Posts by Martin Bright

Farewell from a front-row seat at impressive displays of solidarity

Martin Bright — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:00:43 +0000

This is my last Bright on Politics column.

After three-and-a-half years at the JC, I will leave with a lump in my throat, so please forgive me if this piece is a little sentimental or, dare I say it, schmaltzy.

When I started work at the paper, some of my former colleagues warned me I was consigning myself to a backwater. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Even before I joined the paper I had always felt it to be a unique publication: an ultra-local community newspaper with global ambitions. From my very first days in the job, I found myself slammed into the middle of an international news story with serious implications for UK politics.

Conservative Friends of Israel had invited Michal Kaminski, the ultra-nationalist Polish politician to their annual lunch at party conference. David Cameron was already under fire for his alliance with a rag-tag grouping of hard-right parties in Europe, and the invitation caused serious divisions within the community.

Mr Kaminski was an avowed friend of Israel, but allegations of his past associations with Polish nationalism of a particularly unsavoury variety had led to serious questions about Mr Cameron’s judgment. After interviewing Mr Kaminski, I took the view that CFI and the Conservative Party had made a serious error. This put me in direct opposition to my own editor, as our two opinion pieces published at the time made clear.

This, to me, was the JC at its best — a passionate argument about an issue that really mattered, thrashed out in the pages of a paper that really cared.

Since then, it has been my privilege to be at the heart of the debate on universal jurisdiction, to have covered a general election for the JC, and to have tangled with those who would boycott and vilify Israel or appease extremist Islam — often the same people.

It has been a privilege to be the first non-Jewish political editor of this newspaper. My proudest moment came during the March of the Living when I stood with Daniel Taub, Israel’s ambassador to the UK, on the site of the British prisoner-of-war camp at Auschwitz. Together, we paid tribute to the British soldiers who had borne witness to the Shoah.

I have learnt much over the past few years. I have begun to understand the umbilical relationship between many British Jews and Israel, and their visceral reaction when it is attacked. I have grown to appreciate the many subtle and ingenious ways that antisemitism can express itself.

But, above all, I have been impressed and humbled by the community’s hard-won capacity for solidarity. I take this with me as a gift, and it is something you must never lose.

John Kerry's visit teaches Hague about patronising platitudes

Martin Bright — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:30:11 +0000

The new US Secretary of State, John Kerry, honoured the UK with a visit at the start of his first diplomatic tour in the post and dished out a lesson in how it feels to be a small nation patronised by a superpower. There was ample briefing in advance that the focus of his discussions with the UK government would be Syria and the stalled Middle East peace process.

But he still took the time to comment on the increasing tensions between Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands. He refused to be drawn on the issue of next month’s referendum of islanders about their preferred nationality and explained that although Britain was the de facto ruler of the territory, the question of sovereignty remained unresolved as far as the US was concerned. “We continue to urge a peaceful resolution of this critical issue”, he said. The British people can consider themselves told.

As Mr Kerry mouthed this hackneyed diplomatic formula, I hope our own Foreign Secretary pondered how many times he has allowed similar words to trip unthinkingly from his lips, how many times the Israeli and Palestinian people have had to listen to such platitudes? Now we know what it feels like.

We are told that 2013 is the crunch year for the Middle East (or at least the most important year since 2012). The change of government in Israel at least opens up the possibility of a new approach and it is clearly the intention of the new Secretary of State to refocus America’s foreign policy on old priorities.

For the UK this also provides an opportunity to develop a new approach. Mr Hague has expressed his deep frustration at dealing with Benjamin Netanyahu over the past few years and the bruises will take time to heal. But in its approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict Britain was hamstrung by the disengagement of the first Obama administration. The appointment of John Kerry suggests this may be about to change. But this is not enough in itself.

The UK knows there needs to be a shift away from rhetoric towards action. William Hague has said he now believes the two-state solution is in the balance. But it is not just the Israel-Palestine conflict that feels it has come to some sort of crisis point. This year the international community will have to decide on an approach to the Islamist winter that has followed the Arab Spring. The forthcoming talks on Iran involving the permanent members of the UN Security Council, and Germany, will give an opportunity to judge the success of the present diplomatic approach to reining in Iran’s nuclear ambitions On this issue, 2013 really could be the crunch year.

As Mr Kerry’s words urging a peaceful resolution ring in our ears, we can only hope he finds a more sophisticated approach to the far knottiest problems he will encounter.

Ward affair erodes support for LibDems after Tonge

Martin Bright — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:31:38 +0000

The David Ward affair continues to rumble on, driving a further wedge between the Liberal Democrats and the UK Jewish population. The party has acted to give the Bradford East MP what Nick Clegg has described as a "yellow card". But it is unclear what purpose this was intended to serve.

Mr Ward clearly believed what he said when he asked how the Jews could collectively inflict "atrocities" on the Palestinians just years after they had been released from the death camps. His comments remain on his website, which he has updated with various pieces representing him as the victim of a campaign of vilification bringing together a rare alliance of the Guardian newspaper and prominent members of the Jewish community.

Mr Ward now has the backing of Noam Chomsky and the New Zealand Palestine Human Rights Campaign, which claimed Karen Pollock of the Holocaust Educational Trust and Jon Benjamin of the Board of Deputies had proved the Lib Dem MP's point about the Jewish propensity for persecution by daring to criticise him.

Mr Ward was due to meet Nick Clegg on his return from Africa this week, but at the time of writing there was no news about whether his behaviour had yet been judged serious enough to merit a red card.

The Lib Dem leadership is in a difficult position. Mr Ward narrowly won his Bradford seat from the sitting Labour MP with the help of the anti-Zionist group MPACUK. If he were to be expelled from the party and decided to stand as an independent, it is quite possible he could win a Galloway-style victory in opposition to the traditional parties. By keeping him within the party, the Lib Dems know they could hold on to a valuable seat. The views of the UK Jewish community are largely irrelevant to such political calculations.

