Matthew Gould

Weeping and crying with the young age pensioner of 65

Matthew Gould — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:56:03 +0100

I still find it hard to believe that Israel is considerably younger than my father and that, in our short time living here, Celia and I have already been in the country for one 30th of its entire existence. As we explore the country, get to know Israel's people, and talk to Israel's leaders, it seems extraordinary that it is only 65 years since Israel's creation.

Yet Israel has done more in that time than many countries have managed in centuries. More drama, more science, more invention, more emotion. Israelis live life at an extraordinary pace, doing several jobs, taking risks, driving badly. One Israeli commentator told my predecessor that every British ambassador gets to see at least one war, one election and one failed peace initiative. And I remember a former American ambassador saying that what Israel really needed was a good night's sleep.

This Israeli characteristic of squeezing so much life into such a small country and such a short history will also be on display next week. Monday is Remembrance Day for Israel's fallen, followed immediately by Independence Day on Tuesday. On one day, the sirens and the silence. On the next, the dancing in the streets. The full span of emotions in 48 hours

And this is what makes Israel so extraordinary - its unique ability to occupy the whole spectrum of emotion all at once. On the one hand, Israel is a scientific powerhouse, the Start-Up Nation, a cultural jewel and a free-wheeling democracy. On the other, Israel is a country repeatedly attacked by all its neighbours, a victim of vast waves of terror and thousands of rocket attacks, a country all too accustomed to calls for its destruction, a country whose military is always on guard and whose prime minister must always sleep with one eye open.

Britain's policy towards Israel matches this span of opportunity and threat. We are working hard to build links between our two countries in science, in tech, and between our universities. We are increasing trade, promoting co-production in film, and inserting Britain firmly into the story of Israel's success - because we want to be a part of that success, and because we want our relationship to be built on the positives rather than just the differences.

We are also establishing an ever-stronger security partnership, so that Israel knows it can rely on Britain. We are working particularly closely on Iran, where we share an understanding of the threat, a determination to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and a close partnership in achieving that goal.

As Israel looks to its future, Britain is determined to help realise the vision of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, based on the creation of the Palestinian state that two thirds of Israelis say they would support. They know that for Israel to remain both Jewish and democratic there is no alternative. Getting there will not be easy. Ariel Sharon said it would require "painful compromises". And the Israeli people will need to know that it will make them genuinely safe - that the West Bank will not become a base for terrorism and a launch-pad for rockets.

President Obama's administration has made clear that they are going to lead a renewed effort to find peace. Secretary John Kerry has been in Israel this week to that end. Britain will do everything it can to support those efforts.

Israel is not a country about which it is possible to be ambivalent. It arouses stronger passions more than any other country I have dealt with. Last year, it accounted for almost 20 per cent of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's postbag. It is the subject of more media coverage, the topic of more debate and the focus of more attention than almost anywhere else in the world.

I am not ambivalent about Israel. It is the country to which I wanted to be posted, the one where we were proud to start a family, a country whose language I am laboriously learning - not just to reconnect to its people but to my own roots. We love being here, and I am proud to be Britain's ambassador to the state of Israel.

Britain is not ambivalent about Israel. David Cameron has said that his belief in Israel is unbreakable. William Hague has said that Israel is a strategic partner and friend, that Britain will not compromise on Israel's security and legitimacy, and that there is no more urgent foreign policy priority for this year than making progress towards peace.

Ambassador Gould: Board must engage Israel critics

Marcus Dysch — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:12:39 +0000

The British ambassador to Israel has intervened in the row over the Board of Deputies’ joint food poverty project with Oxfam, telling friends of Israel they should do more to engage with those who are its critics.

Matthew Gould’s comments come as weeks of opposition to the Grow/Tatzmiach leadership programme threaten to come to a head at a Board plenary meeting on Sunday.

Speaking to the JC, Mr Gould said the community should be open to discussion and debate. “If the friends of Israel only engage with those who already agree with them, they will find it difficult to win the argument,” he said.

The comments echo remarks the ambassador made last August when, in an interview with Israel’s Channel Ten, he warned that in the UK negative views of Israel had moved from the margins to the centre ground.

