Boycotting from Within - a letter to the President of the Board of Deputies

Dear Vivian Wineman

I'm writing as a British Jew wanting to bring a dissenting Jewish perspective to the Board's fifty page denouncement of peaceful protest in support of human rights.

I very much doubt I will change your mind but I would like others reading this to understand the historical, political and moral flaws in your arguments. I also believe it is vital for the wider Jewish community, and the British public, to see that the Board's position does not reflect the considered viewpoint of all Jews in this country.

Just before Passover, our annual celebration of freedom and liberation, you published 'A Better Way than Boycotts' in which you set out the case against using boycotts, divestments or sanctions as a way to bring a resolution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

While attempting to sound reasonable and balanced, your document frames the debate in a way that deliberately obscures some very basic facts that the British Jewish establishment would do better to acknowledge.

You also take the memory of the Holocaust and perversely use it to delegitimise entirely legal, democratic and peaceful protest.

Meanwhile, your presentation of Israel's 'painful compromises' and 'generous offers' in pursuit of peace does not ring true to anyone who cares to read the historical record from both sides.

Your alternative actions to BDS, while worthwhile in themselves, will never sway an Israeli government content to manage rather than resolve the issue. Why should it, while the price it pays for its behaviour, politically and economically, is so minimal?

As a Jew I now feel that the best way to demonstrate my understanding of our Jewish religious heritage and our historical experience is by standing alongside the Palestinian people in their dispute with the State of Israel and in their call for boycott, sanctions and divestment.

In short - and borrowing a description used by Israeli Jews who share my understanding - I am boycotting from within.

In what follows I will explain why.

The missing truth

There is one fundamental fact that you fail to mention anywhere in your document. And without that  your claim to bring a balanced, rational and pro-peace viewpoint to the debate becomes highly questionable.

Nowhere across the fifty pages of 'A Better Way than Boycotts' do you once acknowledge that Israel continues to perpetrate an illegal occupation of the West Bank (now in its 48th year) or an illegal blockade of Gaza. It's an omission that demonstrates a bias you are quick to accuse others of holding. But without talking about this simple fact you cannot hope to make sense of the motivations that underpin the BDS campaign. 

Pointing out the illegality of Israel's position is not a leftist or jihadist or antisemitic act. The current status quo is viewed as breaking international law by the British government, the EU, the United States and just about every other country in the world. Is it really unworthy of mention?

You are right that Israel should not take sole blame for all that has happened, but your document paints a picture in which Israel has no blame whatsoever.

Instead you frame the debate as a dispute between Israel and a hostile neighbour.

But this is not the reality. Far from it.

Israel directly or indirectly controls the lives of more than 4 million Palestinians. This is in no way an argument between equals that can be resolved between themselves if only they were left alone to get on with it. This is an asymmetrical conflict where military power, political resources and, most glaringly, civilian casualties are not remotely even. Without this being understood, the case for boycott, divestment and sanctions will not make sense to the general reader. But I think you know this.

The democratic deficit

Contrary to the claim you make about supporters of BDS, I have no wish to deny Israel's right to exist. Nor would I deny the religious and cultural ties that Jews have to the land or their unbroken presence there.

But none of these strong connections to the land justify the denial of another people's rights, a people with equal, and in many ways stronger connections to the same land.

It is not the state itself that is illegitimate but its actions and laws certainly are.

On the West Bank Israel operates parallel and discriminatory judicial and policing systems. It applies strikingly different planning and house building regulations. It builds roads that only some people (Jewish Settlers) can use. It controls the movement of some people (Palestinians) but not others (Settlers). You may object to the use of the word 'apartheid' but what other label would you care to give it? 'Security' perhaps? That appears to be the catch-all justification for any amount of discrimination and oppression.

As for the boycott campaign wanting to force Israel's hand, you are absolutely right. And for good reason. So far no one else has succeeded in doing this. Not Obama, not Kerry, certainly not Cameron. Plenty of carrots from Western leaders, the encouragement you claim is essential for progress, but never any stick.

You present a picture of on-going peace talks and reconciliation that BDS will jeopardise by encouraging the international community to demonise Israel. But there is no peace process, there is no reconciliation happening. In fact the opposite in taking place. Israel just keeps stealing and building, building and stealing. As John Kerry discovered last year, an Israel that will not even halt Settlement construction for just a few months when establishing good will is paramount is hardly a willing partner for peace.

The two-state solution and other myths

You premise your whole position on the broad consensus among, Israelis, Palestinians, Jews in Britain and international governments that a two-state solution is the only fair way forward. I wish I could share your faith in the likelihood of this as an outcome.

After 25 years of diplomatic 'peace process' the two-state solution has failed to be delivered. Today it has become very clear to the whole world (but perhaps not to the Board of a Deputies) that the Israeli Prime Minister agrees with two states in theory but never in practice.

