Birth of Israel

Truman show’s real star

Daniel Finkelstein — Fri, 17 May 2013 10:18:31 +0100

As ome of my best friends are Jews. It is a boast so thin and irrelevant that it has become an in-joke. So it was a surprise to discover, when reading the other day, that one of the most important and positive events in the modern history of the Jewish people took place because someone's best friend was Jewish. And I thought it was a story worth telling.

It is, after all, Israel's 65th birthday and birthdays are a moment for reminiscence. When Harry S Truman (the S stood for nothing, by the way, his middle name was just S) returned from the First World War, he didn't want to go back home to the farm where he had done back-breaking work from his youth into his 30s. He had seen some of the world now, and he wanted something better.

So he had the idea of going into business. He knew how, too. He had met a Jew. And with his Missouri rural upbringing, he thought if he knew a Jew he was half-made. So he hooked up with his army buddy, Eddie Jacobson, and set up a shirt and haberdashery store in downtown Kansas City.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, given how things turned out for him) Truman's confidence was misplaced. "Truman & Jacobson" did well at first but after the first year it began to struggle and eventually the company collapsed, leaving both men with considerable debts. Harry Truman, with the patronage of "Big Boss" Prendergast, went into politics partly because it promised a steady income with which he could pay off his creditors.

Not much more than 20 years later, after a series of extraordinary political events, the failed shirt salesman became the most unlikely president of the century. And to him, rather than Franklin Roosevelt, fell the incredibly difficult decisions thrown up by the Second World War. What to do about the Russians and their advance through Eastern and Central Europe, what to do about the atom bomb and then the H-bomb, what to do about Korea, what to do about the collapsing economies of Western Europe?

And what to do about the Jews. "Everyone else," Harry Truman used to say to his aides, "everyone else who's been dragged from his country has someplace to go back to. But the Jews have no place to go."

After the war, it fell to Truman to decide what to do when the British could no longer afford their mandate. Should the country be partitioned, with a Jewish state created? Should America recognise a new state of Israel? Two big things led him to think it should. The first was that he had natural human sympathy for the Jews and their plight. The second was that the domestic politics of the Jewish vote in the presidential election of 1948 said he should support them.

But two things said he should lean the other way. The state department was opposed, meaning that the man Truman admired the most, the man he credited with winning the war, General Marshall was opposed. The second, oddly, was that Jewish lobbying had driven the president to distraction. He was more than fed up with it.

There was, however, one other factor. One of his best friends was Jewish. Truman had decided that he would stick close to his diplomats. Chaim Weizmann came to lobby and Truman wouldn't even see him. But then Eddie Jacobson asked to see his old business partner. He begged just one favour.

Truman had an idol, said Jacobson, and it was former President Andrew Jackson. Well he, Jacobson had an ally and it was Chaim Weizmann. Would his old friend, for old time's sake, spare just a few minutes for his idol? Truman felt he had to agree.

And it was in his meeting with Weizmann that Truman committed himself. America would support partition.

So the next time someone says that one of their best friends is Jewish, be polite about it. You never know when it might come in handy.

Israeli independence 65 years ago today

Anna Sheinman — Tue, 14 May 2013 11:58:32 +0100

Sixty five years ago today, on May 14 1948 at 4pm, a day before the British Mandate in Palestine was due to expire, a Jewish state was established in Israel.

David Ben-Gurion declared the establishment of the state of Israel at the Tel Aviv Museum and, the next day, the Israeli War of Independence began.

Indicating just how overshadowed the declaration was by war, the Jewish Chronicle reported the event in its issue of May 21 1948 under the headline: ‘Full-Scale War in Palestine’.

The report read: “Simultaneously with the declaration of the state of Israel, the forces of five Arab states, including the British trained and financed Arab Legion on King Abdullah [of Jordan], have crossed the borders of Palestine, and fierce fighting has taken place in many parts of the country.”

Yom Ha’atzmaut was celebrated for the first time in 1949, when the big news of the day was Israel being accepted into the United Nations.

British warned of 'bitterness' over handling of the Exodus ship

Jennifer Lipman — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:21:43 +0100

The High Commissioner to Palestine warned officials in London that the "bitterness evoked" by events on board the SS Exodus in 1947 should not be underestimated.

The extent of the damage to relations between the Jews and their British rulers as a result of the decision to force those on board – many of them Holocaust survivors - to return to Europe is made clear in a series of newly-released intelligence reports from the colonial era.

