Civilised debate

Two thousand Jews from 41 countries, 1,000 sessions, 580 presenters and five days — it can only be Limmud. The annual festival of all conceivable things Jewish (and some that one might think are inconceivably Jewish) is now so entrenched and popular a fixture of the communal calendar that it is sometimes difficult to remember that there was once a time when Limmud didn’t exist. But for all the many reasons behind its success and popularity, there is one particular aspect of Limmud that is especially important, and which we would all do well to copy away from the five-day bubble. Despite the caricature of a progressive lovein, Limmud reflects the broad range of opinions, beliefs and practices within our community. But no matter how wide the disagreements may be, Limmud is an intensely polite place. This year, a series of staged debates are designed to show specifically that it is possible to have deep but nonetheless civil disagreements on key issues. This ought to be both obvious and common practice.

But all too frequently it is not. This week, for example, we report the vile abuse sent to Yachad director Hannah Weisfeld after she criticised a tweet sent by the Board of Deputies. One organisation responded that Yachad supporters are ashamed to be Jewish and that “they had a name for them in Germany”. Such language is simply disgusting — and says far more about those who use it than those it is directed at. Yachad may be right; it may be very wrong. But it is perfectly possible to disagree forcefully and even angrily without resorting to such abuse. This is simply one example of many, week in, week out. Limmud may not be to everyone’s taste. But its atmosphere of respectful disagreement is a model we should all observe.