3 min read
ByHannah Weisfeld, Hannah Weisfeld
In 2016, the Oxford English Dictionary made post-truth its word of the year, defining it as relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.
Writing in last week’s JC, David Collier wrote that UN resolution 2334, which heavily criticised Israeli settlement building, did not subscribe to the “land-for-peace formula” as peace was nearly entirely missing from the equation.
The resolution has one clear request vis-à-vis the settlements: stop building. In fact, it makes it perfectly clear it will recognise land swaps and territorial compromise “agreed by the parties through negotiations”. The resolution demands immediate steps to prevent acts of violence and for all parties to “exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations” in order to achieve a “just and lasting peace”.
Clearly Mr Collier has a personal belief that the UN resolution is not a positive step, which is entirely his right. But the facts of the resolution simply do not support his criticism.
Mr Collier also alluded to the 2015 City University research into British Jewish attitudes towards Israel, which was funded by Yachad, and undertaken by a group of academics and Ipsos Mori. The research highlights significant hostility from British Jews with regard to the settlements.
Mr Collier’s conclusion is that the research must not be impartial because he believes two out of three of the academics have views similar to that of the funding body.
No mention was made that Professor Steven Miller, the lead academic who compiled the research, is the senior research adviser to the Institute of Jewish Policy Research, making him possibly the most experienced academic researcher of Jewish opinion in the UK, or the lengthy explanation given in the final report to the detailed weighting of the data that took place to ensure it was as representative as possible.
Also ignored was the involvement of Ipsos Mori, who checked all the questions and undertook entirely independent data collection. It appears none of these facts were relevant to Mr Collier’s conclusions.
What appears to lie at the heart of removing facts and presenting opinion as objective truth is a desire to belittle or even shut down others with whom you do not agree.
This is of course not restricted to the pages of the JC. At the Board of Deputies plenary meeting last Sunday, a small group of deputies asked president Jonathan Arkush to take steps to remove Yachad from the Board for actively supporting UN Resolution 2334.
In response, Mr Arkush castigated Yachad for taking its view directly to the British government, suggesting the organisation should have written to him and he would have relayed this position.
Yet in the community briefing issued by the Board he is quoted as having expressed to the Middle East minister Tobias Ellwood in a private meeting “the community’s deep concerns and disappointment about the recent United Nations Security Council resolution”.
No mention was made of the “range of views” he referred to at the plenary, even though if one watches the livestream, it is clear there are a significant numbers of deputies who do not agree with his opinion.
Mr Arkush argues that those with whom he does not agree represent small numbers. In reality, short of conducting a survey of British Jews, no one really has any idea what the community thinks of any one specific issue.
He suggested Yachad’s support in the community is small, proven by the fact that the Board of Deputies had to vote affirmatively to admit the organisation by two-thirds majority.
Of course, anyone involved in the vote to admit Yachad, not least the Board’s own constitution committee, will tell you the Board has two means of admitting organisations: one route for those that have membership lists such as synagogues, and one route for community organisations that do not.
For the latter, admission involves the constitution committee recommending a group for membership, and the deputies voting by a two-thirds majority in support of the organisation’s admission.
In the last year, under Mr Arkush’s presidency, the Board has admitted at least two organisations in this manner: UK Lawyers for Israel and Mizrachi. It has literally nothing to do with their size or levels of support.
Our community is a less welcoming place when we try and demean those who do not share our opinions. Representing the reality of the diversity of the opinions that exist is a sign of a healthy community.
The “post-truth” world in which facts are ignored or misrepresented is surely not the type of community we strive to be?
Hannah Weisfeld is director of Yachad