The David Ward affair has eaten away at the fragile goodwill Nick Clegg and others in the Lib Dem leadership have built up within the Jewish community in recent years. What they should now realise is that the case of Mr Ward is far more serious even than that of Baroness Tonge, a maverick who did not represent the views of mainstream Liberal Democrats. This is far from clear in the case of Mr Ward. As Nick Clegg told his phone-in listeners, many people have told him they believe he has already been too harsh on his MP.

Meanwhile, the Labour Party is beginning to develop a more sophisticated approach. Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander has recently come out of his shell and appeared at a public Q&A event at the London Jewish Cultural Centre, and addressed the Jewish Labour Movement. Mr Alexander has reiterated his party's opposition to the boycott movement, while retaining its critical stance on settlement building. This is a difficult intellectual balance to strike without being accused of hypocrisy, but there seems a determined push to build Labour support for bilateral relations on high-tech, higher education and innovation while remaining opposed to any move by the Israeli government viewed as damaging the prospects for peace.

Telling the truth about dialogue

Martin Bright — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:45:00 +0000

Last week, I chaired a debate on the vexed question of interfaith dialogue. Our brave co-hosts were the Jewish educational charity Spiro Ark and Harif, which promotes the history of the Jews of North Africa and the Middle East.

Heated doesn’t come close to describing some of the exchanges. But the most moving account of the evening came from Dr Muhammed Al-Hussaini, a fellow in Islamic studies at Leo Baeck College, who had been urged by some Muslims not to attend.

He spoke of the danger of creating an “interfaith industry”, which gave cover to those who seek political influence rather than genuine dialogue.

This debate around the interfaith “industry” can be confusing and calls for genuine clarity of thought to avoid dialogue merely for the sake of dialogue. This is why I welcome the publication this week by the Centre for Secular Space of Doublebind, by the American author Meredith Tax.

The subtitle, The Muslim Right, the Anglo-American Left and Universal Human Rights, captures the subject well.

There remains a determination on the part of some on the left in Britain and the US to maintain a dialogue with the worst authoritarian tendencies in the Muslim world. Ms Tax describes this relationship as “the love that dare not speak its name”.

The author defines the Muslim right as those whose aim is the creation of a theocratic state based on sharia law, even though the professed means may be democratic or educational.

And yet, as she explains, the traditional left continues to find excuses for dialogue with the various national incarnations of the Muslim Brotherhood. The British cheerleaders of this tendency include the Muslim Council of Britain, the Islamic Foundation and East London Mosque.

As Ms Tax points out: “The goal of all political Islamists… is a state founded upon a version of sharia law that systematically discriminates against women along with sexual and religious minorities.”

Those who wish the talking to continue should ask themselves what form a genuine dialogue takes with those who believe a state should be built on the rule of God rather than equal rights under the rule of law?

How the ‘pariah state’ conquered the hi-tech world

Martin Bright — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:30:00 +0000

This week, an American friend visited who had been in Israel for the elections. A veteran peace activist and trade unionist, she was here to talk to fellow liberal supporters of Israel about the boycott movement and how to fight it. Like others working in this troubled arena, my friend knows that Britain stands at the epicentre of an international campaign of delegitimisation. And yet, as she travelled between New York, London and Tel Aviv, she noticed something odd. The business lounges were buzzing with excited hi-tech entrepreneurs from the three countries, talking deals.

There is something distinctly odd about the way that Israel, this supposed international pariah state, is at the same time, “start-up nation” and held up as a model for hi-tech businesses around the world. The UK ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, has worked hard to establish a tech-hub in Tel Aviv, and the Labour Party front bench is making a point of learning from Israeli best practice.

But at home the boycott movement has been able to claim some high-profile victories, such as the closure of the Ahava cosmetics store in Covent Garden. As we report here, the Israeli company EcoStream may yet be forced to close its store in Brighton if increasingly violent demonstrations continue.

How has this bizarre state of affairs come to pass? Opponents of Israel might argue that it is entirely understandable that the UK political elite would wish to promote UK-Israel business, while grass-roots campaigners target those companies implicated in the oppression of Palestinian people.

Supporters of Israel need to recognise that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign has been canny in the targets it has chosen to maximise public consumer support on the ground.

Activists have focused on the fact that Ahava’s factory is over the Green Line at Kibbutz Kfar Shalem. They have used similar arguments about EcoStream, which has a manufacturing plant at the settlement of Mishor Adumim. The PSC also urges people not to take holidays in Israel and it would be interesting to see how much public support it would gain from boycotting popular low-cost airlines such as EasyJet, which fly to Tel Aviv.

But there is a reason for targeting Ahava and EcoStream: the argument that these companies promote the occupation is a persuasive one.

The talk of those hi-tech entrepreneurs in the business lounges may not often turn to boycotts. But Mr Gould has already made his views clear about the increasingly negative image of Israel in mainstream political discourse in the UK. His Israeli counterpart in the UK, Daniel Taub, has made it his personal mission to engage with the British left precisely because of the role this country plays in promoting delegitimisation.

Those who feel they can be complacent about the success of the UK-Israel trading partnership should ask themselves why there is no joint hi-tech hub in this country. They might also ask why there is not more high-profile Israeli investment in East London’s Tech City. And what would happen, if there were.

The week extremism became mainstream

Martin Bright — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:30:51 +0000

In January 2013, a watershed was reached in the history of anti-Zionism. Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD), a time for reflection and collective grief for the suffering of the victims of genocide, was overshadowed by two men.

First, LibDem MP David Ward drew a parallel between the death camps and the “atrocities” against the Palestinian people by “the Jews”.

Gerald Scarfe’s cartoon in the Sunday Times on HMD itself was, I am sure, a genuine attempt to criticise the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr Scarfe’s work is never pretty. It is sad that he did not realise that his cartoon was being published on HMD.

But it is shocking that he does not seem to have realised that, for many, it would contain echoes of the blood libel. As a cartoonist of some standing, it is to his shame that he did not feel that it might be seen as part of a long tradition of cartoons — prevalent in Nazi Germany and in the Muslim world today — that depict Jews as bloodthirsty.

