Great rally, small crowd
The Campaign Against Antisemitism called a rally on December the 8th in Parliament Square. Among the speakers were some well-known personalities. All were eloquent and spoke movingly about the problems faced by the Jewish community in the UK. I have found no reference to the rally on any of the main media sites (except those of the JC and Jewish News). They perhaps assume that the wider public have heard enough of this over recent months.
Disappointingly, however, only about 3,000 turned up in support, many of whom were not Jewish and some of whom had travelled quite far to attend.
Around 170,000 Jews live in Greater London, of whom perhaps 100,000 are adults. Of these, we are told that over 40 per cent feel uncomfortable with much of the current political discourse to the extent that many have thought about leaving the country.
In the event, only a meagre three per cent of this “concerned” group bothered to give up a couple of hours on a Sunday afternoon to show support.
If the Jewish community is not exercised enough to turn up, why should the wider public show concern?
Maurice Doffman
London N3
May I, as a Christian priest, congratulate all those who organised the national rally in Parliament Square. It was a wonderful event and the speakers were excellent. What will always remain with me is the warmth of the welcome I received from so many Jewish people. There is no doubt that together we can defeat antisemitism, and I would like to assure your readers that in our churches there are plenty of us who will stand shoulder to shoulder with you in fighting against this monstrous evil.
The Reverend Dr Jim Wellington
Newark
Land disputes
Ben Weich’s article about the talk given by Naomi Linder Kahn of Regavim (JC, December 6) paints a skewed picture of both UK Lawyers for Israel and Regavim.
I am a supporter of UK Lawyers for Israel, which does a huge amount of good work, using the law and legal action against attempts to undermine, attack and delegitimise the state of Israel and Israeli organisations.
UKLFI is a voluntary organisation of UK lawyers and a registered UK charity. It is not aligned with any particular political viewpoint or party in the UK or Israel. It uses appropriate legal action, for example action against Kuwait Airlines, which refused to sell a ticket to an Israeli woman, and it played a major role in defeating the Palestinian attempt to get the Israeli football association suspended from FIFA. There are many other examples. UKLFI’s invitation to Naomi Linder Kahn to speak on the purely legal land issues in Israel and the West bank is, in no sense, a demonstration of the “depths of the moral crisis in our community when it comes to the occupation [of the West Bank]”.
I am not a supporter of Regavim, but I attended the event on December 1 to hear what Naomi Linder Kahn had to say. It seems that neither Josh Cohen of Na’amod, nor any other member of Na’amod attended the talk. Had they done so, they would have heard the speaker describe the activities of Regavim and would have been able to ask questions. Instead, they stood outside the venue, making a noise and using megaphones in an attempt to disrupt the speaker. Incidentally, there was no “blockade” of the venue. I was not impeded, nor was I aware of any other attendee being prevented from entering the venue.
The allegation by Josh Cohen that Regavim “doesn’t just support the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Israel and the West Bank, it is actively engaged in efforts to make this happen” is ill-informed, irresponsible and defamatory. As is well known, the West Bank is divided, in accordance with the Oslo Accords, into three areas and a nature reserve. In Area A, the Palestinian Authority has full civil and security control. In Area B, there is Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control. In Area C, there is full Israeli civil and security control. Any building construction in Area C requires a permit from the Israeli authorities. Naomi Linder Kahn told us that Regavim monitors illegal building activities of both Palestinians and Israelis in Area C and institutes court action in appropriate cases.
The actions of some Palestinian groups to construct buildings on land within Area C of the West Bank, without permission from the Israeli authorities in accordance with the Oslo Accords is simply unlawful. Naomi Linder Kahn said there is evidence of some 173 instances of illegal settlement building by the Palestinians in Area C. The fact that Regavim provides evidence of this unlawful activity and takes action in some cases does not amount to “ethnic cleansing”.The use by Josh Cohen of such emotive and inflammatory language damages the cause of peace and harms Na’amod’s own cause.