"The Yishuv has followed events… with close attention," said one report, authored by Sir Alan Cunningham, then the British High Commissioner, noting the end to "the intermission in illegal immigration".

He wrote: "The intransigent attitude of the passengers has been applauded… Meanwhile the Hebrew press seizes every opportunity to use this incident as a stick with which to beat the Palestine Administration and His Majesty's Government, and to sustain the bitterness which the deportation undoubtedly aroused."

The ship, which was originally named the President Warfield and was referred to as such in the intelligence reports, is the most famous example of the illegal immigration that occurred in the years before independence, as Zionist groups sought to bring refugees from Holocaust-ravaged Europe to Palestine.

Their efforts were opposed by the British, with refugees held in camps in Atlit and Cyprus.

The Exodus set sail on July 11, but when it approached the Mediterranean coast of Palestine, British forces seized it. Three people died and those aboard were forcibly returned to Europe, at which point they declared a hunger strike. It was a public relations disaster for the British, but it still resulted in the Jewish refugees being transferred to displaced persons camps in Germany.

Another report reveals how the decision to return the illegal immigrants on the ship to France "undoubtedly caught the [Jewish] Agency unaware, and the successful preservation of secrecy until the transports were well on their way probably prevented a sharper reaction by the Yishuv [the Jewish community].

"Nevertheless the bitterness evoked by this departure from practice must not be underestimated," the report stated. "The Arabs are naturally gratified."

The High Commissioner noted that the decision to permit pregnant women to disembark at Gibraltar had been "met with little appreciation" and reported that the Yishuv signalized its solidarity with the refugees "by observing a day-long fast, which passed off uneventfully."

In a sign of the divide between the establishment and the Haganah, Sir Alan also said that the Jewish Agency had been "at particular pains to emphasize that it was not Zionist propaganda which had induced those on board the transport to refuse disembarkation in France".

The incident, later immortalised by Leon Uris, was a turning point in attitudes towards the Zionist cause, as photographs and reports were seen around the world. But it did not dispose the British towards easing restrictions; a report from later that year discussed use of force while searching rebellious detainees in Athlit, with the comment "In fact no greater degree of force was used than was needed to overcome opposition to the search".

It also details the methods used by Jewish detainees to evade their British guards. "When the camp was searched a number of pistols, bombs and uniforms were found, which had apparently been introduced into the camp in the false bottoms of food boxes supplied by the officially-recognised Jewish Prisoners Aid Society," explained one briefing. "In consequence visitors and food parcels have been stopped."

Arabs in 1943 'obsessed with Zionism' said secret British report into nationalism

Jennifer Lipman — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:48:06 +0100

Anti-Zionism, suspicion of US imperialism and Allied loyalties were key concerns for the Arab world five years before the state of Israel was declared, according to a report commissioned by British officials in May 1943.

The report on "Great Britain and Arab Nationalism" was completed at the height of the Second World War, but remained secret for 70 years until its release at the National Archives this week.

AH Hourani, who compiled it, found evidence of an "obsession with Zionism" among Arab nationalists, out of a misguided belief "that it aims at dominating all Arab Asia".

He wrote of the belief that the allies were "committed to support of Zionism" over Arab aims, and noted "widespread feeling in favour of Germany".

In the section on Palestine he reported that while on the surface there had been a relaxation in pre-war tensions, "beneath the surface things remain as they were: and it is clear that Palestine, like Syria, is moving towards another crisis... Certainly the temper of revolution or even civil war is coming once more into existence".

Mr Hourani wrote that the Arabs were by 1943 more disposed to accept the British White Paper that they had rejected in 1939 "by a tactical blunder".

But he said: "Another important factor is at work: the obsession with Zionism has grown even greater if that be possible in the last years.

"The Palestinian-Arabs can no longer think dispassionately about the problem or see any limits to its size and importance. I have met responsible officials of the Government who believe that if the allies win the war they will send all the Arabs out of Palestine to the desert or to Iraq.

He added: "What causes particular outrage is the influence of the Zionists in the USA and the belief that even if Great Britain wished to carry out the White Paper, America would not let her."

In the lengthy report, which also covered what was then Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon, Mr Hourani delved into the structure of Arab nationalism across the region, noting that there was an "absence of constructive thought and organisation".