And what happens when Settlement building has been so rampant that no amount of 'land swaps' will compensate for it or allow the creation of a contiguous and defendable piece of land worthy of being called an autonomous state?

You quote the Israeli politician Yair Lapid, the then Finance Minister, talking in 2014 about the Kerry negotiations: “If this peace process won’t work, we should start again and again... Never, never, never give up.” I would rather cite a more impressive Jewish thinker, Albert Einstein, who said:  "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".

You call supporters of BDS well meaning but "extremely naive". I think that description better fits your position.

There is no two-state peace process. However, there already is an emerging one-state reality. The only question is will it be democratic or, as now, will it not. 

Your faith in the two-state solution would carry more conviction if you had once in the last 25 years urged the State of Israel to recognise international law, halt settlement construction and accept that Jerusalem should and could be shared. But you did not.

(Less than) Generous offers

The truth is, we are no longer looking at two competing national liberation movements. Israel 'won' a long time ago. But the victory has always been hollow and year by year it has destroyed the ideal (perhaps contradictory from the start) of a Jewish and democratic state.

Worse still, it has led to the violent death of many thousands of Palestinian civilians, most recently more than 500 children in Gaza last summer. Yet you, the Jewish leadership of Britain, insist on emphasising the need for Israeli, not Palestinian, security. It is a topsy turvy way of seeing the world and not one that I or many other British Jews wish to endorse.

You talk about Israel's long history of making 'painful concessions' and 'generous offers' in pursuit of peace. The Palestinian's ability to negotiate has indeed been flawed but not because of a failure to make significant compromises.

The PLO gave up 78% of its historic claims 25 years ago. Ever since, the Palestinians have struggled to get a just agreement on the remaining 22%. Hamas, despite its ridiculous and antisemitic charter, also recognises the 1967 Israeli borders. All of its negotiating positions have been based on that fundamental stance. While Israel has made peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan (existing sovereign states) it is yet to recognise that the Palestinians have a legitimate right to a state that controls its own borders and airspace or that has contiguous defendable land. You know all of this but again fail to consider it relevant information.

The misuse of the Holocaust and antisemitism

You argue against BDS on the grounds of sensitivity to Jewish history and the likelihood of boycotts becoming antisemitic in nature.

The BDS campaign does not target Jews for being Jews as was the case in Nazi Germany. BDS targets trade with the State of Israel until the state changes its policies and recognises its legal obligations towards the Palestinians. There is all the difference in the world between these two situations.

But if BDS supporters find it difficult to make the distinction between Jews and the State of Israel it's hardly surprising. Every Israeli Prime Minister enjoys speaking as if they were our international leader. Our communal organisations, like the Board, refuse to offer an ounce of criticism towards Israel and our synagogues offer weekly prayers for the State of Israel and its defence forces. Why wouldn't BDS campaigners draw the conclusion that Judaism, Jews and Zionism are all one and the same?

Over the last 70 years we have merged our ancient faith with a very modern political nationalist project to the point where most Jews accept the State of Israel as a seamless continuum of all our beliefs and traditions. You have contributed greatly to this situation but have left yourself no room and no words to unscramble it.

However, if BDS actions insult, bully, abuse or physically attack Jews, just because they are Jews, that must be called out, condemned and punished according to the law. But it does not change the merits of bringing pressure on the State of Israel through economic protest.

It does us no good to view our current challenges always through the prism of the Holocaust. For the first time in many centuries Jews have considerable power over another people. Around the world Jews have benefitted and thrived from open and democratic societies. We are no longer an oppressed, vulnerable people. We need to adjust to our new reality and to the responsibilities power and influence brings.

Using our own past suffering to trump the present suffering of another people gets us nowhere. Yet you are willing to use Jewish sensitivities to cancel out support for the Palestinians. It is not a good equation.

I, and a growing number of Jews worldwide, believe that the experience of the Holocaust ought to take us in a very different direction than the one you are choosing for us. And how odd that we thrive in liberal open democracies but you insist in defending the narrow and flawed democracy we have created for ourselves in Israel.

Increasing desperation

You document gathers together every possible objection to the BDS strategy and stacks up the arguments against it in ways that look increasingly desperate.

Israel brings high-tech advances to Britain

We import important medicines from Israel

Boycotts would harm the Palestinians

Are you seriously suggesting that other makers of medicines and high-tech equipment are unavailable to Britain? As for harming the Palestinians, I suggest you speak to a few to discover if they think BDS is good or bad for them in the long term. I'm confident of the answer you will receive.

You then go on to examine the academic and cultural aspects of the boycott campaign. I'm not going to attempt to counter all of your arguments here except to say that universities are complicit in the in-going occupation in multiple ways through military funded research projects. Meanwhile, Israeli artists that are happy to perform in segregated settlement venues should be shown that this is not considered acceptable.

