I was on a train journey to Manchester, and I shared a compartment with two solemn-looking gentlemen who were discussing a Middle Eastern political issue. One of the gentlemen, well fortified, I noticed, by a number of political and financial journals, said importantly; “The point is, Sir, what are the Jews going to do?” |
This article was written by Louis Golding on the 21st January 1949. It is as interesting and relevant today as it was almost 70 years ago.
"The point is, Sir, what are the Jews going to do? After all, an Englishman’s only got one way of looking at the thing, but a Jew’s got two. Dual loyalty, you know.” His companion pursed his tips and nodded his head in agreement. Apart from my indignation at the suggestion that Englishmen were blinkered like cart-horses, I was also annoyed at the implication, conveyed by a definitely disapproving tone of voice, that dual loyalty implied disloyalty. Here was I, a perfectly good Englishman and a perfectly good Jew, being insulted in both roles. I thought about this matter a good deal for the rest of the journey. |
The ‘Middle Eastern political issue’ was the forbearer of most ‘Middle Eastern political issues’ to date – the formation of the State of Israel.
When, therefore, the new State of Israel was proclaimed a few weeks later, I was not unprepared for the issues it raised. Only a fool would deny that there exists, at the moment, a serious political difference between Britain and the young Jewish State. Mr Bevin’s policy in the Middle East is undisguisedly pro-Arab and anti-Jewish. |
And here comes the important part.
It is not merely a question of where one's loyalty lies, geographically or otherwise. Every civilised human being has his dual, even triple or quadruple, loyalties. He has loyalties to his family, his country, and, perhaps, the greatest of all, to humanity at large. Sometimes these conflict. On these occasions the civilised man is guided by his respect for truth, honesty, and what he considers to be righteousness. That is the sort of thing that has made it possible for Englishmen who love their country to be conscientious objectors in time of war. In the same sort of way, although in a less momentous spirit, it is the sort of thing that makes it possible for an English Jew like myself to say that Bevin’s policy has been wrong, even chimerically wrong. I am equally prepared to say that Moshe Shertock’s policy is wrong when I disagree with it; though I hold myself an Israeli in a racial sense as an English Roman Catholic in a religious sense might hold himself an Italian. In other words, it is more important for Mr Shertok to make sure his policies are approved by an Israeli Arab than by an English Jew. We all have to function politically within our different national boundaries. Emotionally, too, we are united to the countries in which we were born and whose language, culture, tradition and landscape have become native to us. |
And finally:
| Today we are Englishmen, Frenchmen, Russians or Israelis. Tomorrow there may be a European Union, and we shall be English Europeans, French Europeans, and so on. Many people are of the opinion that this would be a desirable dual loyalty. |
Well, that last point is debatable – 50/50 here in the UK. The European Union came into being in 1993, almost 50 years after this article was published. 25 years later, we want out. Brexit is here.
Which loyalties do you have? How do they conflict? Is dual loyalty bad, good, or just reality? I’ll leave you to answer that yourself.
Rivka Goldblatt is a genealogist specialising in Jewish family history. Her website is www.jewishfamilyresearch.com
