As a British Jew, I cannot agree with the Chief Rabbi’s view (“What is Zionism?”, 4 October), which conflates being a Jew with being a Zionist. Nor do I believe that I should have priority to live in Israel/Palestine over Palestinians whose parents and grandparents were born there. I care about Israel because of the Jews who live there, not because of a metaphysical attachment to the “ancestral homeland” “promised” to my distant ancestors. The Chief Rabbi acknowledges that Judaism became “portable” after the Roman conquest of Judea, and Jewish life has continued by adherence to the Torah. It is because of the wisdom of the Rabbis and scholars after that conquest that I feel able to worship anywhere, on a beach in Suffolk or in my synagogue in London.
The safety of the Jews of Israel is of paramount importance to me, but I cannot believe, despite the horrors of 7 October, that this necessitates the killing of so many Palestinian and Lebanese people. To my mind they are also victims of Hamas and Hezbollah. Is it too late to find other ways, or is Israel “in blood stepp’d in so far that, should [it] wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o’er” (Macbeth)? If this is so, and this is what Zionism has become, then I must reject it, in order to preserve my Judaism.
Jeremy Solnick, Walberswick, Suffolk
In response to the Chief Rabbi
Chief Rabbi Mirvis’s explanation of Zionism is essential reading for non-Jews trying to make sense of the conflict. It is also a reminder of what a remarkable achievement it was that, more than 2,000 years after the expulsion of their ancestors, Jews were able to return. What is dismaying is that having fledunimaginable persecution, Israel’s leaders created a bureaucratic apparatus that condemns Palestinians within its borders to a second-class existence. Rabbi Mirvis explains that “the Jewish relationship with Israel is built upon… historical fact, theological axiom and innate love”. But that love must be challenged when confronted with another fact: that Palestinians in Israel do not have equal rights.
Peter Grimsdale, former Channel 4 commissioning editor of religion, London SE21
The Chief Rabbi does not speak for all of us Jews. I, for one, am a non-observant atheist, with an affinity for my parents’ Czech birthplace but not for Israel. Ephraim Mirvis complains that the Jewish state is unfairly singled out for blame. Unfairly? Setting aside Gaza, there is much to condemn. In 1947-48, as Israel was being established, 750,000 Palestinians were expelled, their homes seized or destroyed. Since then, there has been an intensifying campaign against those who remain. Rabbi Mirvis has an anti-apartheid background, yet he expresses no concern about the corralling of Palestinians into what are effectively Bantustans. Illegal Jewish settlements proliferate, their occupants having far more electricity and water than their neighbours. These settlements are connected by Jews-only motorways.
The Chief Rabbi’s attempt to distance himself from the Netanyahu government is feeble, and his writing of the “deep pain” he feels in seeing the suffering of numerous innocent Palestinians seems woolly.
Vera Lustig, Walton-on-Thames, Surrey
I hope Rabbi Mirvis will permit a few observations on his heartfelt piece. To my mind it illustrated so clearly some of the difficulties with the situation. If people believe themselves to have a covenant – Abrahamic or otherwise – how should people who don’t be treated? Martin Buber taught that only through relations can man approach the divine. He promoted the concept of I-Thou relations as opposed to I-It, which is unfortunately what we see now. There was little in the Rabbi’s piece about how to work with others who occupy the same space, although I know he does a lot of this in his practice. How are we to live together if only some have a covenant with a piece of the world, or indeed, with God?
Dr Peter J Herbert, London NW11
The Chief Rabbi claims Israel is the fulfilment of 2,000 years of Jewish religious yearning for Zion. Political Zionism sought to establish a secular Jewish nation-state on the 19th-century eastern and central European model, by which a state belongs to one ethnic group, not to all its citizens. Many Orthodox Jews were opposed to this plan, because they believed that only the Messiah could declare a Jewish state.
As the Israeli writer Shlomo Sand points out in his book Israel-Palestine: Federation or Apartheid?, there was within the early Zionist movement a dissident strand composed of intellectuals such as Martin Buber, Judah Magnes and Hans Kohn, who were influenced by the universalist Jewish prophetic tradition. They wanted to establish a Jewish cultural and spiritual centre in Palestine, in cooperation with the Palestinian Arabs, and warned against political Zionism’s goal of a Jewish state – which, as Kohn put it, would be “a hotbed of exaggerated nationalism”.
A two-state solution might have stood a chance if Israel had chosen to remain within the pre-1967 borders. But the militarism and nationalism that Kohn warned against have turned Israel into an apartheid state that has visited upon Gaza the horror that is described so graphically by Atef Abu Saif.
Deborah Maccoby, Leeds
On the ground in Gaza
What a powerful article by Atef Abu Saif (“In Gaza, every moment is a fight for survival”, 4 October). After reading it, I had to put down the magazine. Despite having seen the news reports over the past year, his feature brought a greater reality to my understanding. It’s no comfort to him and his fellow citizens that they are not alone in their plight: it is shared by the Lebanese.
Philip Jackson, Rushden, Northamptonshire
Snooze you lose
Robert Colls (The Critics, 20 September) ascribes the legal immunities that trade unions enjoyed before Thatcher to “Liberal Acts of 1871, 1875 and 1906”. The 1875 legislation, which completed the decriminalisation of trade unions, was passed by Disraeli’s second government. Disraeli hoped the legislation “would gain and retain for the Conservatives the lasting affection of the working classes”. But he took little interest in it, falling asleep in cabinet when it was under discussion.
Alistair Lexden, Conservative Party historian, House of Lords
Cross words
I was surprised to read the unjustified criticism of your crossword setters (Correspondence, 4 October). The puzzles are, for me, a key part of the magazine’s appeal. More “Bletchley Park entrance exams”, please.
Rick Walsh, Grantham, Lincolnshire
Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk
We reserve the right to edit letters
Content from our partners
Related
This article appears in the 09 Oct 2024 issue of the New Statesman, 100 days that shook Labour