Your championing of academic freedom might sound admirable if you had not recently expended so much effort to stop an academic conference on Israel taking place at Southampton University. Why does every discussion of Palestinian human rights have to be labeled an anti-Israel hate fest?

Your alternatives to BDS

At the end of the document you make a positive call to support charities and NGOs working to build understanding between Israeli Jews and Palestinians.

I would support this too. Groups such as The Interfaith Encounter Association (IEA) and the Parents Circle are doing excellent and important work and we should highlight them and give them financial help.

However, it is entirely disingenuous to suggest that this alone will be sufficient to change the dynamics of the conflict. While these organisations are doing good, they cannot influence the current asymmetrical conflict or the unwillingness of Western leaders to apply the same sanctions they impose on other nations that break international law.

You want to offer individuals, churches, local authorities, trade unions etc a different way of demonstrating their concern for the Palestinians, one that will do less harm to the public's perception of Israel. But the conflict has not arisen because people need to get to know each other better (although that will certainly help long-term reconciliation). The conflict has not arisen because there is insufficient bridge building between communities. The conflict has become one of human rights. Who has them and who does not.

Boycotting from within

Our relationship to the Palestinian people is the greatest issue the Jewish people and Judaism itself face in this century.  And we are currently making a spectacular mess of it. Your document is just one more example of that.

What Israel needed most from the Jewish community over the past decades was a critical voice willing to speak privately and publicly about the direction Israel was taking. But instead we provided them with apologists and cheerleaders or at very best complicit silence.

In the past, Palestinian tactics to bring attention to their cause have been rightly condemned. Murder, hijackings and suicide bombings were never legitimate routes to justice.

But BDS is very different. At last there is a movement aimed at bringing awareness and understanding of the plight of the Palestinian people that is non-violent and that can shift the perception that all Palestinians are nothing more than antisemitic terrorists. But still you insist on denying them even this legitimate tactic to bring some balance to the conflict.

The actions of the State of Israel are dividing Jewish families and Jewish communities while making all us more vulnerable to antisemitic attacks. But it is the Palestinians that are suffering far more than any of us.

I have chosen where I wish to stand and have come to my conclusions out of respect for the beliefs and traditions I was raised by and the history of the Jews that I have studied.

I find myself having to boycott from within because so many from my own community have chosen narrow tribal values over simple universal humanity. That can change if we place ourselves on the side of justice and peace that our tradition has always taught are the foundations of our true freedom.

Our own liberation is now only possible in partnership with the Palestinian people. BDS provides that partnership.

Yours sincerely

Robert Cohen

Micah's Paradigm Shift

The turbulent Priest and the arrogant Board - Reflections on the Stephen Sizer affair

This has been a difficult post to write.

Like many readers of my blog, I've been a supporter of Revd. Dr. Stephen Sizer, the Anglican priest who has written extensively on the misconceptions and dangers of Christian Zionism. In the past Stephen Sizer has been kind enough to share some of my own writing on his website. His work deconstructing Christian Zionist theology has been a helpful contribution to many Christians, pointing out the pitfalls of interpreting a biblical love of Zion to justify the actions of the modern day State of Israel. He's also emphasised that the Christian call for love and justice cannot exclude the Palestinians whether Christian or Muslim.

But this week he found himself in very hot water after sharing a link on his Facebook page to an article blaming the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001 on an Israeli/Jewish conspiracy. As a consequence, his Diocesan boss, the Bishop of Guildford, has silenced his work on all things Middle-East and instructed him to keep to his parish responsibilities if he wants to keep his job.

Stephen Sizer did not endorse the article he linked to but he did comment on the piece asking his Facebook friends: "Is this anti-Semitic? If so no doubt I’ll be asked to remove it. It raises so many questions." Here's my link to "9-11/Israel did it" if you want to see for yourself what's caused the fuss.

There's been a great deal of support for Stephen Sizer this week from pro-Palestinian activists accusing the Board of Deputies of British Jews of hounding him by referring his actions to his Church superiors. Sizer's supporters fear another example of Israel's advocates trying to blur distinctions between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism.

So did Stephen Sizer cross a line?

I'm not a great fan of conspiracy theories as a rule. Human frailty rather than human conniving usually looks like a more likely cause when tragedy strikes. As with all good conspiracy theories, the evidence "9-11/Israel did it" is presented as comprehensive and overwhelming. It is also deeply anti-Semitic.

Stephen Sizer should have been smart enough to spot this immediately.

It's not just Israel that the authors of the piece are attempting to stitch-up. That in itself is pretty far-fetched. The motives don't stack up and implications of the conspiracy being discovered would surely outweigh any possible benefit. But the accusations go far wider. Apart from blaming the Israeli State and its security services, the authors have assembled an extensive cast list of American and Israeli Jewish businessmen, politicians, lawyers, judges and speechwriters and accused them of working together to create a new 'Pearl Harbor' one that will galvanise American public opinion to support wars on Israel's enemies.