But beyond the poor judgment of Mr Ward and Mr Scarfe, there is something more worrying taking root here. Anti-Zionism long ago passed the “dinner-party test” that Baroness Warsi quite rightly identified as applying to Islamophobia. I have lost count of the times otherwise liberal and intelligent people have said to me: “It must be fascinating working at the Jewish Chronicle, but how do you deal with the Zionists?”

When I raise the issue of Israel with my politics students on the journalism course I teach, there is always someone who equates Zionism with fascism.

This has been true for some time. What is different about January 2013 is that these ideas have seeped from the margins of politics, from dinner party prattle and the naïve, ill-informed politics of the student union straighr into the mainstream of British politics and journalism.

It is no surprise at all that Mr Scarfe produced a “grotesque” cartoon. That is what he does. Nor should he be stopped from expressing his view that Mr Netanyahu is building his country’s security on the blood of the Palestinian people, if that is what he thinks. What is worrying is that at no point did anyone at the Sunday Times who saw the cartoon, from the sub-editors and art department upwards, stop to say: “Gerald, are you sure about this?”. Mr Scarfe says he now regrets it, so presumably he would have welcomed someone pointing out the resonances. Somehow, it just slipped through.

The case of David Ward is more serious. For an MP casually to express views previously only found on the authoritarian left of British politics should be of concern to everyone. The cod psychology that links the treatment of the Palestinians under Israeli rule to the suffering of the Jews during the Shoah is insulting to both sides.

The only way to deal with casual prejudice is to confront it, which is precisely what the Jewish community did this week. The result is that the acting editor of the Sunday Times, Martin Ivens, made a gracious admission that a mistake had been made.

The Liberal Democrats may be a longer-term project but Mr Ward has at least been censured.

As for that tricky dinner-party question about working with Zionists, I usually reply: “I thought we were all Zionists. Aren’t you?”

UK may now have to reset its relationship with Israel

Martin Bright — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:30:00 +0000

The much-predicted hysterical lurch to the right turned out to be a sober march to the centre ground.

Israeli elections often produce surprises, but the results this week will have led to an unprecedented collective sigh of relief in Whitehall.

Ministers will wait until the post-election horse-trading is over before passing definitive judgment. But the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu used his first speech on Tuesday night to pledge that he will seek to build a broad-based coalition will give comfort to those in the British government who feared a hardening of the Israeli position.

There were genuine fears among supporters of Israel within the political class that the rise of Naftali Bennett and his pro-settlement Jewish Home party would prove irresistible. On election day itself, William Hague expressed his fears that the election of a hard-right Israeli government would end forever the hopes of a two-state solution.

But the powerbroker in the weeks to come will not be Mr Bennett, as expected, but Yair Lapid, whose Yesh Atid party fought on a platform of re-activating the peace process. This has the potential to change everything.

The fragmented nature of the Israeli political system can produce some paradoxes. Mr Netanyahu has been judged both too right-wing and too left-wing by his people. And although the result will be disappointing for him, if he succeeds in forming a coalition, he will be at its centre politically, which is where he would want to be. Although it has been the focus of Tzipi Livni’s Hatnuah party, the increasing isolation of Israel did not play a large part in the election.

However, from a UK diplomatic perspective, the Likud leader has had his wings clipped, which they will hope could make him a more willing partner on the international stage.

UK ministers will be secretly delighted that Mr Netanyahu has not bolstered his mandate. The post-colonial settlement means that Britain likes to know whether to defer to other nations or to patronise them. Israel does not fit this model, particularly with Mr Netanyahu at its head.

William Hague had grown frustrated at the consistent refusal of the Israeli prime minister to bow to international pressure on settlements. Until a new coalition is formed, it will remain unclear what the future implications are for this issue.

Conventional wisdom is the enemy of a sophisticated foreign policy. Mr Hague will have to move quickly to prove he hasn’t been wrong-footed by the Israeli electorate.

This election has forced a reality check on Benjamin Netanyahu, but the Foreign Office must not miss the opportunity to broker a new relationship with Israel.

Courageous campaigner is determined to reveal the truth

Martin Bright — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:15:01 +0000

Last week I had the honour of meeting Dr Richard Stone, the former chair of JCore, who sat on the panel of the Macpherson Inquiry into the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence.

He will shortly publish his memoir of the inquiry, Hidden Stories, which will provide a unique perspective on an extraordinary moment in late 20th century history.

At the end of a long working life, which included 20 years as a GP in Notting Hill as well as his time as an equality campaigner, Dr Stone could be forgiven for spending more time with his OBE. But he isn’t finished yet.

He is determined to tell how the work of the inquiry was undermined at every step, to divert attention away from the suspicion that there was corruption at the heart of the police investigation into the murder.

This involved alleged payments made to a senior officer by the criminal father of one of the suspects. The inquiry was devastating for the police, concluding as it did that there was “collective failure” and “institutional racism” within the Met. But unable to find any hard evidence of collusion between the police and the suspects, the inquiry officially found that there was “no corruption” involved.

It is now 13 years since the Macpherson Report was published and more than two decades since Stephen Lawrence was left in a pool of blood on the streets of Eltham.

It is almost exactly a year since two of the suspects in the murder, Gary Dobson and David Norris, were finally convicted of the crime. After the intervention of Home Secretary Theresa May last June, there will also now be an inquiry into the corruption allegations which have haunted Dr Stone for all these years.

And that will be that, finally we can all go back to living our lives, happy in the knowledge that institutional racism, police corruption and establishment cover-ups are the stuff of a previous, more primitive century.

Well, not quite. The fact that Stephen Lawrence’s brother, Stuart, is suing the Met for racially-motivated harassment would suggest that all is not yet well.

One of the issues Dr Stone will raise in his book is the role Whitehall officialdom took in undermining the inquiry. The new investigation into the corruption allegations only came about when it was revealed that a Scotland Yard report into the suspicions had been kept from Macpherson.

We will probably never know what else was withheld from the inquiry. A report to the London Mayor by the Met last May concluded: “There is no other material known to be held by the MPS which suggests that corruption or collusion in any way impacted upon the initial investigation in the murder of Stephen Lawrence.”

