Change is in the air
by Anthony Isaacs
We anticipated that Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) would create some ripples. The response, however, has been overwhelming. Following the publication of our declaration, the series of pieces published on Comment is Free generated over 2,600 posts.
We have received around 1,500 emails - over 90% supportive - and widespread media coverage both at home (including 10 broadsheet articles and eight pages in the Jewish Chronicle) and throughout the world. Our website has been accessed by more than 13,000 unique visitors and the number of signatories of our declaration has trebled to some 400 and is growing daily.
Our supporters are both relieved and enthused that this has happened. Many Jews tell us that they still feel quite isolated when attempting to raise the issue of Israeli human rights abuses in their synagogues and communal organisations and are made to feel disloyal if they do so. A common response is "now is not the time to talk about this, while Israel is under threat".
The sad fact is that the progressive immiseration of the Palestinians has not in any way helped to diminish the threat, as new generations of potential suicide bombers are created with every Israeli act of repression.
Critics of IJV have focused on two main themes. At one extreme, it is held that academics, writers and other intellectuals have always had access to the media and that such debates are in any event commonplace within the Jewish community. If true, one might reasonably ask why they are getting so hot under the collar. At the other extreme, IJV is held to represent the greatest threat to the survival of the Jewish people since Hitler. Bizarrely, some commentators maintain both of these positions simultaneously.
These and other strands emerged at a packed Speak-Out at Hampstead Town Hall on 19 February, when IJV concluded its launch fortnight. The hundreds in the audience (regrettably, many more had to be turned away because of lack of space) paid careful attention to the debate, deftly chaired by broadcaster Jon Snow, despite occasionally frayed tempers.
Following opening statements by four members of the IJV initiating group, explaining the network's origins and purpose, the discussion was thrown open. Among an extremely wide range of contributors, an Israeli pilot described how he was expelled from the IDF after refusing to use bombs which he considered too large for the intended targets in Gaza, with inevitably fatal consequences for the civilian population.
Writer and producer Michael Kustow eloquently defended the Jewish tradition of dissent. The initiative was welcomed by former Palestinian negotiator Karma Nabulsi (who has written a separate piece about it for Cif today) and by academic Maleiha Malik, working for Muslim-Jewish understanding, who felt that this was a development from which other minority communities could learn.
Speaking in their personal capacities, one member of the Board of Deputies was broadly sympathetic to the initiative with some reservations, while another presented a contrasting view, concluding that Jews did, after all, support Israel.
Another speaker claimed that British Jews were under threat, so that Israel was indeed fighting on our behalf. The danger of this too-ready elision of Jewish and Israeli interests was neatly exposed by 12-year-old Tania, who had had to point out to a teacher, on a class visit to a mosque, that it was the Israeli government, not "the Jews", who were responsible for the tribulations of the Palestinians.
A frequent complaint by critics is that IJV signatories are not really Jews at all, or only so when it comes to "bashing Israel". This not only ignores the presence of rabbis and other communal figures, but in effect becomes tautologous, by restricting the definition to those who identify with Israel, ignoring the rich and diverse traditions of diaspora Jewry.
Platform speakers countered other criticisms, eg the false accusation that IJV claims to be more representative than the Board, and the proposition that it is interested in human rights violations by Israel alone, when many signatories have been very active in a wide range of human rights campaigns.
A final criticism was that no solutions to the Middle East crisis were on offer, as though IJV were a political party with a defined programme, rather than a two-week-old network which seeks to create an atmosphere in which the parties to the conflict, Israelis and Palestinians, are supported in reaching their own solution.
In fact, the main features of a package acceptable to the vast majority of both populations are well-known, yet the political process is characterised by total inertia. The critics of IJV seem to have little to offer themselves apart from more of the same. One even dismissed Middle East analyst Tony Klug's practical and imaginative proposal for a no-risk statement by the Israeli government on bringing the occupation to a complete end, subject to guarantees on peace and security, in an effort to break the log-jam.
Other practical suggestions for building on the momentum generated by the launch of IJV included engaging with the British government to try to influence policy away from automatic support for the American/Israeli nexus, co-operating with similar groups abroad and, from an Israeli student, spreading the word in the universities, by creating student IJV groups.
These and other proposals will be taken forward by the initiating group over the next few weeks. Opponents who expressed the hope that IJV would turn out to be a damp squib may yet be disappointed.
The first objective, to open up a debate, has clearly been achieved. There is an almost palpable feeling now that change is in the air. This might just prove to be an idea whose time has come.