Claiming a Jewish cabal is operating as a shady Zionist network bent on destabilising the world for Jewish advantage, is straight out of the classic play book of anti-Semitism. Stephen Sizer was right that it raises so many questions. The problem is that most of them relate to his personal judgement.

After the link was spotted by The Jewish News, Sizer emailed the newspaper saying: "Encouraging research and debate on all aspects of [9/11] is not anti-Semitic… Suppressing discussion on such grounds will fuel suspicion, not remove it.”

I don't agree. The article is not worthy of being described as contributing research or debate on 9/11. It's hardcore racism dressed up as anti-Zionism and a trained academic like Stephen Sizer should have realised what he was reading. So too should anyone looking to defend him for sharing the piece without clearly condemning it.

If you want to criticise Israel there is no shortage of uncontested material to draw on. You don't need to make it up. For a start there is a nearly fifty year occupation of Palestinian land going on that both the British and American governments (and most of the rest of the world) consistently agree is illegal.

Then there is on-going land theft, collective punishment, child arrests, imprisonment without charge, shoot to kill policing, parallel and discriminatory jurisdictions, and, in Israel itself, a gaping democratic deficit both constitutional and cultural if you happen to be Palestinian Israeli citizen. Shall I go on?

By sharing the 9-11 article Stephen Sizer has caused offence (especially to those of his critics who are eager to be offended). But that's not the only cause of my disappointment.

What's really frustrating is that Stephen has pulled attention away from the issue of civil, political and national rights for the Palestinian people and shifted the debate to anti-Semitism and crack-pot conspiracy theories. It's a situation that allows his critics, and other defenders of Israel's behaviour, to associate all support for the Palestinian people with an anti-Semitic agenda "There, look, we told you so! Anti-Zionism is just a mutation of anti-Semitism."

Stephen Sizer has now publicly accepted his mistake. At least in terms of promoting an anti-Semitic agenda via his Facebook page. His Bishop, Rt. Revd. Andrew Watson, is quoted in this week's Church Times saying: "[Stephen] is certainly hugely remorseful, and embarrassed and ashamed by it. He has been shocked by his own stupidity". That makes two of us.

However, like Bishop Watson, I don't believe that Stephen Sizer is motivated by anti-Semitism. 

Passions ride high on both sides of this conflict. And one consequence of that is that supporters on each side are willing to believe the absolute worst about their opponents. It's a situation that does not bode well for eventual reconciliation.

Stephen Sizer's views on Christian Zionism deserved to be heard and understood and I hope after a suitable period of remorse and silence he can continue to make this contribution to the debate.

As for the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which referred the incident to the Diocese of Guildford, on this occasion it was fully appropriate for them to do so and to expect the Church authorities to take disciplinary action.

I'm sure the Board couldn't care less about what I think of them. But just in case they are getting carried away by my new found support, let me make this observation.

I would have a great deal more time for the Board's watchdog role on anti-Semitism if it could spread its concerns for respect and the protection of an oppressed people to the situation in Israel itself. 

As I've highlighted, there is no shortage of internationally accepted facts that demonstrate a human rights scandal happening every hour of the day in the Jewish State that claims to speak for me and every single member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Instead, we get at best silence and more usually tacit support of Israel's actions . If the Board could be courageous enough to point out, just occasionally, that all is not well in the Jewish homeland, its credibility on issues of discrimination and racism against Jews would be greatly enhanced.

As a well-known Jewish teacher from Judea is quoting as saying: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

   

How the UK's Jewish leadership killed off the two-state solution

In the last month it's become clear that the UK's Jewish leadership, despite its constant mantra, has no interest in promoting a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. At least not in a way that has the slightest practical significance.

We may hear the consistent rhetoric that claims to support compromise and bilateral negotiation but in reality our public representatives now look as thoroughly intransigent as Israel's right-wing coalition government.

And if that's the case we have a serious problem on our hands. It's a problem that leads directly to the increase in anti-Semitic attacks on our streets and it's undermining local community dialogue with our Christian and Muslim neighbours.

The lack of credible independence from the Israeli government and the abdication of the role of critical Jewish friend to Israel is not doing the Jewish community in UK, or the State of Israel, or its standing among the family of nations, any good whatsoever.

The latest evidence for the abandonment of honest support for two-states is the behaviour shown during the run-up and aftermath of the House of Commons vote to recognise the Palestinian state earlier this month (13 October).

Before looking at what happened at Westminster, it's worth revisiting the best research we have on the attitude of UK Jews to the conflict.

According to the most recent polling data (2010) carried out by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, UK Jews hold the following views about Israel.

• Two-thirds (67%) favour giving up territory for peace with the Palestinians
• Almost three-quarters (74%) are opposed to the expansion of existing settlements in the West Bank
• A large majority (78%) favours a two-state solution to the conflict with the Palestinians
• A clear majority (55% against 36%) consider Israel to be ‘an occupying power in the West Bank

So UK Jews are thoroughly dovish on the key issues.