Meanwhile, the Liverpool Wavertree MP Luciana Berger has asked the Home Secretary why the correspondence files of the Macpherson Inquiry have not been placed in the National Archive along with all the other papers. It’s a good question.

The search for the truth in the Stephen Lawrence case has been too long and too painful. It is a tribute to the courage of the Lawrence family, the tenacity of journalists such as Vikram Dodd on the Guardian and campaigners such as Dr Richard Stone that the battle continues.

Community politics are not ghetto politics

Martin Bright — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:32:15 +0000

One of the first meetings I had when I took the job as political editor of the JC was with the Board of Deputies of British Jews. The chief executive and president were curious to know why a gentile had taken the job and who I believed I was writing for. At the time, I thought this a rather peculiar question as I thought one clue at least lay in the title of the newspaper.

I explained that, as a political journalist, I would hope to explain the goings-on at Westminster for a Jewish readership. I said I was sure UK Jews were interested in much the same political issues as everyone else: the education of their children, care of their sick and elderly, the security of their community, the protection of their culture and traditions. What I had not quite reckoned on, in my ignorance, was the place that international politics plays in the life of the community, and the visceral connection between British Jews and Israel.

As we enter 2013, I remain convinced that my initial instinct was correct and that community politics should not be the politics of the ghetto.

This week sees one of the regular meetings between the Prime Minister and Jewish leadership to discuss issues of concern to the community. I took the opportunity to ask someone close to these regular discussions what are likely to be the five big political issues for the community this year.

Three of the issues were inter-connected: Iran, the Middle East peace process and the assault on Israel’s legitimacy. It is plain that the growing danger of a nuclear Iran and the existential threat to Israel is something that will continue to exercise the Jewish community. The stance of David Cameron and William Hague has been firm and consistent on this and there is no reason to believe this will change.

There are no particular grounds for optimism either with regard to the Middle East peace process or the delegitimisation movement, and the British government can do little more than make reassuring noises.

A fourth international issue that should be of concern is the continued fallout from the Arab Spring. One consequence is the growing power of the Muslim Brotherhood in the region and the increased confidence of its cheerleaders around the world. At the same time, supporters of democracy in Britain and Israel should not lose the opportunity to reach out to genuinely anti-totalitarian voices in the Muslim world.

On the domestic front, faith-based education will continue to preoccupy the Jewish community. In particular, the Jewish leadership will be seeking reassurances from the government that the implementation of the Equality Act will not affect the ability of Jewish state schools to select on the basis of religion or charities to restrict their activities to the Jewish community.

One issue which unites and concerns all communities is the long-term care of the elderly. The LibDem care minister, Norman Lamb, has been trailing a decision on capping the costs of individual liability for some time. However, the government’s mid-term review this week was vague, merely stating that a decision would be made in due course.

Jewish charities have been pioneers in this area and the community representatives meeting David Cameron this week should be pushing for a swift announcement.

Why Israel has become a backbench obsession

Martin Bright — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:30:00 +0000

What are we supposed to make of last week’s JC story by my colleague Jennifer Lipman, which showed that MPs had signed up to 21 early day motions about Israel, compared to just eight on Iran, three on Egypt, two on Syria and just one on Libya?

For the uninitiated, early day motions, or EDMs, are an obscure piece of parliamentary business which call for a debate on the floor of the House of Commons, although, in practice they are more like mini-petitions from backbenchers on pet topics. They are important because they provide an insight into the interests (and obsessions) of individual MPs and an indication of the level of support among fellow backbenchers. The rules state that the motion must be expressed in a single sentence. Each EDM has a primary sponsor and can be signed by any number of backbenchers.

For those readers who are not versed in the mysteries of the early day motion, those focusing on Israel include EDM 57, congratulating the Co-Operative group on its decision to boycott Israeli goods, EDM 280, welcoming the report into the inquiry into Palestinian children in Israeli military custody, EDM 640, expressing concern at Israel’s threat to attack Iran, EDM 728 condemning Israel’s bombardment of Gaza and EDM 806 opposing Israeli settlement building.

One conclusion might be that MPs are simply reflecting the fact that Israel is the worst human rights abuser on the planet. But even Amnesty International doesn’t believe this to be the case. Under any objective measure, this is simply not true. The Freedom House Civil Rights index, which give countries a mark out of seven (one for the countries with best records and seven for those with the worst) gave Israel a two. Where are all the EDMs on Syria, Eritreia, Saudi Arabia and North Korea, which all scored seven on the Freedom House measure in 2012?

Another explanation for the disproportionate number of EDMs on Israel/Palestine might be that MPs recognise the importance of the conflict for the geopolitics of the region. Many of the motions express quite genuine, widely-held concerns. But this doesn’t quite get to the heart of the matter either. It is difficult to argue that developments in Egypt with the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, the killing of 30,000 civilians in Syria’s civil war or the nuclear threat of Iran should not be of equal or more concern.

In reality, this slew of EDMs is the product of a small number of MPs who make it their personal mission to attack Israel. A strange coalition has developed which contains Respect MP George Galloway, Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, Caroline Lucas of the Green Party, Liberal Democrat Bob Russell and Tories Peter Bottomley and Nicholas Soames.

Israel is not always innocent of the human rights abuse of which it is accused. Its government and military are not beyond reproach and British MPs should raise their concerns when they see fit. But perhaps MPs could use 2013 to become more even-handed in their condemnation, and inform themselves a little more about abuses happening elsewhere in the world.

UK Labour Party gets closer to its Israeli counterpart

Martin Bright — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:25:02 +0000

As the year draws to a close, there is really only one event in the forthcoming few weeks. The Israeli elections on January 22 have the capacity to define the geopolitics of the region. They will also define the relationship between Israel and the British political class. The performance of Likud will either provide Benjamin Netanyahu with the confidence he needs to continue to defy international opinion, or throw Israel into further uncertainty.

For Britain, and William Hague in particular, frustration has turned to exasperation. Relations hit a low point after Mr Netanyahu announced a new round of settlement-building in apparent retribution for the Palestinian decision to take its demands for enhanced status to the United Nations.