On that occasion Mr Gould said the British public “may not be expert but they are not stupid” when hearing of settlement building and restrictions in Gaza. He encouraged Israelis to take on board the shift among the international community.

Oxfam confirmed at the end of last week that it would continue to work on the joint project after being told of a series of “red lines” drawn up by the deputies.

The Board had told Oxfam that any hardening of its stance on Israel would lead to the termination of the scheme.

Although the NGO could not give assurances that it would not in future breach the red lines, it said that in principle it had “no objections” to the Board’s suggestions.

An Oxfam spokeswoman said: “We hope we will be able to continue this partnership with the Board. It supports our Grow campaign which is about making sure that everyone on the planet has enough to eat. One billion people currently go to bed hungry.”

On Sunday deputies will vote on a motion which calls for the project to be put on hold “until Oxfam abandons its support for a partial boycott of Israeli goods”.

Board leaders are determined to see the programme go ahead as planned, but are aware that the organisation’s democratic process could see deputies scupper the link. The executive members will push for a straightforward “yes/no” vote on the project.

The JC understands Board president Vivian Wineman rejected a “compromise deal” offered by opponents of Grow this week. It would have seen the motion withdrawn in return for the Board undertaking further consultation over the link with Oxfam.

Jonathan Hoffman, one of the deputies proposing the motion, said: “It is clear that Oxfam has relations with a number of organisations that transgress the ‘red lines’. To imagine Oxfam will give up all these relationships simply to preserve the Board’s participation in the project is to live in cloud-cuckoo land.”

Meanwhile four Jewish organisations have joined a separate campaign against food poverty alongside Oxfam and dozens of other groups.

World Jewish Relief, Tzedek, Gefiltefest and JHub will begin work next week with organisations including Christian Aid, Islamic Relief, the Church of Scotland, and the National Union of Students.

Gould: Boycotts divide people and reduce understanding

Jennifer Lipman — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:57:06 +0000

The British ambassador to Israel has criticised those "who would rather go down the route of boycott than engagement".

Speaking after receiving an honorary doctorate from Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Matthew Gould said he and the British government rejected academic boycotts "because we believe that boycotts divide people and reduce understanding, when what we need is to bring people together".

"Our mission, of building scientific and academic links between our nations, is deeply unwelcome to some," he said. "My government has stood firm by this mission, in part because of the knowledge that universities in Israel are places where the measure that counts is excellence, not agreement.

"We are working with a country whose politicians and commentators may hate some of the arguments that are made in the universities, but treasure the academic freedom that allows them to be made."

Mr Gould referred to the different areas of academic collaboration between the two countries, labelling "science as a potential force for good, above politics, beyond nation, that can unite, and heal".

He also described academic freedom "as the essential underpinning of any liberal and tolerant society that values knowledge and accepts debate".

"The phenomenon of a diplomat who understands and appreciates the role of academia in research and development is rare and appreciated," said Professor Rivka Carmi, BGU president. Mr Gould was described as "a gifted diplomat" in the scroll that he was honoured with.

British envoy warns that Hamas rockets have to stop

Jenni Frazer — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:28:06 +0000

Britain's ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, returned today from a spontaneous visit to Kiryat Malachi, where three Israelis were killed by Palestinian rocket fire from Gaza, pledging solidarity with the people of southern Israel.

Mr Gould, who visited the apartment building in which the Israelis died, said: "It was really grim and desperately upsetting. We talk about civilian casualties, but to go and see for oneself, to see a family destroyed - it puts a very different perspective on matters.

"People should not have to live like that, having only 15 seconds to get to a bomb shelter. The rocket attacks have to stop".

The ambassador said it was very important to show solidarity with the people of the south of Israel. "My message is that I stand with these people. The situation is intolerable". He added that he "bitterly regretted" civilian casualties on both sides.

Mr Gould made his visit alone but the diaspora affairs minister, Yuli Edelstein, later called for other foreign ambassadors to follow the British diplomat's example.