And remember, this survey was carried out just a year after Operation Cast Lead, which was the last time Israel carried out a major assault on Gaza comparable to what took place this summer. The 2010 poll found that 72% agreed or strongly agreed that the military action that Israel carried out in Gaza was a legitimate act of self-defence. However, despite that perception of the where blame lay, just over half (52%) thought that Israel should still negotiate with Hamas.

Now I don't expect Israel's official lobbyists in the UK, such as BICOM, the Zionist Federation, We Believe in Israel and the Friends of Israel party political bodies to do anything other than Jerusalem's bidding. They long ago chose to position themselves as Israel's defenders right or wrong, so why should they take account of UK Jewish public opinion. They are entitled to do their political work.

But what of The Board of Deputies, the Jewish Leadership Council and the religious denominations, in particular the United Synagogue (which employs Britain's Chief Rabbi) and Reform Judaism. If they really believe in achieving the two-state solution they are going about it in a way guaranteed to frustrate its already very slim prospect of ever happening.

Rather than use their influence as representatives of world Jewry, our religious and communal leaders have thrown their lot in with the Israel hard-liners and are disregarding the more conciliatory position of much of the Jewish community.

On current form, it would be easier to openly slip a prayer for Gaza's dead children into a crevice of the Wailing Wall than to find an Israel policy gap between the UK Zionist lobby and our religious and communal leadership.

So how did we see this Israeli take-over of UK Jewish communal affairs played out this month?

In the two weeks leading up to vote in the House of Commons my email inbox become full of requests from Israel lobby groups, as well as from the Board, JLC, United Synagogue and Reform Judaism, to write to my MP, urging them to oppose any motion that did not tie recognition to the successful completion of a peace process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. In other words, Israel, and only Israel, gets to decide when the Palestinians deserve their right to self-determination and who should be their representatives in those negotiations.

Judging by the frantic efforts to mobilise Jewish constituents, you would have thought MPs were voting on a motion to de-recognise the State of Israel rather than supporting a purely symbolic act that would place the Palestinians on a (slightly) more level playing field in any future talks.

In the end, the amended motion favoured by our Jewish leadership did not get Commons support. However, an additional clause, put forward by the former Labour Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, was accepted by the motion's sponsors. So on the night here's what our MPs, who chose to turn up, overwhelmingly voted to support:

This House believes that the Government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel, as a contribution to securing a negotiated two state solution.

But even this non-binding statement of evenhandedness turned out to be totally unacceptable to our communal leadership.

The Board's President Vivian Wineman wrote the following day:

"This resolution and amendment, however well-intentioned it may be, is a most unfortunate and misguided development...This is bad news as it gives fuel to Palestinian rejectionism. This would only contribute to the delegitimisation campaign against Israel, with the Palestinians using international courts, pushing for boycotts and other activities which the vast majority of British politicians oppose."

Is it just me, or does that sound like a massive over reaction?

I suspect John Kerry will have a different view on where the rejectionist behaviour is coming from and would be delighted to find out from Mr. Wineman where exactly the "negotiations" are taking place.

And did you notice the sudden leap to "boycotts" and "international courts", the two Palestinian tactics that put such horror into the hearts of the Jewish establishment. So the warning to our legislators from our Jewish leadership is: give the Palestinians an inch and they will take a mile. The Board's position does not strike me as one predisposed to the kind of political compromise that will underpin a two-state solution.

And Mr. Wineman had more to say:

"The only way forward is negotiation, and not being derailed by those who seek to block a meaningful peace process...After all unilateral moves have not contributed to the peace process".

Was there anything in the Commons motion that called for anything other than negotiations?

And while the Board of Deputies is condemning "unilateral moves" did it have anything to say about the announcement in August of Israel's unilateral appropriation of 1,000 acres of land belonging to five Palestinian villages on the West Bank? Or did I miss that press release?

Meanwhile, the Jewish Leadership Council chose to issue a joint statement with the Zionist Federation and BICOM along almost identical lines to the Board of Deputies. It makes you wonder if we really need all of these organisations when there is so little to distinguish their positions on such a central issue of Jewish concern.

So what should a commitment to a two-state solution look like from our communal and religious leadership, especially if they were genuinely concerned about the ever-growing democratic deficit on both sides of the 1967 Green Line?

Well, if they were serious about promoting two states, I would expect to hear from Vivian Wineman regular calls for an end to the illegal occupation of the West Bank. I would look forward to Simon Johnson of the Jewish Leadership Council criticising the expansion of the Settlements as undermining political confidence in a peace process. I would welcome the Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, preparing the Jewish community for the idea of a shared Jerusalem. And Reform Judaism would be asking how Jewish ethics aligns with discrimination on house building and water access in the 60% of the West Bank which Israel controls completely.