Sent to British colonial officials in May 1943, as the remaining Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto attempted to resist the Nazis, Mr Hourani's report makes clear that the Holocaust was not far from the thoughts of Jews in Palestine. He noted that while Palestinian Jewry was deeply split, "the consciousness of the tragedy of European Jewry holds all together."

"No Palestinian Jew, however much he disagrees with Zionist policy and thinks it is leading to disaster, can say the word that would shut the gates to the country against his brothers still in Europe."

Secret documents reveal plans for 'British Haganah' in Palestine as Mandate ended

Jennifer Lipman — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:00:56 +0100

British men and women living in Jerusalem during the last days of the Mandate period planned to establish a "British Haganah" to protect themselves.

In a series of secret documents from the colonial period, newly released by the national archives after almost seven decades, the uncertainty felt by the British in what was then Palestine in the spring of 1948 becomes apparent.

Members of the British community in Jerusalem met in early 1948 to discuss setting up a group, which they described as a "British Haganah", noting that it was "the first time in 42 years" that they were discussing the question of protection.

The Jerusalem British community council was created "for the protection of their individual and collective interests", although it was predicted that the situation would not deteriorate "to such extent that all physical means will be used for protection". But a document explained that the aim "would be protection of life and property" and stating that "about 100 men of the community will be able to use arms". It continued: "The problem of arms will certainly not be a difficulty… as the withdrawing administration will provide them with enough equipment".

Minutes from regular meetings held from January to April detail discussion about medical supplies and policing arrangements for after the end of the Mandate period, including consideration of whether remaining British personnel should be concentrated "in a distinct and neutral residential area" and whether "a municipal police force in Jerusalem… could be left in being after the evacuation".

From the start of the year a series of warnings were issued urging Britons who were not government workers to leave Palestine "by the end of April", because "thereafter it will not be possible to arrange escort or transport facilities for them". On April 19, the High Commissioner noted that after the next day, any Britons who remained in the area did so at their own risk.

British officials seemed concerned not least as to who would bear the cost of the conflict, with one document noting that "in the event of a serious worsening of the situation many British subjects will approach this Government or subsequently His Majesty's Government's Political Mission, with requests for evacuation".

In a telegram to the Foreign Office on March 30, the High Commissioner for Palestine wrote that "the question arises regarding the care of British subjects… after the evacuation of Jerusalem". Sir Alan Cunningham explained that there would be around "100 Britishers", and that while they had been advised to stockpile supplies "the question of their subsistence during such a period is causing some anxiety".

In a sign that standards were not diminished even as war was imminent, a document from March 1948 reveals discussion about the provision of a British chauffeur for the representative arriving to oversee the transition.

But it was not all panic and planning for the worst. One document contained a request for British officials to acknowledge the efforts of those remaining in the area "to carry on the good work and keep the flag flying". And the minutes from a community council meeting two months before the British left reveal that a screening of the film Great Expectations had been arranged for members for March 17 – although there is no mention of whether the event went ahead as planned.

British saw 1948 Jewish fighters as 'like those of Nazi Germany'

Jennifer Lipman — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:16:12 +0100

The High Commissioner of Palestine viewed the behaviour of Jewish fighters as comparable to that of the Nazis, according to an intelligence report issued two weeks before statehood was declared.

On April 30 1948, Sir Alan Cunningham wrote to his superiors that as the Jews celebrated military successes their “broadcasts, both in content and in manner of delivery, are remarkably like those of Nazi Germany”.

In another report, he said that the Jews were prepared for statehood and an “all-out offensive” with “all the equipment of a totalitarian regime”.

Colonial administration records released by the National Archives in London this week reveal that as little as a week before the British departure from Mandate Palestine, the High Commissioner mistakenly believed that “all the ingredients of a successful truce were present”.

The documents detail increasing tension between Jews and Arabs in spring 1948, and the opposing reactions to the United Nation’s partition plan of November 1947 — “received with jubilation by the Yishuv”, but prompting “a mood of bitterness and universal suspicion” among the Arabs.

The papers show the contempt the British had for the Jews, who were deemed willing “to go to almost any lengths to achieve their aim”, and the collapse of any trust in the British by both Jews and Arabs.

Atrocities on both sides are detailed, with frequent references to Jewish “terrorists”, and graphic descriptions of violent attacks on each other or the British forces.

In one dispatch, an account is given of the massacre at the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin, the facts of which are still debated today.

Although it is unclear where his information came from, Sir Alan wrote that 250 people were killed, with the attack “accompanied by every circumstance of savagery. Women and children were stripped, lined up, photographed and then slaughtered”.

