The Guardian Letter is Published

Mine is the first to appear:-

Brian Klug bemoans an "oppressive atmosphere" that limits, he asserts, his and his comrades' freedom of expression within the Jewish community in the UK (No one has the right to speak for British Jews on Is rael and Zionism, February 5).

As Klug is well aware, it is not the principle that is in dispute but the details. When critics of Israel's policies in the territories or in Lebanon, or in Israel itself, adopt a standard of moral inequivalency, ignore Arab sins, glide over major societal and cultural differences, fudge historical facts, forget legal rights and, in general, act in a street-gang manner, they should know that it is fair and just to question their Jewish identity, or, at the very least, cast doubt whether they are interpreting to the non-Jewish public what Jewish identity is and what is Jewish nationalism.

Yisrael Medad
Shiloh, Israel

My original text, the letter was edited, is here.

And while we are on the subject of letters, I found there this interesting one on another, but related, subject:-

Maleiha Malik (Comment, February 2) says "Churchill wrote that Jews were part of a 'worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation'." This is a masterpiece of selection. Churchill at that time, 1920, was obsessed with the prospect of revolutions around the world directed from Moscow by the Bolsheviks, many of whose first leaders were indeed Jewish; they were the "bad" Jews he had in view, and that was the conspiracy. Because he regarded them as unrepresentative of the Jewish people as a whole, he took the trouble to distinguish them from "good" Jews whom he looked to for the economic development of Palestine (he was unusual among his class and kind in being a pro-Zionist) and whom he numbered among his friends. He was the least anti-semitic of all the Conservative grandees. If his views had really been what your quotation suggests, they would have been identical with Hitler's.

Geoffrey Best
Oxford

Klug is Sluggish

Brian Klug, senior research fellow in philosophy at St Benet's Hall, Oxford, and associate editor of Patterns of Prejudice, has a problem. And being a good Jew, he takes that problem to The Guardian where he published an op-ed entitled, "No one has the right to speak for British Jews on Israel and Zionism".

He announced there that "We will not accept the vilification of those who protest at injustices carried out in the name of the Jewish people". Notice the "we"? The Royal "we", or the Papal "we".

And he goes on:-

today an oppressive and unhealthy atmosphere is leading many Jews to feel uncertain about speaking out on Israel and Zionism. People are anxious about contravening an unwritten law on what you can and cannot discuss, may or may not assert. It is a climate that raises fundamental questions: about freedom of expression, Jewish identity, representation...Anguish turns to outrage when the human rights of a population under occupation are repeatedly violated in the name of the Jewish people.

No one has the authority to speak for the Jewish people...

...Faced with this state of affairs, a group of Jews in Britain has come together to launch Independent Jewish Voices (IJV). We come from a variety of backgrounds and walks of life. we are united by certain fundamental commitments...They include: putting human rights first; giving equal priority to Palestinians and Israelis in their quest for a peaceful and secure future; and repudiating all forms of racism aimed at Jews, Arabs, Muslims or whomever.

We believe that these commitments - not ethnic or group loyalties - define the limits of legitimate debate. We invite like-minded Jews in Britain to add their names to the list of IJV signatories...

...when we speak out against Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, or the bombing of Lebanon, or discrimination against Palestinians within Israel itself, we are not turning against our Jewish identity; we are turning to it. Some of us, recalling that nearly 40 years have passed since Israel's occupation began, hear a resonance. This was the length of time the Israelites wandered in the wilderness, near the end of which Moses gave them a directive: "Justice, justice shall you pursue" (Deuteronomy 16:20). It is a compass bearing for all humanity, especially when we are trying to find our way - or help others to find theirs - to a better future.

So, here's my letter-to-the-editor:-

Brian Klug bemoans an "oppressive atmosphere" that limits, he asserts, his and his comrades' freedom of expression within the Jewish community in the UK ("No one has the right to speak for British Jews on Israel and Zionism", Feb. 5). Well, thank God for The Guardian then.

As Klug is well aware, it is not the principle that is in dispute but the details. When critics of Israel's policies in the disputed territories or in Lebanon or in Israel itself adopt a standard of moral inequivalency, ignore Arab sins, glide over major societal and cultural differences, fudge historical facts, forget legal rights and in general, act in a street gang manner, they should know that it is fair and just to question their Jewish identity, or, at the very least, cast doubt whether they are interpreting to the non-Jewish public what Jewish identity is and what is Jewish nationalism.

The Biblical verse he quotes from Deuteronomy, "Justice, justice shall you pursue", is interpreted by the Rabbis as meaning that justice shall be pursued with justice. Klug , in his injudicious claims, is violating that instruction.