If our leadership were truly committed to justice and reconciliation through two states, we would be seeing other activity too. There would be important community based educational work to co-ordinate and support. Decades of denial that Israel has the slightest culpability in the Israel/Palestine impasse would be confronted and discussed. A little less Israel advocacy training and a whole lot more unbiased history teaching would encourage a communal environment ready to press Israel to get serious about negotiations.

In truth though, I suspect it is all far too late in the day.

And if the chances of a two-state solution really have died, then our Jewish leadership can share some of the blame for killing it off. For years they could have spoken out and influenced governments of every shade in Jerusalem, raising the legitimate concerns of the Jewish diaspora. But they chose not to. Instead they opted to mimic the same belligerency that is taking us to a political and moral dead end.

In the meantime, land will continue to be stolen. Israeli soldiers will continue to arrest and shoot dead Palestinian children with impunity and Israelis will be outraged when all of this prompts a counter reaction.

And closer to home, interfaith relations with Christians and Muslims will falter and stumble and anti-Israel motivated attacks against Jews and Jewish property will rise because we have done nothing to counter the perception that 21st century Zionism, Judaism and the views of the UK Jewish community are all one and the same thing.

Next year we have a general election in the UK. The Board of Deputies has already published its 'manifesto' aimed at influencing candidates' attitudes on issues of Jewish concern. Once again it declares a UK Jewish commitment to a two-state solution. If I were a would-be MP for the next UK parliament, I would be asking the Jewish religious and communal leadership to spell out exactly what they have done to encourage the two-state outcome they claim to be so wedded to.

The things I learnt this summer (about Hamas, Terror Tunnels, Charters, Rabbis, Boycotts and Tapestry)

Like children returning to school, I thought I'd write some short reflections about the things I learnt during the holidays.

1. Tapestry

I was never much good at arts and crafts. I only do words. But this summer I learnt something about cross stitch tapestry.

Around 260 women, were killed in Gaza during July and August, mostly as a result of Israeli aerial bombing and ground artillery. I know some people like to blame Hamas for all the deaths during the Gaza assault ('they started it' etc) but I don't subscribe to that twisted piece of moral sophistry. If you fire the weapons the deaths are your responsibility. The same goes for Hamas rockets.

In amongst the daily death count of the summer, one loss spoke to me and brought me close to tears on my train journey home one evening.

On July 20th Samar Al-Hallaq was killed in Gaza when an Israeli shell blew-up the residential building she and her family had fled to for shelter in the suburbs of Gaza City. Samar was 29 years old and part of the Palestinian History Tapestry Project. The Project is a charity that has set out to record Palestinian history through the creation of embroidered panels. Each panel is sewn with traditional Palestinian cross stitch and illustrates the life and times of the Palestinian people.

Samar, who had been taught to embroider as a child by the older women in her family, became interested and began to contribute.

Something about Samar's death broke through to me that evening and made all of the other deaths I was reading about meaningful. Samar's two sons, 6-year-old Kenan, and 4-year-old Saji, and five other members of her family were also killed. Samar was eight months pregnant. Her husband, Hussan, who recently completed a Master degree of Science in eBusiness, survived.

I wondered what the rest of Hussan's life would be like.

2. Mosques

I didn't think I would be so moved by the destruction of buildings. But the photographs of whole neighbourhoods reduced to rubble showed how disingenuous was the claim that the IDF was only targeting terrorists. It was an impossible aim to begin with and the Israeli government would have known that from the start. When I looked at the pictures from, just for example, Rafah, near the Egyptian border, I thought these are family homes, children were raised there, memories were created in those ruins. Israel (like any other state) has the right to defend itself. But how could that defence possibly look like this when Israeli civilian casualties, after 50 days, were just half a dozen people.

And then there are Mosques. Seventy-three were destroyed in Gaza over the summer. In an article in the New Statesman magazine by Donald Macintyre, I read about the Mahkamah Mosque which had stood since 1455 in a side road off a main street in the Gaza City district of Shejaiya. It was considered a jewel of Malmuk architecture and was testament to an Islamic culture and civilisation just as indigenous to the Holy Land as Judaism and Christianity. It had been in continuous use for three centuries. Three centuries of prayers and learning. Three centuries of a community gathering together to worship God. In the early morning of July 24th it was flattened by an Israeli bomb. It wasn't necessary to imagine this being a synagogue or a church to understand what this must have meant to that community. You can imagine the outcry in the West though if 73 synagogues or churches had been destroyed.

So I learnt that buildings are casualties too.

3. Soldiers

Sixty-four Israeli soldiers were killed by the time the truce was agreed at the end of August. Investigations are underway, by Israel itself, to establish if any were killed by their own side in an attempt to avoid hostages being taken by Palestinian fighters. But let's assume for the moment that they were all killed by Palestinians. These soldiers' deaths made me angry and upset too.