The dispatch added that the attack was too much for “the strong stomach of the Yishuv” and noted condemnations by the Jewish press and the chief rabbinate. It also recorded the Arab revenge attack on the Hadassah Hospital convoy.

The intelligence reports also show the British view that while the Jews were organised, if “not without internal dissension”, the local Arabs were poorly served by their leaders and by neighbouring countries, despite “extravagant claims of victories”.

Sir Alan wrote on April 30 that the Arabs’ “much vaunted liberation army” was “poorly equipped and badly led”.

He continued: “In almost every engagement the Jews have proved their superiority in organisation, training and tactics.”

He noted that “the foreign Arab guerilla bands… having successfully stirred up the Jews (and incidentally provided them with the excuse that they are merely defending themselves against Arab aggression) are now proving quite unable to protect the local Arabs.”

Looking back at our history, with sadness and with joy

James Inverne — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:17:44 +0100

For a culture that officially always feels (at least) two things at once, Yom Hazikaron (the memorial day for fallen soldiers) in Israel is disconcerting. It's not what we're used to. Every observant Jewish child is taught that the holidays are about two things - being thankful for what we have, and remembering the suffering of others.

At a glance, Yom Hazikaron epitomises exactly this, in that it falls directly before Yom Ha'atzmaut, Israel's Independence Day. And yet, it doesn't. These are two very pure experiences - distilled mourning, heralded by the joltingly unmusical air raid sirens that sound across the country to call for two minutes of silence. It sounds as though the air itself is crying.

Israeli television channels close down. Shops are shut. During the siren, traffic literally grinds to a halt, as cars even on the motorways stop and their drivers get out and stand, respectful and solemn. There is no joy here. No thanking our lucky stars. Our fortune came at the cost of someone else's tragedy. To celebrate that would be to spit on their grave.

But then something curious happens, and it could only happen in a society where the next day starts at dusk, undivided by a night's sleep. In one instant, Yom Hazikaron ends, and the next, Yom Ha'atzmaut begins. To be flippant, it's rather like that scene in Live and Let Die, where the weeping Harlem funeral procession turns to wild dancing in the street at the sudden call of a trumpet.

And so we are required to dry our eyes, to shake ourselves out of our misery, to put on our party hats and our biggest smiles and dance. With no pause in which to pull ourselves together, we must go from purest sorrow to purest joy.

Why? The arts can offer some ideas. The business of sudden contrasts in mood has long been a stock-in-trade of artists, and the truly great use the device to teach us something about life. One of my favourites occurs in Puccini's La Boheme. The opera is a brilliantly-balanced see-saw - the first half light and romantic, the second riven with anguish, jealousy and death - that pivots around two stabbing, unexpected chords that start Act III. Suddenly we're on entirely different terrain, and yet Puccini has simply fast-forwarded the relationships, showing us the contrasts down the road without charting the gradual path by which the characters get there. So we are presented with stark and crisp realities - Rodolfo is jealous, Mimi is ill, Marcello is argumentative, Musetta is a compulsive flirt. Each character's essential truth, in clear view. It's devastating.

Mahler too dealt in contrasts, working through his own bipolar qualities in his music. With seemingly spontaneous jolts, death-defying swoops from the top to the bottom of the stave, Mahler never lets the listener, or the players, rest. He disorientates everyone with plunge-pool shocks of mood and speed. To what end? Well, it's all so nerve-jangling that one can't help but stay on the edge of the seat, alert – alive. Mahler was terrified of death as much as he clung fiercely to life. And as long as you're listening to this stuff, by heaven do you know you're still kicking.

But, even if you can equate the twisting-turning Mahler effect to, say, some of the films of Quentin Tarantino, or the plays of Martin McDonagh, the Puccini paradigm is more common. Shakespeare uses that inverse mirror-image idea a few times. In Troilus and Cressida, his anti-war play that starts off like a military-setting rom-com and somewhere during the interval turns on its head to become a bitter indictment of the ideas of eternal love and military chivalry. But that isn't about clarity, it's about using shock tactics for dramatic impact.

Maybe that's it. The sheer shock of going immediately from Yom Hazikaron to Yom Ha'aztmaut is so removed from our daily lives that both events stand out. They stay with you throughout the year. And so do their messages.

