as in the community, the need for this group disappeared but in traditional Jewish fashion the group itself did not. It continued to meet long after its function had ceased. It might be useful for it to be revived as part of a general exercise for Zionists to find common ground. Consensus building and the need for respect are part of the DNA of the Board.
This might be a precursor to improving standards of civility in the community generally. These have deteriorated. Saying that your opponent or colleague is not so much wrong but rather a blithering idiot and a traitor to boot may make good journalistic copy but it is not an effective way to conduct communal discussion.
Possibly the explosion in media has encouraged this. Writers feel they are writing trenchant prose when they subject their opponents to ridicule and abuse. In fact, the truth is rarely simple and no side has a monopoly on wisdom.
Respect for one’s opponents is not just courtesy, it also makes for a more rational and informed outlook. It says in the Ethics of the Fathers that, if there no respect, there is no Torah — a lesson we would all do well to heed.