What was the point of their sacrifice? Was 'Protective Edge' really a necessary and unavoidable operation? Could Israel have chosen to start talking to the fledgling Fatah led Unity government, as the American's urged it to, earlier in the summer? The case for yet another assault on Gaza was never convincingly made. And after it's all over, Hamas remain a political and military force, with far greater support today, in both Gaza and in the West Bank, than they had in June. Just like the 2,100 plus Palestinian deaths, these Israeli conscripts should not have lost their lives just to make the whole situation even worse than it was before.

4. Rabbis

Some Rabbis are better than others.

I wrote a post called 'Standing on one leg for Israel-Palestine' and received strong criticism from a liberal Rabbi on Facebook for failing to mention the three murdered Israeli teenagers abducted on the West Bank in June. I pointed out that I had written about the boys in my previous post 'The true meaning of Brother's Keeper' which the new piece linked back to. In a private message via Facebook I invited the Rabbi to meet with me to talk about our different points of view since we work in the same city. I've had no reply so far. The offer is still open.

I wrote an open letter in July to Laura Janner-Klausner, Senior Rabbi to the Movement for Reform Judaism in the UK, asking that she take a bolder position than just offering prayer and empathy for the Palestinians under fire in Gaza. The letter was published on the Jews for Justice for Palestinians website where it received more than seven hundred Facebook 'Likes'. So I must have been saying something that resonated with a great many other British Jews. Rabbi Laura wrote back to me the same day that I sent her my letter and we had a respectful and warm exchange of emails. Like I said, some Rabbis are better than others.

5. Vitriol

People who don't know me from Adam are more than happy to be hateful about me personally.

Here's one email I had to my blog over the summer:

"Ho hum, another so-called Jew more moral than all the rest of us Jews that support Israel. In fact, your kind are so moral, you have to boycott Jews. You think the Jihadists care what kind of self-proclaimed good Jew you are? As an a Israeli, I piss on ghetto Jews like you. We will survive and thrive long after shit like you is maggot food."

I've learnt to be resilient about this kind of correspondence. I hope it is not typical of Israeli attitudes towards Jews critical of Israel.

In contrast, some people are very generous. In the same week as the above message I was sent this from a retired Anglican Bishop:

"I read your Micah's Paradigm Shift with great interest every time it arrives in my Inbox. Thank you for all you write. I see myself as a true friend of Israel, as indeed you are."

Should the Jewish Israeli's view or the Bishop's carry more weight? You decide.

6. Charters

Over the summer I read the Hamas charter written in 1988. It's shot full of extreme religious nationalism, blatant anti-Semitism and crack-pot history. It's a textbook exercise in how NOT to write an inspiring, uplifting tract calling for the liberation of your land and its people. The quality of the English translation probably doesn't help it much. It's definitely an embarrassment for anyone in solidarity with the Palestinians or sympathetic to their right to use armed resistance against an occupation.

The odd thing is, Hamas seem to ignore their charter while the rest of the world obsess about it. It's become a handy way to insist that there is 'no partner for peace' even though Hamas has consistently offered peace based on '67 borders and the lifting of the blockade. I suggest that Hamas negotiate their charter out of existence as part of a settlement, should Israel ever agree to talk to them.

Benjamin Netanyahu's party, Likud, has a charter too, from 1999, and I read that as well. It's also full of extreme religious nationalism and dodgy history but the Islamophobia is only in the sub text. It refuses to accept that 'Judea and Samaria' (aka the West Bank) can be anything other than part of Israel, it says Settlements are an unassailable right of the Jewish people, and it sees Jerusalem as the eternal and indivisible capital city of the Jewish State. Hopefully, Bibi will ignore his charter too. The rest of the world don't seem too bothered about it.

7. 'Terror Tunnels'

In wartime people are always prepared to believe the worst about their enemy. It's a necessary part of the process of dehumanising them so when the killing starts it is easier to deal with it both politically and emotionally.

Even though the existence of 'terror tunnels' dug from Gaza into Israel for the express purpose of killing Israelis had not been a part of the initial justification for Operation Protective Edge, it soon became so. The image of Hamas fighters or suicide bombers suddenly emerging through the floor of a kibbutz kindergarten gripped the Israeli public's imagination. A rumour that there were plans to commit mass murder and kidnapping around the Jewish New Year, with 200 Hamas terrorists dressed in IDF uniforms, gained credence without the slightest credible intelligence. The possibility was enough. Who needed evidence.

So far no tunnels have been found that reached anywhere near civilian centres. The purpose of the tunnels was certainly military and aimed at getting behind IDF lines to kill or kidnap soldiers near the Gaza border. It's called asymmetric warfare. You can read a helpful article at + 972 magazine.

8. Balance

People are getting very good at creating infographics. The dead and injured become neatly lined up stick people, anonymously conveying the asymmetry of the suffering on a tidy chart in bold colours.

