Dear Chief Rabbi,
Returning from Israel, I read your article with some bewilderment. The most perplexing was your comments about "shreying gevalt". If I can take you back to the lessons of the Shoah, one of the things we could debate is whether if more Jews and others had "shreyed gevalt" earlier and in a more concentrated form, things might have turned out differently for some of the six million who were lost.
I do not consider that anybody who has risen to Israel's defence in the last three years against the onslaught of another Amalekite leader - which has resulted in the loss of nearly 1,000 Israeli Jews, never mind the injured, all of which was totally unnecessary - can be accused of "shreying gevalt".
So, when you address the belated European Union seminar on combating anti-Semitism hosted by European Commission President Prodi, I hope you will reconsider your words in presenting the disappointment of Jews living in the United Kingdom at EU governments' response to anti-Semitic attacks in the last three years.
Speaking for myself, I have absolutely no qualms in criticising not just UK media, but European governmental response to Israel's defence against Palestinian terrorism, and EU funding of the Palestinian Authority and the lack of accountability thereof. I am sure you have noted the press release issued by the House of Commons Select Committee on International Development, which presents a far from balanced assessment. That comes as no surprise to me, as I knew that Israel would not be given a fair hearing. However, in the absence of Israel's voice being defended by UK Jewish lay leadership, it was left to the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and Ilke Schroder, MEP, to speak on Israel's behalf to this Committee. I have no regrets whatsoever in presenting a paper for that Committee which I knew perfectly well would receive scant recognition. Nonetheless, for the historical record, it is important that it is there. If that is "shreying gevalt", so be it.
On the narrower issue of the BBC, why do you think it has taken three years for the appointment of somebody to fulfill the role given to Mr Balen? What do you think would have happened if Dr. Kelly had not committed suicide and there had been no Hutton Report; do you really think that there would have been any examination on the BBC's part of its objectivity and impartiality on reporting on Israel, notwithstanding the wealth of evidence of prejudice presented to the BBC (Trevor Asserson and others)?
Your Jerusalem Post article makes it quite clear that you are speaking on behalf of, and as part of, the British Establishment. That is fine for those who wish to be so considered, but you should not be surprised that in the light of the events of the last three years, there are many Orthodox Anglo Jews who have come to reconsider their position and are seriously questioning where their future lies.
There are plenty of issues that should be debated in this context now. One would be the whole basis of any two-state solution, including considering all the implications for World Jewry and Christianity when determining the possibility of statehood for those who have repeatedly sworn to eliminate the Jewish homeland of Israel. That was the message in the newspaper advertisement a few weeks ago issued by the National Unity Coalition for Israel, speaking for 200 pro-Israel Jewish and Christian organisations, representing 40 million Americans. Another would be the whole question of Aliyah and whether or not this is a requirement for Diaspora Jewry at the current time.
Why are you not involved in any debate on these issues?
Returning from Israel, I read your article with some bewilderment. The most perplexing was your comments about "shreying gevalt". If I can take you back to the lessons of the Shoah, one of the things we could debate is whether if more Jews and others had "shreyed gevalt" earlier and in a more concentrated form, things might have turned out differently for some of the six million who were lost.
I do not consider that anybody who has risen to Israel's defence in the last three years against the onslaught of another Amalekite leader - which has resulted in the loss of nearly 1,000 Israeli Jews, never mind the injured, all of which was totally unnecessary - can be accused of "shreying gevalt".
So, when you address the belated European Union seminar on combating anti-Semitism hosted by European Commission President Prodi, I hope you will reconsider your words in presenting the disappointment of Jews living in the United Kingdom at EU governments' response to anti-Semitic attacks in the last three years.
Speaking for myself, I have absolutely no qualms in criticising not just UK media, but European governmental response to Israel's defence against Palestinian terrorism, and EU funding of the Palestinian Authority and the lack of accountability thereof. I am sure you have noted the press release issued by the House of Commons Select Committee on International Development, which presents a far from balanced assessment. That comes as no surprise to me, as I knew that Israel would not be given a fair hearing. However, in the absence of Israel's voice being defended by UK Jewish lay leadership, it was left to the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and Ilke Schroder, MEP, to speak on Israel's behalf to this Committee. I have no regrets whatsoever in presenting a paper for that Committee which I knew perfectly well would receive scant recognition. Nonetheless, for the historical record, it is important that it is there. If that is "shreying gevalt", so be it.
On the narrower issue of the BBC, why do you think it has taken three years for the appointment of somebody to fulfill the role given to Mr Balen? What do you think would have happened if Dr. Kelly had not committed suicide and there had been no Hutton Report; do you really think that there would have been any examination on the BBC's part of its objectivity and impartiality on reporting on Israel, notwithstanding the wealth of evidence of prejudice presented to the BBC (Trevor Asserson and others)?
Your Jerusalem Post article makes it quite clear that you are speaking on behalf of, and as part of, the British Establishment. That is fine for those who wish to be so considered, but you should not be surprised that in the light of the events of the last three years, there are many Orthodox Anglo Jews who have come to reconsider their position and are seriously questioning where their future lies.
There are plenty of issues that should be debated in this context now. One would be the whole basis of any two-state solution, including considering all the implications for World Jewry and Christianity when determining the possibility of statehood for those who have repeatedly sworn to eliminate the Jewish homeland of Israel. That was the message in the newspaper advertisement a few weeks ago issued by the National Unity Coalition for Israel, speaking for 200 pro-Israel Jewish and Christian organisations, representing 40 million Americans. Another would be the whole question of Aliyah and whether or not this is a requirement for Diaspora Jewry at the current time.
Why are you not involved in any debate on these issues?