Support for the Jewish state was once instinctive. But when its leaders flirt with extremism, even pragmatic Zionists must speak out
June 11, 2025 09:19
In my parents’ house in Hendon there was a landing as the stairs turned right to the upper floor. And on it my parents had situated two pot plants and a little blue charity box for the JNF. We used to put change in it and the occasional note. It was such a constant feature that I never gave it much thought as a child. Our relationship with Israel seemed simple, and our support obvious.
It was only as an adult that I came to appreciate that it was all a little more complicated than that. My mother’s dad, Alfred Wiener, had been one of the leaders of Germany’s Jews in the 1920s. And in that capacity he had articulated – in two successful books – the mainstream community position on Zionism. He supported a home for Jews in Palestine, but not a state.
There were a number of reasons he gave for this position, including his view that German Jews already had a state. Germany. But certainly his view was partly shaped by his scholarly work as an Arabist. He was very aware of the people who already lived in Palestine and worried about the relationship between Arabs and Jews.
After the war he shifted. It was obvious that Jews needed a state. And so the family position was settled. We would be pragmatic rather than ideological Zionists. Robust believers in a Jewish state, but also of a two-state solution, in which Arabs and Jews shared the land. This is not the only Zionist position, of course, but I think it is the one held by most British Jews.
My view that this is reasonable and practical has combined with my observation that half the Jews in the world live in Israel to make me a strong and vocal supporter of Israel’s right to defend itself. Israel cannot be expected to live alongside a terrorist militia that wishes to destroy it. The resulting wars have been tragic but tragically necessary. They have been forced upon it.
At the same time I have spoken consistently for compromise to allow a two-state solution. And I have urged supporters of a so-called “Free Palestine” to reciprocate. I have asked them to be as forthcoming in support for the existence of a secure Israel as I have been for a future Palestinian state. It has been exceptionally dispiriting that this request has been met with a blank stare.
And the unsurprising result of this Palestinian outlook has been to make those Jews advancing a two-state solution look naive and impractical. Those advancing the idea of a Greater Israel have grabbed the political initiative.
The result has been deeply depressing. Within the Israeli government there are those who believe that the only way that Jews can be safe is for Palestinians to be driven out of Gaza altogether. And some think they should be driven out of the West Bank too. Such a war would not be the defensive operation that so many of us pragmatic Zionists defend.
To move from erasing Hamas to erasing the Palestinian presence is to move to precisely the criminal offensive that Zionist critics allege.
When members of the Netanyahu government use this rhetoric and support this policy it undermines the trust we have in the war being fought. It makes us worry that starvation is indeed being used as an offensive tactic, and that the same care is no longer being taken to minimise civilian casualties. And this is simply not acceptable, or something we can stand behind. At best the Netanyahu government’s rhetoric is mixed.
When I expressed this concern in The Times, I anticipated that the community would react strongly against the criticism I was making. But this is not what happened. Instead, almost every Jewish correspondent and friend that I had said that they agreed and felt the same unease. It made me pleased I had decided to say something.
Maybe Israel’s government no longer cares what the diaspora has to say.
But we remain passionately committed to Israel and determined to defend its right to exist and its safety. It is not a comfortable position to be in, to say the least.