Mazeltov, Greville

Fri, 09 Nov 2012 11:16:08 +0000

Usually those who have contributed to the community are honoured too late for them to appreciate it. So it is cheering to report the homage to Lord Janner by the state of Israel, marking the extraordinary contribution made by the politician and barrister, now 84. Not for Greville a soulless plaque on a wall. For him, it had to be a living, breathing and joyful project, and in choosing to name a Jewish and Arab kindergarten in the Galilee the Lord Greville Janner Education Centre, Israel has got it profoundly right. Matthew Gould, the British ambassador, who attended the ceremony, noted that the kindergarten reflected Greville’s long-standing “dedication to building relations between different communities and faiths within Israel”.

It is not just within Israel, of course: from the Commonwealth Jewish Council to the Holocaust Education Trust, both his initiatives, to his own presidency of the Board of Deputies and his work as an MP in a largely Asian constituency, Greville has consistently held out his hand to the other, and has enhanced Anglo-Jewry by doing so. He is an adornment to the community.

Israel must ﬁght for the British centre

Matthew Gould — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 12:36:59 +0100

Rosh Hashanah is a chance to reflect on the past year and look ahead to the year coming. As we pause on the threshold of the new year, I find myself deeply concerned about what the future will bring for Israel.

Every day, Israelis wake up to headlines about Iranian threats to destroy their country, stockpiles of Hizbollah rockets, actual rocket attacks from Gaza, and violent terrorist incursions from Sinai. Gas masks are handed out to families and car parks are being converted into bomb shelters. This new reality is coming on the back of 18 months of enormous upheaval in the Middle East - upheaval that has left Israelis deeply nervous for the future.

Alongside these, and just as worrying for Israel's future, is a slow but steady decline in international support for Israel. The annual BBC Globescan survey revealed for the second successive year that 50 per cent of respondents had a negative view of Israel - the same as North Korea and only marginally better than Iran. This slow decline in support is happening across the Western world, including in the UK.

In Parliament, there has been a shift. There have always been some MPs who will always criticise Israel, no matter what it does. Others - still a good number - are staunch friends. But, in the centre, there has been a shift. Some MPs who used to stand up and support Israel now stay silent. Some MPs who used to remain silent are now critical. The Early Day Motions hostile to Israel that used to be ignored or signed by a few of the "usual characters" now garner significant cross-party support.

As someone who cares deeply for Israel's future, this changing reality scares me. I worry that we will wake up in a few years to find Israel has lost most of its friends.

I represent a government that believes in the state of Israel. Our Prime Minister has said that his belief in Israel is unbreakable. Our Foreign Secretary has declared Israel to be a strategic partner and said that we will never compromise on Israel's security and legitimacy. My mission is to do all I can to make a reality out of their vision of Britain and Israel joined in partnership.

The slow decline in warmth towards Israel is a deep threat to that vision. So I ask myself, as Israel's friend, what can the British government do to reverse this? First, we should build the best bilateral relationship we can between our countries. An unbreakable and growing partnership, clearly to the benefit of the British, will always be the strongest answer to those who oppose links with Israel. And we are building that partnership in trade and tech, in our universities and in our laboratories, in security, and in the fight against terrorism.

The total value of trade and services between Britain and Israel is now well over $8 billion a year. Britain is now Israel's biggest export market after the US. These fantastic figures show an economic relationship that is in excellent shape - the best possible answer to those calling for boycotts. My focus has been on developing our hi-tech links, and both David Cameron and Benjamin Netanyahu are committed to this, too. To support this, we launched the UK/Israel Tech Hub at the British Embassy in Israel. The Hub is the first of its kind in the world - a team drawn from the tech sectors, tasked not with increasing exports to Israel but with promoting partnership between our companies. There is a huge opportunity here for both Israeli entrepreneurs and for British businesses - Israeli tech can go global using Britain's business strengths and reach; British companies can get a global edge using Israeli innovation.

When William Hague visited, he described Britain and Israel as "scientific superpowers", and announced the creation of the UK Israel Life Sciences Council. This body contains the top life scientists on both sides - including four Nobel Prize winners and three members of the House of Lords. The Council has given rise to an ambitious programme of joint research in regenerative medicine, which will fund £10 million of research, fellowships and conferences in the next five years.

