Two-tier tolerance
At a JC event last week, the first question was “Does two-tier justice exist and are the police failing?” The answer was yes. The distinguished panel explained that the criminal justice system is in meltdown and the CPS is overloaded (although the Southport rioters were hauled before the courts within days). As for the police, those of us who thought their job was law enforcement learnt that their main concern is to prevent riots. This is why it is the peaceful but visibly Jewish person surrounded by a threatening, antisemitic mob who is arrested. It is also why some arrests at pro-Gaza marches turn into “de-arrests” inside the police van when its sides are being battered. A willingness to bow to the threat of disorder is a feature of modern policing.
The next day I read a speech by the attorney general, Lord Hermer, in Sydney’s Great Synagogue. Speaking at an event to mark the attack on Jews at Bondi Beach, he acknowledged there are few places where Jewish life exists without risk. Nevertheless he offered some “optimistic reflections” on being Jewish nowadays.
In the past, “attacks on Jews would have been perpetrated by states”, whereas now “every arm of the state [is] employed to track down and prosecute those involved in terrorist crime” with “a determination to root out antisemitism and protect our communities”.
My jaw now requires reconstructive surgery. This is gaslighting. Since then, the government’s legally inept case for the proscription of Palestine Action has been overturned.
I’d like to help out. Close down the rogue mosques that pump out antisemitic hate. Ban the IRGC and Muslim Brotherhood. Tell the police their operational independence can be withdrawn unless they deal with the hate mobs and stop treating Jewishness as a provocation. Establish an antisemitism unit in the CPS. Use existing legislation such as the 1936 Public Order Act to protect Jews, specifically to deal with face coverings. Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR (freedom of expression, assembly and association) are over-interpreted.
The current situation results not only in two-tier justice for Jews, but in a two-tier country.
Stephanie Bennett
Twickenham
The Prime Minister, in demanding an apology from Sir Jim Ratcliffe, states that this is a tolerant country.
Tolerant? Yes. The regular pro-Hamas Palestinian protest marches every weekend, escorted at great expense by police, is a classic example.
Tolerant? The small minority Jewish community in Britain is now under great threat, to the point that many are considering, or are emigrating. Sir Keir Starmer has not a clue as to the direction of the United Kingdom, other than ensuring the growth of the benefits system and public sector pay increases, while the manufacturing and private sector declines.
Gerald A. Norden
Sandbach, Cheshire,
Questions for Melanie
Melanie Phillips (Bret Stephens is wrong, Jews must fight antizionism, JC February 13) does well to smite, in her usual vigorous fashion, those who distort the history of Zionism and Israel, but I do have some questions.
On her point that the Jews are the indigenous people of the land of Israel, some people might ask about the Canaanites, though I suppose this could be dismissed, as regards any relevance to present-day politics, on the grounds there are is no longer any such identifiable people.
As for the Arabs being colonisers, yes, they did overrun the land and much more in the Middle Ages, creating a realm and Islamic caliphate (though its mantle passed to subsequent rulers, those of Turkey, with the last caliph departing on a train to Switzerland in 1923.)
What worries me, however, is her use of the present tense, as she says that the Arabs are colonisers. Just what are they colonising?
I know Ms Phillips does not believe there is such a thing as a Palestinian Arab nation, but I wonder to which nation she does think the Arabs of that part of what was British Mandatory Palestine – which is not part of the State of Israel – belong? Denying them a right in principle to statehood alongside the State of Israel is not, in my opinion, a practical, never mind a moral option; I also see it essential to the future integrity and security of Israel.
Finally, I find Ms Phillips’s attitude to those who disagree with her to be excessively sharp and intolerant. She seems to find it hard to grasp that people whose view of Zionism is not the positive one she holds (and which indeed, I have), may still be well-meaning and every bit as supportive of Judaism as she is.
Jeff Lewis
Whitefield, Manchester
RE reassurance
I was most concerned to read Simon Rocker’s article, (Teachers raise alarm after syllabus omits “Israel” from lessons on Judaism, JC February 13).
I find the headline alarmist and would like to allay fears that this is not the situation across all of England and Wales.
I have been visiting non-Jewish schools in every region of England for more than 40 years speaking about our beliefs, practices and culture to thousands of schoolchildren.
I am an accredited educator and a trustee and executive member of the National Association of Standing Advisory Councils for Religious Education (NASACRE) and also a trustee and board member of the RE Council for England and Wales. During my school visits, one of the first things I speak about is the ancient land of Israel and where we all used to live and worship in a huge temple. I explain about the persecution we Jews have suffered for thousands of years and how we are so lucky to have our modern homeland of Israel where we can go and live in safety if we ever feel threatened. I have encountered no resistance from teachers when I speak about Israel and would like to reassure readers that the issue referred to by Dr Solomons in the article is not the case in my experience.
Dr Sheila Gewolb DL
Oakham
Rutland
Ben-Gurion’s edits
I was interested to read that the British Museum is removing the word “Palestinian” from ancient Middle East displays. As a very young editor, and long before I founded Robson Books, I was privileged to edit David Ben-Gurion’s epic history, The Jews In Their Land, which went from pre-biblical times to the modern day, with a team of eminent scholars covering the early years, and BG himself the modern period.
Many of the historians’ contributions had been translated from one language or another, and the English needed detailed editing, which took a considerable time. Eventually the proofs were sent to BG to check and I was sent to Sde Boker to get his approval, which I did. In fact, my wife Carole and I ended up spending much of our honeymoon with him!
To my relief he had made very few corrections, but he changed one thing throughout. Whenever the word “Palestine” appeared, he crossed it out and replaced it with the words “the Land”. I still have the proofs with his hand-written changes.
I think he would have applauded the BM’s decision!
Jeremy Robson
London NW2
Sons after marriage
Maureen Lipman (JC February 13) wrote so eloquently about Bronislaw Huberman and then segued to mentioning the Take That series. Her declaration of interest, that her new husband David is the father of the series producer Gabe Turner, used this most wonderful phrase: “One of my sams (son after marriage), Gabe Turner, executive produced it.”
A sam and also therefore a dam, daughter after marriage, is so so much friendlier and more loving than stepson or stepdaughter, phrases that I as a stepmother cannot be alone in loathing.
I must now declare my interest: that my sam is a co-director of Gabe’s, their fathers being first cousins. And so my thanks to our new cousin for giving me and all us “step” parents a better way of relating to our new children, not always the smoothest of paths but certainly helped hugely by having a more loving moniker.
Louise Pearlman
London NW4
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.