But there is also an obvious practical reason for having the happy event follow its sad precursor - it helps to ease the sorrow, it brings us out of these days, joined at the hip as they are, with hope and optimism. Ancient Greek actors used to end their tragedies with a comic event, for exactly that reason. And the great director Peter Brook wanting to emulate them at the end of a National Theatre Oedipus Rex, once unveiled an enormous on-stage model phallus. That is also pretty disconcerting. Yet nobody could accuse Peter Brook of being just your average shock jock.

Exposing 'legitimate' criticism

Gerald Steinberg — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:50:28 +0100

For 65 years, Israel has been the target of an intense political and ideological attack, in parallel to the shooting war, with the objective of isolating and delegitimising the Jewish state. In its current version, the main weapons include exploitation of labels such as "apartheid" and "racist". The battle tactics are copied from the South African anti-apartheid movement, and include BDS (boycotts, divestment and sanctions) campaigns, media blitzes that distort Israeli realities beyond recognition, and false accusations of "war crimes", such as the now-discredited Goldstone report.

The demonisation of Israel, in which context and history are erased, has gained support among humanitarian, human rights groups and in the media.

Entertainers such as Roger Waters have been recruited to join the boycott, giving it publicity. Among some powerful Christian groups, expressions of sympathy for "Palestinian suffering" at the hands of Israel emphasise theological antisemitic themes and images.

On campus, "Israel Apartheid Weeks" and a steady flow of speakers have spilled over into physical attacks against Jewish students and organisations.

At first, the Israeli government, as well as Zionist groups, was slow to recognise the threat and devise an effective response. Ten years ago, there were only a handful of high-profile columnists and pundits making the case for Israel, to use Alan Dershowitz's term. But fighting demonisation is now a high priority, and there are dozens of such writers. Many more are active on the digital battlefields. For the first time, Israel and its allies are on the field and putting up a fight.

In the process, the emphasis has gradually shifted from defensive to offensive, particularly by unmasking the unethical activities of those who claim a moral mandate. On campus, Israeli academics and top diplomats are active in challenging the crude propaganda. At the UN, the blatant double standards of the Human Rights Council stand exposed, in the contrast between automatic condemnations of Israel and minimal responses on Syria.

Officials of groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are belatedly being held to account, and displays of bias that were once overlooked now draw negative publicity, tarnishing their impact.

The efforts of BDS activists to export their successes in Europe to the US have failed, and surveys reflect positive overall images of Israel among students. Divestment resolutions quietly manoeuvered through student political groups have later been rescinded following detailed discussions. In North America, there is widespread recognition that BDS and other forms of demonisation cross the line between legitimate criticism and displays of antisemitism.

In Europe, while "apartheid" myths are entrenched, there's a slow decline in willingness to channel millions from government bodies to the "civil society" campaign groups. The pressure from responsible ministers and MPs to review the process is increasing.

Recently, the funders of Miftah, a Palestinian NGO headed by PLO spokesperson Hanan Ashrawi, were forced on the defensive following the publication of an article invoking the blood libel. Such negative publicity could help end funding for demonisers.

The Anglican church has needed to repeatedly justify the Synod vote to endorse the anti-Israel group, the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel, while the new Archbishop of Canterbury has distanced himself from that decision. And, while an employment tribunal ruled against Ronnie Fraser in his lawsuit charging the UCU with discrimination triggered by opposition to its anti-Israel agenda, the judgment's absurdity in the face of the evidence and critiques of the decision are significant. Each example shows that involvement in the political war against Israel is no longer cost-free.

After 65 years, the political war to delegitimise Israel and the Jewish right to sovereign equality continues. But in this war, as in the military dimension, there are signs of progress. Most importantly, victory depends on repeatedly exposing the immoral behaviour of those who single out Israel, using the pretence of "legitimate criticism".

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.

Ill-informed, dangerous, anti-Israel Jews

Naomi Shepherd — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 10:52:00 +0100

This is a bad time for those Jews outside Israel who are concerned both with the country's survival and for its fragile democracy. How far can they, should they, be involved in lobbying, criticising, protesting, visiting?

The last Israeli government made no bones about using American Jews for its political ends in Washington. So it is natural for Israelis who long for a coherent opposition to Netanyahu's new coalition - which has no programme for peace - to welcome criticism from Jews abroad who think as they do. But do diaspora Jews really share their agenda?

The diaspora today speaks with at least two voices. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee defends every move the Israeli government makes, and condemns dissident voices in the community. Strikingly, its leaders often ignore abuses in Israeli society against which they would protest vigorously in America - such as the established power of the Orthodox.