All this demonstrates the level of enthusiasm at British universities for collaboration with Israel. Last year, Ben Gurion University hosted the first UK-Israel conference on regenerative medicine, attracting 60 British scientists. Links are being forged between the universities themselves. Manchester is doing exciting work with the Weizmann Institute; Oxford is working with Ben Gurion; Tel Aviv and Cambridge have signed an agreement to co-operate in theology. There is a growing amount of collaboration between our universities to look forward to in the New Year, and it should give us real pride.

Our partnership is based on shared values, an understanding that those values are challenged by common threats, and a determination to tackle those threats together, not least Iran's nuclear ambitions. Israel rightly sees this as a threat of the highest order. But it is not just a threat to Israel - the region, and the wider world, would be seriously destabilised by a nuclear-armed Iran. So we need to tackle the threat together, and make clear - to Iran, and to Israel - that this problem is not for Israel alone to resolve. Britain has led the way in imposing stringent sanctions on the Iranian economy and will continue to work closely with Israel, and with the US, France and others, in tackling the threat.

The second way to push back against the decline in international support for Israel is by drawing clear lines between legitimate criticism and delegitimisation. There are some people for whom Israel will always be wrong, whatever it does. They exist in the UK - and in many other countries - and are determined to assault Israel's very legitimacy.

A few weeks ago, we got a powerful reminder of the determination of this group, when they tried to disrupt the Batsheva dance company in Edinburgh. The protesters represent a small minority but they are active, loud and hugely dedicated. They try, and sometimes succeed, to marshal civil society organisations to their cause; these people are on the margin of political life but have made occasional inroads into mainstream politics.

The British government takes a clear stand against an approach that seeks to build barriers rather than bridges. As Alistair Burt, Middle East Minister, said after the Batsheva protests, "such action shows disdain for the fundamental principles of cultural freedom and tolerance which we cherish in the UK." But I worry that we give these people more credit and attention than they deserve. While their efforts do need to be addressed, they also need to be set in context. The wider economic impact of what they do has been miniscule, and their impact is through the noise they make; that noise has been magnified many times over by the attention they have been given by Israel's friends, which in itself risks making them mainstream. I fear that, for friends of Israel, this destructive agenda by Israel's enemies - and their desire to counter it - will come to define their connection with the state. And perhaps that is the most profound victory that the delegitimisers could achieve.

One example where arguments around delegitimisation are distorting the reality is on campus. The view is widely held in Israel, and in the Anglo-Jewish community, that all British universities have become cauldrons of anti-Israel sentiment. To be sure, there is a real issue of intimidation on some campuses, and this needs to be tackled hard - there can be no place for this. But, of the more than 120 UK universities, only a handful of student unions have passed anti-Israel motions; not a single university has an officially sanctioned boycott of Israel.

I speak to dozens of Israelis who have studied in the UK. Most have had a fantastic time. A few months ago, I spent Shabbat with Manchester JSoc. The students wanted me to know that the university was a great place for Jewish and Israeli students, and they were sick of being told the opposite by people who were in no position to know.

We have handed an unwarranted victory to those who would delegitimise Israel, by letting them exaggerate the impact they have had on campus. But this is not just a PR victory we have given them - it has also had a serious negative impact on the numbers of Israelis coming to study in the UK. And this is a genuine tragedy, because the best advocates for Israel are Israeli students, and if they abandon our universities the impact will be felt for many years to come.

The battle for public opinion is still to be fought, but the crucial fight will not be at the fringes. The fight that matters is the one for the centre ground, where the public worry about the lack of progress towards peace, continued settlement building and the occupation.

Some say it does not matter what Israel does, as its enemies will always condemn it. That is certainly true of the hard-core Israel-haters. But I do not believe it is true of the vast majority of Britons, who are not intrinsically opposed to Israel. Poll after poll shows they support Israel's existence and understand its right to security. But they also want to see the conflict over, and a Palestinian state created. They do not understand why, 30 years after the peace process started, we are still so far away. And they certainly don't understand why Israel needs to carry on building in settlements.