The Byzantine detail of Israeli politics — the apparent lurch of Likud to the right, the role of Yisrael Beitenu, the potential for Tzipi Livni’s new party, the future of Shas in any coalition — will barely register on the radar of most UK politicians. But that is not to say Israel itself doesn’t register. The UK’s ambassador, Matthew Gould, drew criticism last year for voicing the view that sympathy for Israel is waning on the centre ground of British politics. There is a real possibility that this tendency will continue in 2013.

One fascinating outcome of the elections could be the strengthening of the Labour Party under the leadership of Shelly Yachimovich. Polling suggests that the party could rise from the ashes of the 2009 election and the split that followed, and poll as many as 20 Knesset seats.

Though these are early days to suggest that Labour will once again be a force in the land, a sharp piece of analysis from Bicom’s Toby Greene suggests that Ms Yachimovich is focusing on the socio-economic situation to attract support from the social justice movement that saw thousands take to the streets in 2011.

The fragile and tentative revival of the Israeli Labour Party provides an opportunity for its British counterpart. For many supporters of Israel, Ed Miliband has not had the most auspicious of starts as Labour leader. His direct criticism of Israel in his conference speech of 2010 has been followed by a consistent position of support for the Palestinians’ unilateral bid for statehood. Ed Miliband would do well to forge a strong relationship with Ms Yachimovich in the year ahead, although his solidarity will be challenged should she enter into coalition talks with Likud after January 22.

But there are increasing signs that the British Labour Party is taking seriously its relations with Israel on a more grass-roots level. The hi-tech fact-finding mission organised by Labour Friends of Israeli is known to have had a profound effect on the senior trio of Liam Byrne, Chuka Umunna and David Lammy when they visited in October. Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls is due to make a follow-up trip and the Labour economic team is taking a strong interest in the relationship between hi-tech start-ups and the universities sector as a model for the UK.

The continuing after-shocks of the Arab Spring, the growing power of the Muslim Brotherhood in the region, the worsening situation in Syria, Iran and the toxic stagnation of the peace process — these giant, geo-political issues will all play their part in the politics of the year ahead for UK-Israel relations. If there is any optimism to be found, then it will be in new bilateral ties between the political class in Britain and Israel, such as those being developed by the Labour Party.

The good, the bad, and the very ugly - Martin Bright's 2012 political awards

Martin Bright — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:00:00 +0000

As the year end awards ceremonies proliferate, it is only appropriate that the JC should make its own set of honours.

In such a time of austerity there are no gongs as such and the event will not be televised, but here are the JC Political Editor’s Awards, some serious, some less so.

Jewish and Proud Award: Ed Miliband

The Labour leader has not always appeared comfortable with his Jewish identity, but he has now begun to talk publicly about his heritage as the son of refugees from fascism.

His journey began at the end of last year when Mr Miliband said he would not be here today were it not for Israel, where several members of his family settled.

His journey of discovery culminated in his conference speech in October when he talked proudly of his Jewish immigrant roots.

International Zionist Conspiracy Award: Conservative Friends of Israel

The CFI has always been one of the most powerful advocates for Israel on the British political scene.

This year it rallied support around the latest operation in Gaza and welcomed the Prime Minister himself to its business lunch.

In some circles, CFI director Stuart Polak is credited with near-supernatural powers of control and was named as part of the Sunday Times “Generals for Hire” investigation in October.

But if CFI is so powerful, how come William Hague is so off message? And puppetmaster Polak appears to have lost control of our man in Israel altogether.

Backbencher: Robert Halfon

The Harlow MP could equally have been nominated as the hardest-working man in parliament.

He has been a tireless campaigner on radical Islam and the funding of British universities by authoritarian regimes in the Middle East.

This year his campaign on fair petrol pricing persuaded the Chancellor to cancel a planned rise in fuel tax earlier this month. Surely it is only his spectacular corduroy suits which now stand in the way of further advancement.

Conspiracy Theorist: Jeremy Corbyn

In April Mr Corbyn called for an inquiry into the “Israel lobby” in Britain after the successful appeal of Raed Saleh, a leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, against moves to deport him.

The Islington MP sensed sinister forces at work within the Zionist-Tory nexus, while failing to spot anything at all dodgy in Mr Saleh’s comments about the blood libel, his description of homosexuality as “a great crime” or his perpetuation of the myth that that Jews were warned about 9/11 in advance.

Rising Star: Luciana Berger

Despite early suggestions that the former director of Labour Friends of Israel had abandoned her roots in search of a mainstream political career, Ms Berger has emerged as one of the genuine talents in the 2010 intake of MPs.

She has steadily established herself as shadow environment minister, challenging the government’s green credentials.

She has also made a point of campaigning on local issues as a Liverpool MP after criticism that she was a carpetbagger.

Politician of the Year: Margaret Hodge

There is no more prominent figure in British politics in 2012 than the formidable chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

Under Mrs Hodge’s leadership, the committee has fearlessly taken on the business world’s “masters of the universe” and often left them quivering in their boots.

The banks, welfare to work companies and more recently the tax-shy heads of multinationals Starbuck, Amazon and Google have all been given tongue lashings by this emboldened body.

Political Mensch: Matthew Gould

UK ambassador to Israel Mr Gould recovered from accusations of “dual loyalty” from Labour MP Paul Flynn to become key to establishing links between Britain and Israel’s high-tech industries — but has also warned Israel about the erosion of support on the centre ground of British politics.

This year Matthew Gould has proved he is very much his own man.

Muslim Tory MP: After Britain, Israel is best

Martin Bright — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:00:00 +0000

It is not often that the Prime Minister is upstaged when he is guest of honour at an official function. It is even more unusual when it is one of his own MPs who is responsible. But this is just what happened when Sajid Javid, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and MP for Bromsgrove, spoke at the Conservative Friends of Israel “business lunch” on Tuesday.

