Burnham on Gaza
Andy Burnham says he is “absolutely appalled” by the destruction of Gaza and that there must be “accountability for the depth of the suffering” in that enclave. But as so often with pro-Palestinian viewpoints, his diatribe is one- sided and focused on Israel with no accountability for the Palestinians and their leadership. Burnham and his Labour Party must stop infantilising the Palestinians and treating them as pawns in a morality play. Instead, they should treat them as people with agency and moral choice. Palestinian leaders have embraced political maximalism and rejected compromise. They have chosen war and terrorism rather than peace building and moderation. They have rejected the very two-state solution that the West continually demands of Israel. Palestinians need to be told that Western governments will abandon their cause unless they embrace real and lasting political change. But that requires statesmanlike leadership rather than pandering to electoral calculations and focus groups. Sadly, Burnham’s narrative will only dehumanise Israelis and risk fuelling the climate of hatred affecting British Jews.
Dr Jeremy Havardi
Director, B’nai B’rith UK Bureau of International Affairs
Stephen Pollard rightly points out that it is no surprise that Andy Burnham’s first foreign policy speech as prime minister-designate, should be on Israel/Gaza, and is a thinly disguised sop to the left and sectarian Muslim voters (Burnham’s pandering to antizionists will unleash a torrent of antisemitism, July 10). At a time when identity politics is tearing Western democracies apart, encouraging sectarianism in this country for purely electoral advantage is highly irresponsible. On a more positive note, Keir Starmer’s promise to fulfil his government’s commitment to increase Jewish security is reassuring (Jewish security gets £250m funding boost from government, July 13). Will Andy Burnham honour this pledge? What is the point of protecting the Jewish community on the one hand, and provoking antisemitism on the other? The Jewish community should not need to be protected.
Stan Labovitch
Windsor
The Battle of Cable Street
I fear that the thoughtful letter last week regarding Cable Street from your correspondent Martin Sugarman (Letters, JC July 10) conflates several issues and risks perpetuating Cable Street myths.
He is quite right that the Jewish contribution to the “Battle of Cable Street” may be being airbrushed from history. However, it is undeniable that The Daily Worker wrote in October 1936 that: “Jew and Gentile, docker and garment worker, railwayman and cabinet maker, turned out in their thousands to show that they have no use for Fascism.” The Blackshirts themselves blamed “aliens” and “Jews” for the disorder on Cable Street, describing the counter-demonstrators as “Jews and imported aliens”.
In Cable Street itself, the Mosleyites did not march; the police did not permit them to do so. They did, however, march elsewhere in London that day. As the Manchester Guardian reported: “The Fascists marched in London yesterday – but away from the East End, not through it.”
The article continues: “There were extraordinary scenes in the East End long before the procession was due to start... the police had to draw their truncheons... 84 arrests were made.”
What is concerning is the suggestion that the “battle” was a clash between anti-fascists and fascists. In reality, it was a confrontation between anti-fascists and the police, who were initially deployed to protect the marchers. The police later stopped the Mosleyites from marching through the East End, escorting them instead along the Embankment to Temple Station, where they dispersed (although a faction later reformed, causing minor disturbances in Trafalgar Square and the Strand).
As to the Jewish contribution to “the battle,” Mr Sugarman must be aware of the advice issued by the Board of Deputies and conveyed via editorial warnings in the Jewish Chronicle to the community. The JC’s own “urgent warning” on October 2, 1936 said: “Jews are urgently warned to keep away from the route of the Blackshirt march and from their meetings. Jews who, however innocently, become involved in any possible disorders will be actively helping anti-Semitism and Jew-baiting. Unless you want to help the Jew-baiters KEEP AWAY.”
Mr Sugarman’s final point, drawing parallels between the (in retrospect) semi-amateurish and rather vile Mosley and his BUF and groups such as Hamas supported by Iran is tendentious. The latter are significantly more dangerous, media-savvy, and politically astute; notably, their supporters bizarrely all claim to be anti-racist! “They too Shall not Pass,” as Mr Sugarman concludes – not likely. Fighting them on the streets of London will get us nowhere, as a) They Shall Indeed Pass, b) we will lose (on numbers alone), and c) like the BUF, that will encourage them and their supporters. More subtle tactics and arguments are needed.
Finally, it must be remembered that Cable Street served as a “recruiting sergeant” for the BUF. By late 1935, its membership had declined to about 5,000, though it rebounded to about 22,500 by 1939, when the BUF supported appeasement. As demonstrated in a previous letter of mine, which you kindly published on October, 15 2021, their membership grew in the aftermath of Cable Street. May I repeat what I said in my earlier letter, “Whilst it may be unpopular to say so, had the BUF ‘passed’ down Cable Street that Sunday, they would have sped up their own demise. But then again, it would not have given us so many comfortable myths.”
John Burman
Radlett
Archbishop’s visit
Why did the Archbishop of Canterbury not visit Jewish holy sites, such as the Western Wall, during her recent pilgrimage to the Holy Land?
Throughout the British Mandate period, Britain pandered to the Arabs and hindered Jewish access to immigration, in defiance of the League of Nations-sanctioned San Remo Accords. In 1923, Britain severed 78 per cent of the mandate and gave Transjordan to Emir Abdullah. Britain was more interested in oil than international law.
The Archbishop had every right to choose where she visited. If she decided not to spend time among Jesus’s people, that too was her choice, but she must admit Israel is the only place in the Middle East and North Africa where the Christian population is thriving and growing.
Now the Church of England Synod discusses Israel and “genocide”, while 300 million Christians live precariously worldwide. Can the Church demonstrate its Jew-hatred any more clearly?
Jacques Fortier
Montreal
Lessons from Germany and France
In response to the warped campaign against tackling antisemitism in schools, our politicians only trot out the same tired lines. They are outraged and shocked. Those who object to tackling antisemitism have no place in the classroom and must be condemned.
Juxtapose this concerned, very concerned and deeply concerned response with that of Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Soder who announced simply that antisemitism has no place in Bavarian universities.
Any faculty member or student expressing antisemitism in any form will dismissed and will never again be able to work at or study in a Bavarian university.
In Germany actions have consequences.
Shimon Cohen
London N2
France and President Macron’s commemoration of Alfred Dreyfus is both futile and cynical.
I don’t know if schools in France still teach about the injustices suffered by Dreyfus, but the steep rise in antisemitism in France suggests not.
Also, it would be a brave teacher to broach the subject given the large number of Muslims in the French educational institutions.
Macron, much like The Guardian, which regularly publishes articles on the Holocaust, is trying to look even-handed, but we Jews should not be fooled, they are trying to assuage their guilt.
Europe is inherently antisemitic from west to east and perhaps has always been so.
Reading history confirms this.
Henry Tobias
Maale Adumim
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.