I spend too much of my life arguing over the apportionment of blame. William Hague has made clear that Britain believes there is fault on both sides. But regardless of where blame lies, I am certain that the following propositions are empirically, measurably true.

One, that the British public used to see Israel as David, against the Goliath of its neighbours; now Israel is seen as Goliath, militarily strong, technologically advanced and vastly more powerful than the Palestinians.

Two, that, for as long the occupation continues, the restrictions on Gaza remain and there is still a steady stream of announcements of settlement construction, Israel's support in the centre ground of British opinion will continue to ebb. As ambassador, I see the impact that announcements of building in settlements has on the public, on MPs, on our own ministers. Little is more corrosive of faith in Israel's intentions towards peace.

Three, that, until there is progress toward peace, we fight a losing battle to win back hearts and minds. But, conversely, progress toward peace will win back the centre ground, undermine the delegitimisers, and allow Israel's supporters to avoid constant skirmishes with boycotters and begin embracing Israel positively.

This is why the British government's first priority is to continue in the search for peace. After three decades, we know that, if it was easy, we would have got there by now. It will require what Ariel Sharon termed painful compromises, along with visionary leadership. And it will require us to help find sufficient answers for Israel's security, despite the shifting regional sands.

We realise that the Israelis will move towards peace only when they believe that this will make them more secure, not less. The creation of a Palestinian state must not lead to rockets raining down on Israel from the West Bank. It must not be a repeat of Gaza, when withdrawal was followed by the Hamas takeover and years of rocket attacks. But the majority of Israelis and Palestinians believe the future lies in the creation of a Palestinian state. That is the basis for some hope that peace can be achieved.

Becoming ambassador in Israel was a dream. It is a huge privilege to represent - to Israel, the homeland for the Jewish people - the country that gave my grandfather refuge. My wife and I love living in Israel and want the very best for it. In my new year reflections, I wish I did not have to address the threats to Israel or reaffirm that Britain believes in Israel's existence and legitimacy - the British envoy to Sweden never has to say that we support Sweden's right to exist. When I got this job, friends queued up to tell me that I would never be bored. I pray that, one day, they will be wrong.

But, for now, Israel will continue to face regional turmoil and an acute threat from Iran's nuclear ambitions. And Israel will continue to face the slow, steady erosion of its support. We will not stand passively by and watch it happen. By building our bilateral relationship, by facing the vitriol of the delegitimisers and boycotters head on, and by focusing our energies on the search for peace, I hope that we can see the start of a renaissance in the way Britain looks at Israel. Shana tova umetuka.

Lord Winston praises Israel-Britain research project

Jennifer Lipman — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:06:35 +0100

Scientific collaboration between Israel and Britain was given a boost this week after five research projects looking at regenerative medicine were awarded vital funding.

Thanks to the funding, which has been given as part of the BIRAX Regenerative Medicine Initiative programme and falls under the UK-Israel Life Sciences Council, studies working on treatments and therapies for Parkinson's disease, diabetes and multiple sclerosis will be financially supported over the coming years.

The project, which has the backing of British scientist Lord Winston, brings together scientists from Edinburgh, Oxford and Cambridge Universities with those from the Weizmann Institute and Hebrew University.

"Together they can find cures for some of the world's most awful diseases," said British envoy to Israel, Matthew Gould.

"These projects, playing on the academic strengths of both countries and of the highest scientific quality, will not only have a major impact in this increasingly important area of medical science, [but] will be likely to benefit many people suffering from common diseases affecting the brain, such as dementia as well as heart function and other illnesses," said Lord Winston.

Matthew Gould is right. We do need to talk about Israel

Shimon Cohen — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:33:10 +0100

The British ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, recently expressed the view that those who care about Israel's standing in the world "should be concerned by the erosion of popular support" for it in the UK. The problem, he suggested, is not confined to fringe groups who call for boycotts "and the rest of it." Instead, he said that among the mainstream British public, in and out of parliament, there has been a shift away from positions sympathetic to Israel.