This annual jamboree has grown from humble beginnings to become one of the key events of the year for supporters of Israel. And each year one of the MPs who has been on a CFI delegation reports back to the gathering of funders and fellow parliamentarians. Usually this is a rather bland “what I did on my holidays” routine, but this year it was different.

Mr Javid, who described himself as a “proud British-born Muslim”, announced that if he had to leave Britain to live in the Middle East, then he would choose Israel as home. Only there, he said, would his children feel the “warm embrace of freedom and liberty”. For him, only Israel shared the democratic values of the UK.

Such a speech would have been easy for almost every other MP in the room to make. Conservative MPS are a conventional bunch and support of Israel is expected of backbenchers (most of the parliamentary party was there on Tuesday). But, for a British Muslim, this was an extraordinary and courageous intervention in the world of Israel advocacy. The fact that Mr Javid no longer practises and is married to a Christian wife will make him more, not less of a target for Israel’s detractors within the Muslim community.

Mr Cameron’s speech was one of his better ones. The prime minister is always more comfortable on domestic issues and even in foreign affairs he prefers talking trade to the hard end of diplomacy. So he talked about the support Jewish philanthropists had given to the government’s education agenda by funding schools. And he celebrated growing trade links between Israel and Britain.

And, in recognition of the success of Israel’s hi-tech sector, he announced the appointment of venture capitalist Saul Klein as the UK’s first tech envoy to Israel.

But Mr Cameron did not avoid the difficult issues. He urged Israel and its supporters to embrace the Arab Spring and the democracy it brought with it, touched on the thorny issue of settlements and reiterated the UK government view that the time was not right for an Israeli military strike on Iran.

Despite the UK government’s anger at the Netanyahu government over settlement building, the relationship between the Israeli establishment and the Conservative Party remains strong.

This was obvious from the genuine warmth of the speech given by Israeli ambassador Daniel Taub, who pointed out that only CFI could arrange such a “truly remarkable show of support” for Israel.

But, in terms of support, it is Mr Javid’s that will lodge in the memory. One MP on my table whispered that the Bromsgrove MP was being touted as a future prime minister. “Of Britain or Israel?” someone quipped.

Britain beginning to close its ears to Israel

Martin Bright — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 17:00:00 +0000

It comes to something when Conservative Friends of Israel is forced to issue a statement distancing itself from the position of a Tory-led government towards Israel. But even after the Foreign Office played down reports that William Hague was considering withdrawing our ambassador from Israel over plans to expand settlement building, CFI felt it necessary to issue a highly critical statement. Stuart Polak, its director, could not have been more forthright: “Britain’s response will only serve to inflame the already fragile situation in the region.” He went further still: “The UK risks permanently reducing our ability to play a positive and supportive role in the peace process.” This is strong stuff.

Mr Polak is a past master at arguing the case that this government is devoted to Israel. On universal jurisdiction, Iran and Israeli intervention in Gaza, ministers appear to have done him proud. According to the CFI narrative, David Cameron and his senior ministers are convinced and passionate friends, and all but a few mavericks on the Tory benches are full-square behind Israel. In the debate on Gaza, more than 20 Tory MPs spoke in favour of Israel and in support of the government’s position that Hamas was responsible for the escalation of the violence.

Cracks began to show when CFI issued a statement earlier this year condemning UK ambassador Matthew Gould for comments he had made about the shift of support in the UK away from Israel. It now looks more than ever that Mr Gould was stating the obvious.

Mr Hague’s main focus has always been Iran. At times, this has led him to be blindsided on other issues, for example when he cultivated a relationship with Bashar al-Assad in the mistaken belief that the Syrian dictator could persuade the Iranians back from the nuclear brink.

He has learnt quickly that it is impossible to neatly compartmentalise countries or issues. The Foreign Secretary now warns of a “perfect storm” for 2013, with a potential intensification of the crises in Iran, Syria and the Middle East peace process, an issue he raised at last month’s meeting of Arab League and EU foreign ministers. It didn’t seem possible that Israel could be more isolated than after the vote in the United Nations in favour of recognising Palestine as an “observer state”.

The announcement by Mr Netanyahu has achieved this.

The Israeli PM has since felt it necessary to clarify to the Americans what he meant. He pointed out that the 3,000 new homes had been authorised in existing Jewish areas of east Jerusalem and existing settlements. The controversial announcement on the E1 development had “only” received planning approval, he added.

These details matter, but only if someone is listening to the arguments — and even the British government is beginning to close its ears.

For many years, the UK Jewish leadership and advocacy organisations have been keen to argue that the international community should not make a fetish of settlements but instead prioritise a return to negotiations.

It is no longer possible to argue that settlement-building is an irrelevance. The Israeli logic may be sound but it makes no odds if no one else accepts that logic. Settlement-building matters because the UN says it matters, the US says it matters, the UK says it matters and the EU says it matters. It also matters to the Palestinians.

UN bid throws party positions into sharp relief

Martin Bright — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:30:10 +0000

What a difference a year makes. Last September, Ed Miliband marked a definitive break with his party’s pro-Israel New Labour past by backing the Palestinian bid for an upgrade to their status at the United Nations. At the time this seemed precipitous and naive. He backed a bid that President Abbas had not yet decided to make and was made to look foolish when the Palestinians themselves backed off.

Now Mr Miliband finds himself in a very different position. He was able to wrong-foot David Cameron at Prime Minister’s Questions last week by asking him to set out the government position as it stood in advance of this week’s vote. The PM’s hesitant answer was underwhelming. A year on, Mr Miliband’s support for the bid starts to look prophetic.

What has changed is the position of Mahmoud Abbas himself. As I write, a day in advance of the proposed vote, the Palestinian President really seems to mean it this time. Last year, the UK government’s cautious “wait and see” approach was entirely reasonable. Why jump before the Palestinians themselves? The new UK position is not entirely inconsistent. But it is necessarily far more complicated. By attaching conditions to UK support for the bid, Foreign Secretary William Hague has rather cunningly gave himself an escape route. If the Palestinians refused to meet his conditions he could say he supported the bid in principle. If they agreed to conditions, he could claim a great diplomatic coup.