The latest one I've seen tells me that apart from the 2,100 plus fatalities (including more than 500 children) there were also:

• 3,438 children injured
• 10,080 homes destroyed
• 450,000 people internally displaced

This is what allegedly 'targeted precision bombing' ends up producing in a densely populated strip of land the size of the Isle of White.

I'm glad Israel's rocket defence system, the Iron Dome, exists. It meant that only a six Israeli citizens were killed during the summer. In fact Hamas may have killed more of its own people than it did Israelis, with rockets that fell short of their targets. That didn't stop Israel and its supporters presenting the conflict as though they, rather than the Palestinians, were facing a truly existential threat. But there is a big difference between sirens sounding in Tel Aviv and whole neighbourhoods disappearing in Gaza City.

Members of my family wanted me to convey 'more balance' in my writing. Which I think means putting Israel's side of the story. I keep saying there is no balance. Look at the stick people! And after all, isn't what happens to the Palestinians part of Israel's story too? Okay, I say, if the Zionist Federation and the Board of Deputies attempt some balance, then I will try harder as well.

9. Boycotts

Boycotts are the real 'terror tunnels' into the hearts of the Jewish community.

In the UK this summer the focus has been on a cosmetics shop in Kings Street in Manchester that sells products sourced from the Dead Sea, most of which is within the West Bank. So the issue has been that minerals acquired through an illegal occupation are generating profits for Israeli businesses.

The boycott Israel campaign makes most Jews in the UK feel angry, fearful, confused, personally threatened and extremely defensive. Attempting to present it as a legitimate non-violent protest against the policies of the State of Israel and in support of Palestinian rights just does not work for most of the Jewish community. 

From the mainstream Jewish perspective, BDS is simply a return to the anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. And, as I was asked over the summer, why pick on Israel for such actions? Why not organise boycotts of Syria, or ISIS or Russia? "Surely this disproportionate focus on Israel is a manifestation of anti-Semitism."

I've tried to explain that BDS against Israel is a workable tactic for change against a country that relies on international trade. I've also made the point that it's the Palestinians that have called for this action. I've said that there are plenty of government led sanctions already in place against Syria and Russia and how on earth do you boycott ISIS?

But I suspect none of this cuts through. That's because the whole issue has deep emotional implications linked to religion, history and personal identity that a purely rational argument does not begin to address for most Jewish ears.

10. Big Thinking v Small Thinking

I believe there exists such a thing as Jewish values and ethics that are worth upholding and that have meaning that Jews can take pride in. Call it Jewish Big Thinking. There also exists a tradition of Jewish myopia and Small Thinking, of which Zionism, particularly in its religious nationalist vein, has done much to contribute to. Both the Big Thinking and the Small Thinking are equally part of Jewish history. By the way, the same distinctions can been seen in Christianity and Islam.

The Jewish Small Thinking was well represented over the summer. These were the people from the Jewish community who still think Israel-Palestine is just a problem of presentation ("If only people could understand what Israel is up against" etc).

More than a thousand people attended a 'Town Hall' meeting on August 13th in North London organised by the Board of Deputies of British Jews to discuss the situation in Israel and Gaza and its impact on the UK Jewish community. The media reports of the event told me a great deal about those who have the loudest voices in the Jewish community. At the meeting there were no cries for justice, no calls for reconciliation, no suggestion of establishing a friendly critique of Israel's actions. Nobody was in despair at the death of hundreds of children at the hands of the Israeli Defence Forces.

Instead, those speaking from the floor called for bigger London rallies in support of Israel, more effective lobbying of the British parliament and better PR on behalf of the Israeli government.

The need of large sections of the Jewish community to feel totally blameless and to maintain a self and public perception of victimhood is incredibly strong. So, at best, we say we are desperately longing for 'peace' while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the slightest culpability for 'war'. And by 'peace' we do not mean 'peace and justice' but rather 'peace and quiet'.

And in the meantime, the State that claims to act in our interests (mine included), has created another generation of orphaned, maimed and bereaved children who will struggle to give Israel the benefit of the doubt when they are asked to accept them as genuine partners for peace.

Still, if you live in Siderot or Ashkelon, at least it's quiet again. 

Meanwhile, in Europe, Israel is becoming a pariah state and Jews are threatened and attacked on the streets. But not because they are Jews but because our spiritual and communal leadership and a great many individual Jews too, have chosen to make no distinction between Judaism and Zionism.

So, these are the things I learnt during the summer that's just past.

As we enter the autumn and the days of annual Jewish repentance and spiritual renewal, there is a great deal to reflect upon.

Further reading from Micah's Paradigm Shift during summer 2014

The true meaning of Brother's Keeper

Standing on one leg for Israel-Palestine

Time to cross the line - A letter to Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner

Remembering COHEN A. and COHEN H. (Or the short trip from Flanders Fields to the Gaza Strip)