J Street, on the other hand, combines concerned criticism with involvement, and fights the growing disenchantment with Israel among the younger generation of Jewish Americans.

In this country, the Zionist Federation clearly fears disagreement with Israel's government - as the recent rejection of the anti-occupation Yachad indicates - while the New Israel Fund, like J Street, supports civil rights organisations in Israel and a host of other progressive causes. This, despite the hostility of the Israeli extreme right, which has tried, unsuccessfully, to ban its activities.

But there is a third voice to be heard today, one not coming from inside the Jewish establishment, and yet distinct from a general liberal critique. This is the voice of Jews prominent in the professions, the universities and the arts - in Britain and in Europe and the United States, some of whom have banded together to denounce the iniquities of the Jewish state.

With a few exceptions, the new critics have very little knowledge of either Israeli society or Middle East history and politics beyond what they can read in a daily newspaper. They see Israel in simplistic terms as a latter-day colonial state, and deplore what they see as a racist strain in Zionism. They are not just opposed to current Israeli government policies, as are many friends of Israel today, but to Zionism itself. And the reason for this - in the words of one manifesto - is "Jewish traditional support for universal freedoms, human rights, and social justice". They argue for a particularly Jewish universalism, and some maintain that the very notion of a Jewish state is anti-democratic.

Such critics may applaud the courage of Israeli protesters, as if Ha'aretz journalists, or those who gather weekly at Sheikh Jarrah and other sites were in daily danger of their lives or despatch to some Israeli gulag. Some call for boycotts of all Israeli professional visitors, including university teachers and musicians, and condemn those who visit the country to lecture and perform there. How did this come about?

The decision openly to break the consensus with the Jewish establishment had been growing for years, but escalated with the bombing of Gaza and the expansion of settlements in the West Bank. Most of the protesters had grown up in Britain as the occupation stabilised, and Israel's initial popularity with the European left wing was on the wane. Few members of such groups as Independent Jewish Voices or Jews for Justice for Palestinians are familiar with the country or know the language. With no base in the Jewish community here, their protests have no resonance in the Israeli media or public opinion, unlike the work of the Israeli activists who document the occupation on a daily basis.

Meanwhile, diaspora Jews' opposition to Israel's current policies has morphed recently into something far more radical - an attack on Zionism itself. At Jewish Book Week earlier this year, two packed-out events, attended very largely by young people -"European Diasporists Re-examine Israel" and "Parting Ways - Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism" - were evidence of this.

One speaker was Tony Lerman, former head of the Institute of Jewish Policy Research, whose recent book describes both his adolescent fantasies about Zionism and consequent disillusion, and a record of what he sees as his persecution by the Jewish establishment. Another was Judith Butler, the Berkeley philosopher with a much wider following, interviewed by Jacqueline Rose, the literary scholar known for her diatribes about Israel.

Butler claimed that Israel had abandoned, even "betrayed" Jewish values, though her remarks about the kaddish that evening suggested a distortion of even the most accessible prayer in the liturgy. The fear that Israel's actions might encourage antisemitism, hence the status and security of diaspora Jews, was scarcely mentioned, though Diana Pinto, who interviewed Lerman, has questioned whether Jews who "feel the need to protect" Israel might compromise their own legitimacy in democratic countries. The argument that non-Zionists represent Jewish ethics may well be an expression of such fears.

None of this is new. Jewish antipathy to Zionism did not begin with Israel's 1967 conquests and the question of Palestinian rights. The Jewish establishment in almost every European country in the early 20th century regarded the infant Zionist movement as a threat to its security as a minority, raising the spectre of dual loyalties and calling in question the Jewish communities' commitment to countries where they had fought for emancipation or found refuge. Jewish communists and Marxists saw Zionism as a challenge to their universalist or assimilationist sympathies. Zionism to them was parochial, symbolic of the ghetto they wanted to escape. Many Orthodox Jews argued that Zionism was contrary to Jewish teaching. The only new feature of anti-Zionism today is that some Jewish intellectuals have secularised the latter argument, but without the learning that underpinned it.