That land may well become part of the territory of a Palestinian state when that state is established under an overall peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. In the meantime, the monitoring of illegal construction in Area C is perfectly legitimate. I will gladly attend a public presentation by Na’amod to hear any argument that the construction by Palestinians of buildings in Area C is lawful. I will then be in a position to come to an informed conclusion
Joe Cohen
London N3
Where’s the care?
Simon Rocker’s recent piece on the tragic case of “Dina” brings to the fore uncomfortable truths about issues that affect us all regardless of denomination, faith or family background.
The Jewish community is hopelessly inept at providing the support structures for families and individuals who become caught up in the hideous and twilight world of drug dependency and the criminality that can ensue — and the huge ripple effect this all has on families.
At one time, Chabad Drugsline did a phenomenal job, and there are a few caring prison chaplains, but the community has failed abysmally in acknowledging the problem, and thus there are no proactive Jewish community services to provide help and support, no safe and secure accommodation for those who desperately need it.
In a rapidly changing world, the Jewish community has to wake up and take on the challenge. A good place to start is through re-establishing a comprehensive wrap-around service built on the success of Chabad Drugsline. An accessible and non-judgmental service that can liaise with families, communities, schools and individuals, establish educational programmes, drop-in centres, safe “houses” and support groups.
We all owe this to “Dina” and those countless others and their families who continue to suffer in silence.
Laurie Rosenberg
Woodford Green
History and hyperbole
In his book, Jewish Emancipation, David Sorkin argues that the Nazi genocide and modern Israel are “epiphenomena” of Jewish history, while the “ neglected” event of Jewish “emancipation” remains its principal foundation. In his review (Books, November 29), Professor Bernard Wasserstein says these assertions are “provocative”. I would add that the first verges on Holocaust denial, the second on historical denial and the third on hyperbole.
Was the murder of half the world’s Jewish population within four years of Nazi occupation to be remembered as an “epiphenomenon”?
While the era of emancipation brought great freedom and an explosion of secular creativity, it did weaken religious life and cohesion as well as imbuing us with a false sense of security against antisemitism.
Specifically regarding Israel, for good and ill, the effect on Jewish life has been immense. Other than seriously aggravating antisemitism, within 70 years of existence, Israel is currently ranked eighth of the world’s most powerful 195 nations, even though its population is a fraction of every one of the others in the ten most powerful. In this same period it has already contributed so much to the well-being of humanity through its outreach services and technical know-how? Are these achievements just Jewish “epiphenomena”?
(Sorkin’s view of a wilting Israeli democracy, however, has more merit but still needs to be seen as part of a more general political process).
A more balanced overall view of Sorkin’s three major assertions on the Shoah, Israel and Emancipation, might be to contextualise them within the more expansive epic sweeps of Jewish history over the past three-and-a-half thousand years. The first period would be the emergence of the Jewish people from the sojourn of Abraham from Mesopotamia to their flourishing settlements in ancient Egypt. The second, would be their exodus from the slavery of Pharaonic Egypt to the conquest of Canaan. The third — the destruction of Judea and its temple by Rome and the creation of a world-wide diaspora. The fourth — a progressive ghettoisation and emancipation from the 16th to 19th centuries. The fifth would be from the rise of late-19th to early-20th century antisemitism culminating in the Shoah, to the creation of modern Israel.
I would wager that, in a 1,000 years, people will still ask about the Nazi Holocaust: “What happened to humanity then”? And of the state of Israel: “Against such odds how was it possible?”
Dr Stanley Jacobs
London SW18
Arab apartheid?
David Swift, in his opinion column (JC December 6) described the Israeli settlements as “one of the main impediments to peace”.
Really? The Palestinians have been offered at least five times a state of their own — even before “the settlements” and they rejected all of them. No one said the Jordanian “occupation” of the West Bank was an impediment to peace.
Israel has over 20 per cent non-Jewish citizens. Why is “Palestine” or any other Arab country, free of Jews? Is this not apartheid?
Nitza Sarner
London NW8
