David Delew, Jonathan Goldstein, Marie van der Zyl, Avi Moshe, Harry Levy, Dr Stanley Jacobs, Sandra Berns, David Miller, Herbet Goldberg and Barry Hyman share their views with JC readers
July 18, 2019 08:23
More Hopkins
As the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Jewish Leadership Council and Community Security Trust have said, the screening of Katie Hopkins’s film — to a mainly Jewish audience — was an absolute disgrace (JC, July 5 and Letters, July 12). Across society, we are seeing a rapid acceptance of extreme rhetoric that uses hateful language and scapegoats minorities.
It is bad for Jews, bad for other groups, in particular Muslims, and it is bad for our country. It is foolish for anybody, Jewish or not, to think this is a type of politics worthy of support. Katie Hopkins in particular has a past record of statements about Jews that are deeply troubling.
No one should be hoodwinked by the far right’s divisive, anti-Muslim and hateful rhetoric, which is damaging to the social fabric of this country. Prejudice and abuse targeted at any minority endangers all minorities. Jewish support for far-right activists is morally wrong, politically self-defeating and historically unforgiveable.
David Delew, Chief Executive, Community Security Trust
Jonathan Goldstein, Chair, Jewish Leadership Council
Marie van der Zyl President, Board of Deputies of British Jews
In last week’s edition, you published a letter signed by Sharon Klaff and Ambrosine Shitrit of Campaign4Truth and Eye on Antisemitism.
While their letter presented them as being wholly reasonable and moderate, I would like to draw readers’ attention to their promotion of a figure who has called for a “Final Solution” for Muslims, demonstrated alongside the far-right Britain First activist Paul Besser, and addressed a Pegida rally. These women and their friends are wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Avi Moshe
Manchester M25
It is always interesting to read Daniel Finkelstein’s articles and consider his views on matters political.
However, those of my relatives and Jewish friends who are lifetime Labour voters are finding things much more difficult at present than those who, like the subject of Daniel’s article (JC, July 12), are current Jewish Labour MPs
As somebody who has never been a member of any political party and has voted differently in numerous elections dependent upon the candidates, world circumstances, economic conditions, but mainly my own judgment during my 85 years, including a 50-year career in the media, I cannot remember a more important and anxious time for Jewish Labour voters.
Personally, if I were a Jewish Labour MP, while considering all matters involved very carefully, I would have no hesitation in resigning from the Labour Party if Corbyn and co are not replaced as soon as possible (I would have a date in my mind by which this needed to happen).
If I were a lifetime Labour voter, I would need to decide whether my political beliefs were more important to
me than my religion, and vote accordingly.
Harry Levy
Pinner
Let us be absolutely clear, as the current political cliche goes. Modern Israel is the result of the failure, indeed catastrophic, momentous, centuries-old multiple failures, of governments and their peoples to adequately safeguard their Jewish minorities.
An apt reminder of this baleful fact comes with the publication of The Volunteer, Jack Fairweather’s deeply depressing account of the life of Witold Pilecki, the young Polish officer who willingly left his young family to enter Auschwitz for three years as a secret witness and communicator to the Allies of the escalating atrocities taking place --- to no effect. (The man who broke into Auschwitz, JC, July 12) Yet today his testimony does serve to hammer another nail into the coffin of Holocaust denial.
Corbynism is recklessly helping to resurrect that corpse in our own backyard. The inner contradictions, subterfuges and hypocrisies of its antisemitic and overlapping anti-Zionist policies are now being increasingly laid bare by dedicated, disillusioned workers within the party itself.
But what an irony for the Jewish Labour Movement that the cheap entryism initiated by Ed Miliband encouraged the mass absorption of antisemites and Marxists. Similarly, the more toxic Middle East cultures have impelled the current Israeli government, perhaps more controversially, to feel the need to emphasise the unique Jewish identity of modern Israel. Some call it racism but if it is, it is of a reactive, survivalist kind. Surely the Jews of Israel can only truly and honestly contemplate living in full peace and equality with its Arab minorities and surrounding neighbours when that is reciprocated in trustworthy measure.
Dr Stanley Jacobs
London SW18
Every week, when I pick up my Jewish Chronicle, I see a photograph of Jeremy Corbyn either on the front page or within the inside pages.
I understand this may help to sell your newspaper along with headlines of the week’s important news, mainly and unfortunately about antisemitism within the Labour Party. I totally agree this subject should be both shown and aired in the media, although it is very upsetting to hear and see the abuse we have been having to deal with over the past few years. But having this person sprawled over your newspaper every week is unnecessary and the same news could be reported without Jeremy Corbyn’s picture.
I am sure I am not the only person who feels like this.
I understand that it is impossible for other daily and Sunday newspapers to comply with this but in a weekly Jewish newspaper it would be preferable to not see any more photographs of the leader of the Labour Party. After all, we all know what he looks like.
Sandra Berns
Bushey
In the latest batch of leaked dispatches from the outgoing British ambassador to Washington, Sir Kim Darroch suggested that President Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear treaty to spite President Obama. This was a serious error by the ambassador, whose job is to provide evidence-based objective assessments, not unsubstantiated speculations.
It is established in democratic countries that one government shall not bind the hand of its successors. A government passes legislation; the next government can amend or repeal that legislation. That is why we have elections. There is no legal reason why this same principle should not apply to international treaties.
The soon to be ex-British ambassador failed to consider that Trump withdrew from this treaty because it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on and did absolutely nothing to advance security in the region. The British Foreign Office has a long and undistinguished history of trusting entirely untrustworthy Middle Eastern regimes.
David Miller
Chigwell, Essex
It was fascinating to read of the multifarious duties of a 21st-century dayan on the London Beth Din (JC, July 12). I am pleased to learn from Dayan Gelley that a grateful community “rejoiced” when Skittles were declared kosher, and I am sure they are waiting with bated breath while they busy themselves with the verdict on Vegan Prawn Crackers or whether one can neuter a cat.
It is reassuring, too, to hear of the meticulous standards of supervision exercised by the London Beth Din to ensure that anyone (at least south of Watford) can rest assured of the highest standards of kashrut.
There was, however, a glaring omission, no doubt due to limited space on the page. Given the LBD’s commitment to “protect the integrity of the venerable institution of which we are guardians”, what supervisory measures are taken to prevent the dayanim themselves from, shall I say, indulging in protracted inappropriate behaviour? ,
Herbert Goldberg
Pinner
What a happy picture of the children of Singers Hill Synagogue (Community, July 12). Why, though, were the girls and boys seated on opposite sides of the aisle?
I grew up, was educated and barmitzvah at the magnificent New Synagogue, Egerton Road, Stamford Hill. It was the United Synagogue’s cathedral synagogue — cheder three evenings a week plus Sunday mornings, from five to fifteen. So numerous was the Jewish community in N16 and E5 that the children’s High Holyday services were held off-site at my primary school.
At no point, in classroom or services, were we segregated by sex. Why now?
Barry Hyman
Bushey Heath