To those unfamiliar with Middle East politics, the difference between the PLO’s existing “observer status” at the UN and Palestine being a non-member “observer state” must seem absurdly technical. But this stuff matters, especially if the new designation gives access to wider UN institutions such as the International Criminal Court — something Mr Hague is keen to thwart.

But in everything to do with Middle East peace there is a tendency either to over-complicate or over-simplify matters. Neither is particularly helpful.

There is another way. I returned this week to a paper written when the issue of Palestinian statehood came to the fore late last year. “The Declaration of Palestinian Statehood: An Unparalleled Political Opportunity?” was produced by the Reut Institute, a “right-wing” Israeli think tank. The paper argued that Israel should embrace the Palestinian bid and suggested it could be turned to Israel’s advantage by cementing the two-state solution as the only game in town, demonstrating to Israel’s allies that it was committed to the peace process and lowering the prospects of military confrontation.

A year on, all the initiative lies with President Abbas, Israel is increasingly isolated at the UN, the UK government has been forced to shift its position. And Ed Miliband begins, dare I say it, to look a little bit statesmanlike.

With Cameron, it’s all about the economics

Martin Bright — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:10:46 +0000

If you want to understand UK foreign policy in the Cameron era, the government’s reaction to events in Gaza is enlightening. Following William Hague’s statement to Parliament on Tuesday, there can be no doubt about the UK government’s position as to where the blame lies for the fresh outbreak of violence. The Foreign Secretary’s words have been unequivocal since the conflict began: Israel has a right to defend itself from Hamas rocket attacks.

He has been equally clear in pressing for a “de-escalation” of the conflict and, in particular, urging Israel not to launch a ground invasion.

The rhetoric is all very well. But it merely draws attention to the extent that the UK has disengaged from conventional diplomacy in the Middle East.

Ed Miliband was right to ask the Prime Minister what his government was doing beyond the rhetoric. Is it any surprise that we have no influence when David Cameron has shown such little interest? He has not visited Israel since becoming Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary has visited just once. His answers to Ed Miliband showed a basic grasp of the geo-politics and he defended his decision not to back a unilateral Palestinian UN bid for statehood. But there were no new ideas and no sign of genuine curiosity about the region.

The arrival of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Cairo for talks on Wednesday only drew attention to the fact that we are simply irrelevant to this process.

How has this happened? Has the UK government simply drifted into becoming mere bystanders in the Middle East? Or was this disengagement a conscious decision to break with the doctrine of humanitarian intervention from the Blair era?

Clues can be found in David Cameron’s Guildhall speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet earlier this month. Traditionally, this annual event is used to outline Britain’s foreign policy priorities. But Mr Cameron has always been uncomfortable talking about foreign affairs. He is a domestic politician to his very core, schooled in the Westminster village and steeped in the parochial, Little Englander instincts of his party. This is why he turned his Guildhall address into a defence of the British banking industry

But it was more than that. It was the first tentative attempt to outline a “Cameron Doctrine”. He told the gathering that he wanted to make “a different kind of speech”, because he had done something different with foreign policy.

“I have given it a new commercial focus,” he continued. “When I became prime minister, I said to our diplomats in the Foreign Office: ‘I don’t just want you to be political ambassadors for Britain, I want you to be economic ambassadors, too.’”

At the heart of the Cameron Doctrine is this simple message: “Now, I know there are some people who say that’s not real foreign policy or worse still, it’s just globe-trotting. But I say there is a global race out there to win jobs for Britain and I believe in leading from the front.”

Those wondering why the British government is not more actively engaged with events in Israel and Gaza need look no further than the Cameron Doctrine: not an ethical foreign policy, not humanitarian intervention, more the commercial imperative.

UK government reiterates Hamas responsibility in escalation of violence

Martin Bright — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:32:13 +0000

Foreign Secretary William Hague used a statement in parliament on Tuesday to reiterate the UK government's view that Hamas should bear the principal responsibility for the escalation in violence in Gaza over the past week. The statement came as Israel announced it was suspending plans for a ground operation to allow talks in Egypt to take place to secure a truce.

"We have made clear both that Hamas bears principal responsibility for the start of the current crisis, but also that all sides have responsibilities," he said. "We quickly called on Israel to seek every opportunity to de-escalate their military response, and to observe international humanitarian law and avoid civilian casualties. At the meeting I attended in Brussels yesterday EU Foreign Ministers condemned the rocket attacks on Israel and called for an urgent de-escalation and cessation of hostilities."

Mr Hague urged Israel not to embark on a ground offensive and give time to let negotiations bear fruit: "We have also warned that a ground invasion of Gaza could lengthen the conflict, sharply increase civilian casualties, and erode international support for Israel’s position.

"We wish to see an agreed ceasefire that stops the rocket attacks against Israel and ends Israeli military operations."

Middle East Minister Alistair Burt arrived in Israel for talks on the crisis in Gaza on Monday and immediately headed for Kiryat Malachi in southern Israel to visit a family bereaved in a Hamas missile attack. During a three-day visit he also met members of the Israeli government and UN officials and local NGOs to discuss the humanitarian situation in Gaza. He also blamed Hamas for provoking the crisis and urged it cease the rocket attacks on Israel immediately.

"Today I have seen for myself the impact of this conflict, and the terrible toll and suffering it is inflicting on families and communities across Israel," he said. "Coming here has given me a sense of what life is like for people under attack, and the appalling devastation that rockets attacks bring. The people in villages, towns and cities across Israel have the right to live without the constant fear of rocket attacks."

"The UK calls on Hamas, who bear principal responsibility for starting this round of violence, to stop the rocket attacks. Doing so would bring the violence most quickly to an end. But there are also responsibilities on Israel and, as the number of casualties in Gaza increases, we continue to urge Israel to do all it can to de-escalate the situation, to minimise civilian casualties, and to give mediation efforts a chance to succeed."

Meanwhile, David Cameron and Mr Hague concentrated their efforts on Egypt. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary offered their full support to the Egyptian Government in their efforts to mediate a ceasefire.