When the Holocaust aroused world sympathy for Zionism, and a differently constituted United Nations legitimised Israel as a home for post-war refugees (whom no other country wanted), Jews in countries that had escaped Nazism felt both admiration and relief. When Israel was perceived, at its birth, as in existential danger, few Jews in Europe and the US challenged one of the basic tenets of Zionism: Israel as a refuge for the persecuted. Diaspora Jews basked in the reflected glory of Israel's courage and stamina, especially when liberal opinion was on its side. But, today, Israel is increasingly an anomaly on the international scene, and the continuing occupation and settlement have made its current leadership abhorrent to most liberals - inside Israel and without. However, it is not just Israel's policies that are called in question today but the existence of the Jewish state and its "defensive ethnocentrism".

The Holocaust discredited antisemitism among intellectuals, and Jews with no particular interest in Judaism or Jewish communal life have until now been free to pick and choose the kind of Jewish identity they favour; stress their Jewish "origin" as an individual distinction, not as members of a community. For those of an earlier generation whom Isaac Deutscher called "non-Jewish Jews", Jewish nationalism was an unwanted challenge. In their different ways, both Hannah Arendt (much invoked now by Butler and others) and Arthur Koestler instinctively suspected Jewish nationalism: Arendt with her belief in a non-belligerent, non-nationalist federation of Jews and Arabs, Koestler by arguing that Jews now had the choice either to abandon their exclusive identity or to emigrate to Israel.

Intellectual Jews of a later generation, of whom the late Tony Judt (an admirer of Koestler and another disillusioned former Zionist) was the most distinguished, took refuge in the concept of a bi-national state. For lesser minds than Arendt, Koestler or Judt, the inevitable association of Jews with Israel has become an intellectual and social disadvantage. Hence the need of latter day "diasporists" or ex-Zionists to clear themselves of any complicity in what Israel does or represents.

Some may quote Israeli writers in contending that Israel once had humanist ideals it has since abandoned. But this is a misinterpretation of what Israeli liberals are saying today about changes in Israeli society. Israel was never the utopia of Zionist propaganda, and in many ways is today a far more open society than it was before 1967. Even the Palestinians in Israel today, the Israeli Arabs, while still far from equal, are better off; until 1966 they lived under military rule, which restricted their freedom of movement in a country of which they were only nominally citizens.

The Israel labour movement maintained a stranglehold on public life so that the so called "upheaval" of 1977 seemed to many a reversal of the natural order. Israel has changed as the make-up of its population has changed. Today, it is an often chaotic, complex immigrant society unlike any diaspora community, and its political make-up reflects that reality. Far from being a society of die-hard nationalists as its enemies maintain, the vast majority of Israelis are concerned not with ideology but with their standard of living. Even most settlers - those in the large blocs near the old frontier - were attracted by cheap housing, not annexationist slogans.

As for the bi-national utopia (at the Book Week talk Jacqueline Rose did not name "Israel" but "Israel/Palestine" - a fait accompli?), the post-Zionists praise the ideas of Ahad Ha'am, Martin Buber, Judah Magnes and Gershom Scholem, with little or no idea of their context. The tiny Brit Shalom movement, formed in 1925, whose views they quot, advocated bi-nationalism when the Jews in Palestine were a minority and seemed likely to remain one. This is just one example of the anti-'Zionists' blithe dismissal of both history and political reality. Even a cursory look at multi-ethnic states in the Middle East today indicates that a bi-national state in Palestine would be a recipe for even worse conflict.

If most Israelis support - in theory - the "two-state solution" it is not out of sympathy for the Palestinians, but because they do not want to be a minority in a country where Jews would again lose control of their own fate. This may be the best hope that, if offered sufficient guarantees, a majority would opt for withdrawal. As for the preservation of those universal Jewish values which the pious post-Zionists accuse Israel of having abandoned, these are better left for scholars of comparative religion to determine.

The challenge for Israel today is to end the occupation while ensuring its physical security in a hostile and unstable environment. The settlement movement, initiated or connived at by successive Israeli governments, has blurred the line between security and expansionism. Reversing the situation, however, does not mean rethinking the justification for a Jewish state, or finding ever more sanctimonious reasons to condemn it.

So if some Israelis, passionate critics of the occupation, assume that anti-Zionist Jews share their concerns, they harbour an illusion. Concerned such Jews may be with the fate of the Palestinians; they are far less concerned with the dangers awaiting Israel, whether it ends the occupation or not. It is not the strategic implications of a withdrawal from the West Bank that worry them, but the inevitable association of all Jews with the Jewish state. Zionism may well have divided the Jews historically, as much as it has united them. But, despite the differences between the diaspora and Israel, the world regards the Jews as one people, and will surely continue to do so.