One would imagine that with so much antisemitism in the world, most visibly today from those who support Hamas’ terrorism, that this week’s International Conference on Combating Antisemitism convened by the Israeli Diaspora Ministry would be an oversubscribed gathering of well-intentioned excellence.
Far from it. Rather than this event capturing the headlines of the global Jewish press for its achievements, much of the media has instead focused on those (predominantly liberal) voices that have pulled out of the conference, ostensibly for the reason that Amichai Chikli, Israel’s Diaspora Minister, had invited a number of right-wing populist politicians to attend.
Sharing a conference hall with the populists proved unpalatable for many of the UK’s Jewish community’s great and good, with Lord Mann and Chief Rabbi Mirvis, together with Phil Rosenberg, president of the Board of Deputies and B-list Jewish wannabes ripping up their conference invitations.
If the conference were being held in a hostile or risky territory, one may perhaps understand an individual’s reluctance to expose themselves to physical harm. But with this event being held in Israel and under the auspices of the government, one must conclude that the motive of those withdrawing their attendance was predominantly politically influenced.
Jonathan Baz
These withdrawals are deeply misguided virtue-signalling. Lord Mann is on record as saying: “The quality of some of the [conference’s] opposition politicians speaking is not sufficiently high enough to entice me from competing priorities… there is nothing for the UK to learn about tackling antisemitism from some of these characters.”
One has to consider Mann’s use of the word “opposition” – it sets out his stance clearly. And surely as an experienced parliamentarian, Mann will know that the time to judge whether anything has been learned from a voice, particularly one coming from a different perspective, is after that person has spoken? The Noble Lord voices an arrogant position of ears being firmly closed before a word was even spoken.
Turning to our learned Chief Rabbi, is it too much to ask that his esteemed position could sit above politics? No one is suggesting that Chief Rabbi Mirvis break bread with those with whom he may disagree – but rather to listen to them and possibly and even more importantly, impart some of his wisdom to them. Again, another opportunity lost.
And as for the Board of Deputies, it is a matter of regret that one of this country’s most recognised (even if not particularly effective) communal voices has chosen a politically public stance that sets it at odds with a significant proportion of the British Jews that it claims to represent.
But so much for the criticisms – what positive angles emerged from the conference? I spoke with a British delegate, a non-Jew whose opinion on the geopolitics of Israel and its neighbours is respected.
Like a breath of fresh air, his view brought a moral clarity that his fellow countrymen would do well to heed. His position has “always been that anyone who wants to join us in the fight against antisemitism is welcome. Israeli political strategy is not my business, they can invite whoever they wish”.
No one is suggesting that Chief Rabbi Mirvis break bread with those with whom he may disagree – but rather to listen to them and possibly and even more importantly, impart some of his wisdom to them
He added “double standards in warfare is a pernicious form of antisemitism” – a critique of the UK Government’s posturing that put simply, supports Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, but at the same time insists that Israel fights its terrorist aggressors with one (or both!) arms tied behind its back. What a shame that Lord Mann, the UK Government’s independent advisor on antisemitism, was not present to hear such considered thought.
Speaking at the conference, Natan Sharansky, a man of whom it has been said “knows a thing or two about standing up for the Jewish people” urged people to understand that “we cannot defeat antisemitism unless those on the right call out antisemitism on the right, and those on the left do the same on the left.”
It is therefore with some sense of national shame that one must reflect that while some of those from Europe’s right were present to hear Sharansky’s plea, many of those from Britain’s left were absent.
Even Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice imbued his Jewish protagonist, hated and spat upon by antisemites, with the capacity for discussion with his enemies. As Shylock says to the non-Jew Bassanio in the play’s opening act, “I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you and so following, but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray with you”.
Our biased, bigoted Brits could learn much from the bard.
- Jonathan Baz is a critic and broadcaster