Mr Hague told the BBC Today programme on Friday: "The biggest contribution to ending this would be for Hamas to stop launching the rockets and then to take control where other people are launching rockets at Israel. But we do stress – and the Prime Minister has stressed this when he spoke to the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr Netanyahu, last night – that we do want Israel also to take every opportunity to de-escalate... and Israel does have to bear in mind that it is when ground invasions have taken place in previous conflicts that they have lost international support and a great deal of sympathy around the world. So... there is a cautionary lesson from previous ground invasions on that”.

Unison in unison with Department of Health

Martin Bright — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:30:25 +0000

Across the country, strikes are being organised in the heath service by public sector union Unison. Just this week, the union described plans to cut 50 per cent of nursing staff at NHS Direct as a “disaster”. The Department of Health and Unison are effectively at war. All the more bizarre then, that they are united in their fight against Moty Cristal, an Israeli conflict resolution expert, whose invitation to run a workshop at Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust was withdrawn in May.

I have tried this week to discover why Unison and the Trust have decided to prioritise fighting an expensive legal case during such straitened times. Neither was prepared to comment while the case was ongoing. This is patent nonsense: this is not a criminal trial and there is no jury to prejudice. But I can understand their reticence. It must be extremely embarrassing that a rare point of common ground between NHS managers and Unison is their determination to justify boycotting a respected international expert, simply for being an Israeli. Meanwhile, the Department of Health and ministers have thus far refused to intervene for fear of further inflaming Unison.

The relationship between the Jewish community and the trade union movement has reached a new low with the Moty Cristal case and that of Ronnie Fraser, who has taken the University and College Union (UCU) to employment tribunal over allegations of institutional antisemitism.

The work of the beleaguered Trade Union Friends of Israel continues. The organisation held a well-attended annual dinner last week and a delegation will fly out to Israel on Sunday. But there is a sour feeling in the air and patience has been tested on both sides. Outgoing TUC general secretary Brendan Barber has always drawn the line at support for a boycott of settlement goods and has worked hard to prevent British trade unions from sliding into an outright boycott of Israel. But there are those in the TUC leadership who wish the issue would go away — and believe the Jewish community has become “bogged down” in the boycott issue.

But, like Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Mr Barber has decided to keep his head down over Moty Cristal. Perhaps they think if they avoid the issue it will just go away, or that it is an obscure matter unworthy of their attention. But their hand may yet be forced when the case comes to court. Moty Cristal is by profession a skilled negotiator and, as such, he knows his demands must be very clear and very reasonable. All he wants is an admission of wrongdoing from the health trust and the union and an assurance that it won’t happen again. This will cost them nothing. The alternative is potentially very expensive indeed in terms of hard cash and reputations.

Messrs Hunt and Barber could stop this nonsense now.

Will the community go on riding the bus with Denis?

Martin Bright — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:30:00 +0000

Denis MacShane was a politician of passionately held convictions whose career ended in the most humiliating fashion.

The Commons Standards and Privileges Committee found that his abuse of the expenses system was the “gravest case” called to its attention.

Most painful of all, for this veteran campaigner against fascism and antisemitism, was the fact that his original accusers were the British National Party.

Mr MacShane has apologised for his “foolish mistakes”. He remains upset that, in his view, he was judged so harshly for the way he submitted false claims for his work in Europe and in fighting antisemitism.

There has been understandable anger at Mr MacShane’s apparently casual attitude to the use of public money for his own personal projects, however admirable the causes may be.

The media lawyer Mark Stephens leapt to his friend’s defence and warned of the danger of handing a high-profile scalp to fascists. This is indeed a risk.

Denis MacShane’s fall from grace has been a blow for those who share his concerns about extremist politics, whether it is radical Islamism in the Middle East, neo-fascism at home or the rise of ultranationalist groups in Eastern Europe.

He has been an eloquent voice on these issues and it is in no one’s interest, apart from his enemies, that he will no longer be able to pursue them in parliament.

Readers of the JC will know what a good friend Denis Macshane has been to the Jewish community. His chairmanship of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism was exemplary and established beyond doubt that prejudice against Jews remained a very real phenomenon in modern Britain and Europe.

Since the inquiry published its report six years ago, Mr MacShane has remained vigilant in monitoring the situation. His resignation does nothing to undermine this groundbreaking work, nor should it deter others from taking up the cause he championed.

He recognised that his parliamentary career was over as soon as the Commons committee reported its findings — and he was right to resign. He was more than cavalier in his attitude to expenses.

The Jewish community has lost a champion in parliament and, like all Mr MacShane’s friends, people will feel disappointed by the manner of his leaving the House of Commons. But I know he will continue to battle against antisemitism because he doesn’t know how to stop campaigning.

It is not often that I find myself quoting Oprah Winfrey. But she once said: “Lots of people want to ride with you in the limo, but what you want is someone who will take the bus with you when the limo breaks down.”

Will the Jewish community take the bus with Denis MacShane? It is at such times that friendships are truly tested.

Israeli professor to sue Manchester health trust

Martin Bright — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:15:00 +0000

An Israeli professor who was dropped as a speaker by the Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust said this week that he wanted a public acknowledgment of the discrimination against him.

Professor Moty Cristal, an expert on negotiations and conflict resolution, was formally disinvited from a seminar in Manchester in May with less than a week’s notice.

Unison, the partner organisation for the seminar, told the NHS Trust that its members would not take part in anything run by the Israeli academic. He had been due to give a master class on conflict resolution in health-care.

On Wednesday, Prof Cristal flew to London to talk to lawyers about taking legal action. It now looks likely that the case against Manchester NHS Trust and Unison will be heard in a county court.

Prof Cristal told reporters: “I came here to assess the legal situation. Now I am even more convinced that I am going to pursue the action in the county court.

“It is the right thing to do to fight the delegitimisation movement. I was boycotted because I am an Israeli. As a negotiator, I will pursue the action until a decent offer is put on the table”.

He wanted two things, he said: “Public acknowledgement of the wrongdoing of discrimination against me as an Israeli — and the public assurance that this will not be repeated.”