The JC Letters Page, 15th March 2019

Luciana Berger
Member of Parliament for Liverpool Wavertree

Historical hypocrisy

In the 1960s, I was a student at the London School of Economics (LSE) when student politics were dominated by the hard left who, though numerically low in numbers, through united action and sheer persistence were able to control the students’ union. 

Anti-racism, anti-apartheid, anti-colonialism were among the key issues of the day. The Six-Day War saw the hard left united in pathological hatred of Israel — a “racist, apartheid, colonialist invention” of the western powers.

One of my abiding memories is of a friend of mine who wore a kippah standing up to speak at a union meeting. Israel was not on the agenda; the debate was, should the union  support a sit-in protest against the appointment of a new director from the University of Salisbury in the then apartheid country of Rhodesia (it did). My friend, who himself was politically to the left, never had the chance to express his view. He was greeted with cat calls, whistles, shouts of “by my life”, “oy vey”, “go back to Israel”, and far worse. 

He left the meeting to a chorus of boos and laughter. Those who had devoted their lives to anti-racist/anti-fascist/anti-Nazi causes could see no contradiction between that and the blatant display of antisemitism of which they had just been guilty.

These same people, and those who followed them, have “morphed” into the small but powerful hard left caucus who currently dominate the Labour Party. They, too, can claim to have fought racism all their lives while holding deeply entrenched antisemitic views. So what to do? Give up on Labour? Or follow the JLM and try to rid the party of this cancer within its midst? Having always voted Labour, I hope the latter succeeds.

Anthony Melnikoff 
Barnet

Occupation preoccupations

Anna Roiser (Letters, March 8) is right about our community’s inability to talk about the occupation. But this can change. If we follow the lead of young members of the community we can hold serious, nuanced and meaningful conversations on this issue.

This week, I’ve been on a university tour with an Israeli veteran who broke her silence about her military service in the occupied territories. 

We’ve been to Oxford, Bristol, Sussex, Edinburgh, Manchester, Leeds and with the UJS in London. We’ve met hundreds of students at Jewish Society events who were eager to hear what Merphie Bubis of Breaking the Silence had to say, ask hard questions and contemplate the answers.

What this week proved is that students and young people are more than capable of engaging in difficult conversations and holding nuanced discussions in a respectful manner. 

Talking about the occupation can be difficult, but we must talk about it because it is difficult. And if our community wants to keep young people engaged, then it needs to do what’s right as opposed to what is easy.  And allow young people to lead this conversation.

Esther Craven
London WC1

Anna Roiser expresses her concern that she didn’t hear the word “occupation” at the JW3 meeting she attended. It has to be factually recognised that there were Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria from the time of the Mandate in 1922. 

When Jordan attacked Israel in 1948,the Jews were thrown out of these settlements. The land was recovered in 1967. 

That is not a new occupation. 

There is cause to discuss any expansion as a dispute, but Israel has to have somebody to discuss it with. Had Arafat accepted Ehud Barak’s offer of 92 per cent of the West Bank in 2000, there could  be agreement by now of each side’s requirements. As ever, Arafat refused.

The facts don’t support the view that settlements are a drawback to peace. Ms Roiser should be more concerned with the indoctrination of Palestinians to continue to want to kill Jews. An example of the alternative might be the fact that Germany lost the war; it was occupied and it became  an economic powerhouse since it no longer wanted to kill.

Mervyn Smith
Cheam 

Business as usual in Ukraine

While it is wonderful that your newspaper is reporting on the ongoing and largely ignored crisis in Ukraine (Living in the midst of Ukraine’s conflict,  JC March 8) it does a disservice to the British Jewish community to state that “International Jewish organisations have either pulled out of Ukraine entirely or reduced their support to a minimum”. 

I want to reassure our supporters and readers of the JC that World Jewish Relief is still vibrant and active across Ukraine, delivering ongoing and vital support to Jewish communities. We combat neglect and social isolation among the most vulnerable older Jewish people and we are pioneering dementia training and care across Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus. 

Every day, we are helping young Jewish parents into employment so they’re not relying on charity handouts, and giving young people career guidance so they can make the best choices for their future. 

We continue to work with exceptional partners across Ukraine including Jewish community centres and welfare organisations who help us to deliver these essential services. 

The Ukrainian Jewish community has not been abandoned by the British Jewish community and we will not do so while there is still exceptional need within our Jewish family.

Alex Brookes 
Director of International Programmes, World Jewish Relief

Opposites attracted

Your review (Books, March 8) of a biography of Rabbi Maurice Perlzweig (1895-1985), based on his taped interviews,  mentioned Claude G. Montefiore, President of the LJS, who invited Perlzweig  to be assistant rabbi. 

 Their opposing views on Zionism were illustrated by a pamphlet of the Jewish Religion Union published in 1935 with the wordy title, Why the Jewish Religious Union can be and justifiably is “neutral” as regards Zionism, which unusually was co-authored by Montefiore and  Perlzweig. 

They wrote that, although one was keenly Zionist and the other anti-Zionist (without naming which was which), they were both united for Liberal Judaism, and they could be neutral towards their differences.  An interesting publication, although Montefiore wrote most of it, Perlzweig  merely corrected the draft (according to what he told Rabbi Lawrence Rigal).

Perlzweig wrote (in his 1971 recollections) of Montefiore being the  “arch-anti-Zionist” and that he invited Perlzweig to the joint authorship, and persuaded the JRU to publish despite influential objection (I wonder whether by anti- or pro- Zionists?).

Bryan Diamond 
London NW3

Lunar Lokshen

Great news about Israel’s lunar probe Beresheet, due to reach the moon on April 11 (JC, March 8). 

As well as carrying a time capsule and performing experiments, the robotic lander could leave behind a survival pack containing chopped liver, chicken soup and a bagel in case any future Jewish astronauts feel a bit peckish.

Stan Labovitch
Windsor