"On the face of it", wrote Martin Bright in his analysis, Mr Gould's comments are "a straightforward statement of the obvious." My feelings exactly. Within political circles, my experience is that opinion on Israel varies but the trends could not be characterised as overwhelmingly positive. Among Conservatives, Israel seems to have become an irritation, while for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the ambassador's description of a perception of Israel as a "Goliath" style aggressor, rings true.

Indeed, it would not have been entirely surprising if it had been an Israeli official rather than a British diplomat who had articulated similar concerns regarding shifting attitudes to Israel within the British mainstream. Yet, rather than engage directly with the points, a number of figures from across the community have lined up to disparage the ambassador's concerns.

The Conservative Friends of Israel trot out the ubiquitous line, never really questioned, that Tory MPs "regularly" make their voices heard on Israel, using the example of "raising the matter of Palestinian incitement". I hope MPs on all sides take a strong line on incitement. But is that really the best example we have of support for Israel in Parliament? Bicom argue that their polling clearly shows that Israel and Britain's relationship has "never been stronger" and so, they argue, the ambassador must be mistaken. If you believe what they tell you, when it comes to Israel's standing in the UK, we've never had it so good.

It is worth recalling that Gould has, throughout his mission to Israel and previously, never done anything to suggest that he is anything but a committed friend of Israel. Instead of putting our fingers in our collective ears and shouting about how brilliantly we're doing, perhaps we could try something new. We might, for example, entertain the idea that the concerns have been expressed from a position of friendship and should not be so roundly rejected.

We cannot tackle a problem if we do not accept that we have one. Are we not capable as a community of a more honest appraisal of Israel's challenges in the UK and a revaluation of the strategies being employed? Anglo-Jewry has placed an overbearing emphasis on building relationships with party leaders, which is important but should not come at the expense of building grass-roots support. The notion that a prime minister will be substantively influenced as a result of cordial relationships with a few wealthy members of the community leadership is sadly flawed.

He is far more likely to be influenced by the prevailing mood of his backbenchers, who in turn are influenced by the concerns of constituents. Those relationships are all too often undervalued, if not ignored altogether. If that continues to be the case, then the relatively warm attitudes to Israel seen within this and previous governments will simply not last.

To a future party leader growing up in the 1970s, Israel was brave and honourable. To a future leader growing up in the '90s and beyond, Israel is controversial and a political nightmare.

There have been enormous triumphs in British-Israel relations outside the political sphere, including figures showing a near 40 per cent increase in bilateral trade. But economic and cultural ties will break easily if we fail to make the political arguments more widely. We must spread our efforts to the grass-roots, both within Parliament and beyond, then perhaps by the time the next generation of British leaders reach their positions, they will not already be lost to us.

With the greatest of respect to CFI, Bicom and others, can we really say that in the last decades, Israel's standing has improved in the UK? Can we even say it has got no worse? Would it be so wrong to suggest it might be time for say, a bipartisan lobby, more concerned with influencing public opinion than securing the ineffectual favour of a few? Or will this article be greeted with yet more furious insistence that all is well and that somebody somewhere has everything in hand?

Sophisticated diplomat in Tel Aviv

Martin Bright — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:13:47 +0100

The spat between Conservative Friends of Israel and our man in Tel Aviv has taken a lot of people by surprise. Matthew Gould has rarely been out of the news since he took up his post as UK ambassador and had previously been under fire from figures on the left who questioned his loyalty as this country's first Jewish envoy to Israel. Now it is the turn of the right to take a pop at him following comments to Ha'aretz and Channel Ten suggesting that mainstream international opinion is turning away from Israel. On the face of it, this is a straightforward statement of the obvious, although it is unusual for a diplomat to make such a direct critical intervention in the media.

But it is important to look at the specifics of the criticism levelled at Mr Gould. Stuart Polak, the politically canny director of CFI, is objecting not to Mr Gould's critique of Israeli policy but to his generalisation that MPs on the middle ground of British politics are shifting away from support for Israel. The background to this is a concern that this merely parrots a self-justifying Foreign Office line about mainstream opinion on Israel.

