British Deputies Deserve Commendation, Not Condemnation
The backlash against the 36 members of the Board of Deputies (BoD) of British Jews who published a harsh condemnation of the Netanyahu government’s policies in a letter to the Financial Times is gaining momentum. In an article in the Jewish Chronicle, BoD Chief Executive Michael Wegier faulted the signatories for taking the debate within the Jewish community to the pages of national newspapers, as if the FT letter gave away the well-kept secret that the Gaza war has sparked deep rifts among and between Diaspora and Israeli Jews. Perhaps Wegier hadn’t heard of Peter Beinart’s latest book, Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning, whose content and reception pretty much blew the cover on any portrayal of world Jewry as united in its views on the war. Although Beinart focuses on American Jewry, his observations about the Jewish psyche are not confined by international borders.
Writing in the Jewish News, BoD President Phil Rosenberg began his attack on the so-called renegade deputies with the claim that they misrepresented their views as the official position of the board. That very narrow interpretation of the signatories’ introductory statement that they are representatives of the Jewish community – not the sole representatives, not the entire community – resulted in a decision by the board’s Executive to launch a complaints procedure against them for alleged breaches of the organization’s Code of Conduct.
It is noteworthy that the code, inter alia, states that all deputies must “act ethically and with integrity and probity.” Nothing could better describe the actions of these 36 individuals in aligning with the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who have taken to the streets to demand that the government put the release of the remaining hostages ahead of its perpetuation of a war that has deteriorated into a battle to preserve the current coalition and advance its messianic vision of a Palestinianfrei Land of Israel between the river and the sea.
Like Wegier, Rosenberg extols unity as a supreme value and claims that division serves Israel’s enemies. But unity in and of itself is a populist phenomenon in which people bond around the lowest common denominator. “We all want to see definitive progress towards lasting peace and security for Israel and the Middle East,” writes Rosenberg. Easy enough to say, but the devil is in the details. The 36 deputies demonstrated their understanding that Israel will never have lasting peace and security as long as it is led by “this most extremist of Israeli governments” which, in addition to exacting an unfathomable casualty toll in Gaza, “is openly encouraging violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, strangling the Palestinian economy, and building more new settlements than ever.” This truth apparently escapes the BoD leaders who, when it comes to Israel, are trapped in a jingoistic mindset of “my country, right or wrong.”
Rosenberg fails to make the important distinction between criticism of Israel and criticism of its government. In fact, both are legitimate based on the principle of free speech, but it is true that the former would be inappropriate for a group elected to represent the Jewish community. The latter, however, is not only permissible; under the current circumstances, in which Gaza has been turned into a wasteland where the starving and the maimed wander aimlessly amid the rubble, it is imperative.
The day before the BoD Executive decided to take disciplinary action against the deputies, the Israel Police issued orders banning the display of photos of Israeli hostages and Gaza children at an antiwar protest because they might “incite violent or illegal activity.” The orders were eventually rescinded, but the very fact that such oppression was even considered validates the deputies’ assertions regarding the erosion of democracy and their fears for the very soul of Israel.
Rosenberg suggests that the media lapped up the story because it gave them the opportunity to laud the minority opinion as reflective of “good Jews” as opposed to the many “bad Jews” who are not calling for an end to the war. I actually join Rosenberg in wishing that a letter written by Jewish community leaders castigating the Israeli Government for its extremist policies would not be the subject of so much attention, if only the reason was that their protests had become so widespread and incessant that they were no longer deemed headline-worthy.
Better yet, I wish that there were no need to criticize the Israeli Government because its members were men and women of integrity, its policies promoted democracy and advanced human rights, it forged alliances with liberal governments rather than ultraright tyrants, it favored diplomacy over military conquest, and it maintained peaceful relations with all its neighbors, including the nascent State of Palestine established along the 1967 borders. Until that wish is realized, however, we need people like the British deputies to speak out – not because they are Jews, but because they are people of conscience.