The JC has warned about the tendency within the FCO to assume its policy is in line with mainstream Jewish opinion. There is no evidence for this either way. Similarly, Mr Polak is correct when he points out that there is no evidence for Mr Gould's remarks about MPs "in the middle" drifting away from supporting Israel.

This newspaper has been critical both of the Foreign Office and of CFI in the past. But neither Matthew Gould, nor MPs are really the issue here. Perhaps the ambassador should listen a little less to FCO generalisations about "mainstream opinion", but CFI knows he has weathered a storm of criticism about his "dual loyalty", to bring a new sophistication to British-Israel relations.

Conservative Friends of Israel attack envoy Matthew Gould

Marcus Dysch — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:11:51 +0100

Parliament's biggest pro-Israel lobby group has attacked the British ambassador to the country after he claimed that public opinion was turning against Israel due to its policies on settlements and treatment of Palestinians.

Conservative Friends of Israel said Matthew Gould's remarks on anti-Israel sentiment in Britain and boycott campaigns were "unrepresentative of reality".

Mr Gould voiced his concerns on Israeli television, saying those worried about Israel's standing in the world "should be concerned about the erosion of popular support" for it in Britain.

Israel was now increasingly seen as the "Goliath" and the Palestinians as "David", he said.

The changing perception was not among "these people on the fringe who are shouting loudly and calling for boycotts and all the rest of it. The interesting category are those members of parliament in the middle, the majority, and in that group I see a shift," said Mr Gould. "The problem is not hasbara. The centre ground, the majority, the British public may not be expert but they are not stupid, and they see a stream of announcements about new building in settlements, they read stories about what's going on in the West Bank, they read about the restrictions in Gaza. The substance of what's going on is really what's driving this."

CFI director Stuart Polak said the comments did not reflect the actions of Tory MPs. "Conservative MPs 'in the middle' of the debate are very engaged and regularly make their voices heard in support of Israel on a wide range of issues," he said.

"Most recently, for example, MPs have been active in raising the matter of Palestinian incitement, an area they believe the government ought to examine more closely."

Mr Gould also warned: "Israelis might wake up in 10 years' time and suddenly find that the level of understanding in the international community has changed; that the level of patience for continuing the status quo has reduced."

Israel's Minister for Sport and Culture, Limor Livnat, said it was "very unusual for an ambassador to say such things. This is the British attitude towards the settlements for years and years, nothing is new. On the contrary, Israel now builds less settlements than in the past.

"About the suggestion that less and less MPs support Israel, I don't think it's true. I am in touch with British Jews and I don't know what he's talking about. I think it's very dangerous to make such statements, and it is not what I would expect of a diplomat. Matthew Gould is a very nice person, I meet him from time to time. But I think [his remarks] were a kind of exaggeration."

The comments brought a mixed reaction from British groups supporting Israel. Board of Deputies chief executive Jon Benjamin said: "It would be rash to deny that perceptions of Israel are frequently negative.

"Some of those now taking issue with the ambassador's comments are the same people who decry the treatment of Israel in the British media. Certainly elements of the media have much to answer for, casting every story about Israel against a backdrop of supposed intransigence from Israeli governments, and saying little or nothing of the wilful refusal of Palestinian leaders to engage with the peace process.

"Without setting Israel's actions in context, whether or not the average Briton agrees with them, the level of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of those actions will only deepen."

Dermot Kehoe, Bicom chief executive, said the relationship between Britain and Israel had "never been stronger in terms of trade, technology and security co-operation. Our polling shows the relationship is not eroding.

"The ambassador is right to highlight the importance of the peace process to the British public. However, Israel is not Goliath. It is a small country surrounded by threats from Iran to Hizbollah to Hamas. Palestinians also share responsibilities to return to the negotiating table in the search for a lasting peace."

Gavin Stollar, LibDem Friends of Israel chairman, said: "Mr Gould is a distinguished diplomat and while I wouldn't agree 100 per cent with his comments, he should feel free to reflect opinion as he sees it."

However, an Israeli Foreign Ministry source said privately that it was a pity more diplomats did not say what Mr Gould had said.