Jewish reactions in Britain to the Amnesty Report on Israel and Apartheid

JVL Introduction

On 16 February, JVL posted an article by Jewish American left e-magazine, Jewish Currents, reviewing the reaction by major Jewish American liberal-Zionist Jewish organisations to Amnesty International’s Israel Apartheid Report.

We thought we would do a British survey, and asked Naomi Wayne  to pull together the statements issued by the key British communal bodies in response to Amnesty’s critique, along with reactions from groups which position themselves as critics within practising Judaism.

Here is her report.

Disturbingly, there wasn’t much to work with.  As far as we could establish from their websites, Facebook pages and Twitter feeds, none of the Jewish denominations – Liberal, Reform, Masorti and Orthodox – have said a word about Amnesty’s report.  From the Office of the Chief Rabbi, whose website includes a ‘Social Responsibility’ section, we also came up with nothing.

After which, given its affiliation to the Labour Party and its self-description that it works ‘for democratic socialism in the UK and Israel’, we checked out the Jewish Labour Movement.  Once more, nada: we couldn’t locate a syllable on any of its social media.

Why this silence? Perhaps they were all waiting for the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council to deliver their standard kneejerk reactions to any criticism of Israel.  Which, under the sadly predictable headline – ‘Jewish community condemns biased Amnesty “apartheid” slur against Israel’ – they did.  So thin is the statement, we have reproduced it in full, to reassure readers that we haven’t omitted anything crucial!

 “We have seen a copy of a report due to be released by Amnesty International UK (AI UK) tomorrow. We are shocked but not surprised by the content given the history of AI UK’s one-sided positioning on Israel.

The report is completely biased and applies standards to Israel that are not applied to any other country. The emotive term “apartheid” against Israel is a preposterous slur. Israel is a vibrant democracy and a state for all its citizens, as exemplified by its diverse government and robust civil society.

Despite AI UK’s claim to recognise the Jewish claim to self-determination, the report makes clear both through its lamenting of the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and through its policy recommendations, that it does not support that right. The State of Israel was established with broad international support and survived early attempts at destruction. There are still many who insist on punishing Israel for its very survival. Jewish communities across the world see too clearly through these attempts and reject them.

Regrettably, inequality and discrimination exist in all democracies, and that includes in Israel. We support all sincere efforts to address such disparities. Amnesty’s heavily biased report fails to offer anything worthwhile to that cause. The lack of democracy in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as the conflict between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the terrorist Hamas control in Gaza is a fundamental and not a peripheral cause of tension. This issue is not once referenced in the report. The situation for the Palestinian people is indeed distressing; this will not be alleviated by destroying Israel. The signing of the Abraham Accords shows that this is now being recognised and accepted in the wider region. The quicker serious Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are resumed, the sooner a lasting peace can be achieved.

If Amnesty UK were serious about improving standards, it would find ways to strengthen existing efforts on the ground. Instead, it chooses to focus on demonising the one Jewish state, holding it to clear double standards. This is a bad faith report hostile to the very concept of Israel, and we reject its very premise.”

Thus, the criticisms from British Jewish establishments’  senior communal members are all sweeping generalisations – “completely biased”, “preposterous slur”, “does not support (the) right (to Jewish self-determination) ”, “ focus(es) on demonising the one Jewish state”,  “hostile to the very concept of Israel”.  No matter how often you read and reread the BoD’s and JLC’s joint statement, you won’t dig out a single specific challenge to any of the substance of the Amnesty Report.

Unsurprisingly, Britain’s two leading liberal/left Jewish communal groups – Na’amod and Yachad – chose to let the BoD/JLC approach determine the structure of their responses.  Newish activist organisation Na’amod was furious at the  “disgraceful attacks” and “smear campaign against Amnesty”.  It posted a letter on Twitter and Facebook for supporters to send to the Board of Deputies. The letter pointed out that Amnesty was only “the latest human rights organisation to accuse of Israel of committing the crime of apartheid, joining Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, Yesh Din”.  And unlike most Jewish commentators – who forget (or ignore) any Palestinian interest in the matter – Na’amod included the reminder that before Jewish and international bodies caught up, “countless Palestinian organisations” had already accused Israel of apartheid.

Nevertheless, Na’amod’s anger was matched by its caution. Twice it tackled the language issue, saying first:

“Na’amod members don’t all agree on the applicability of the term ‘apartheid’ to Israel-Palestine, but we do agree that this report should have prompted deep reflection from everyone in our community with a connection to the State of Israel”.  [And later:] “The Board’s response misrepresents the many British Jews who share Amnesty’s opposition to human rights violations against Palestinians, even if they don’t agree on terminology.”

By contrast, the longer established Yachad was both tougher and more comprehensive in its criticism.  While not actually signing up to Amnesty’s apartheid designation, it makes clear in its Twitter statement that its priority concerns are Israel’s inequalities, democratic deficiencies and human rights abuses.  Its statement deserves to be read in full,  in particular, its last two paragraphs, where it throws down the gauntlet to the Jewish establishment:

“. . we take the findings of this report extremely seriously. Our community cannot ignore the brutal reality of occupation and human rights abuses, particularly in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. If we want to see a just end to the conflict – resulting in peace, equality and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians – we need to work with, not against, human rights organisations.

The Jewish community’s leadership and representative organisations cannot continue to wage war with the human rights community and dismiss the findings of this report and others as simply an attempt to smear Israel or perpetuate antisemitism. The AI report is strongly supported by evidence from Israeli Human Rights Organisations and the Israeli media, both of which serve as a check and balance on the Israeli government. The work of these Israeli institutions should be a source of pride for those who claim to be committed to Israel maintaining a democratic character. It will be to our collective detriment if we side-line the content of this report, instead choosing to focus solely on the rights and wrong of the use of the word ‘apartheid.’ ”

/ends

Appendix: here are the full Yachad and Na’amod statements

Yachad

“Israel is not a state for all the people it governs.  There are currently over 5 million people that live under its jurisdiction that do not enjoy equal voting rights or freedom of movement. Palestinians and Israelis are not equal.  The Israeli Nation-State law has made it clear that Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, with former Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu stating that “Israel is not a country of all its citizens”. It’s within this context that the Amnesty International report, and those which preceded it, has been published.

This is not the first time that a Human Rights organisation, or indeed Israeli politicians, have used the term ‘apartheid’ to describe the actions of the state of Israel. In 2010 Ehud Barak, Israel’s then defence minister warned that if Israel did not make peace with the Palestinians, Israel would become an apartheid state. In 2013, Tzipi Livni, Israel’s then justice minister made the same warning. In 2020, well respected Israeli Human Rights org Yesh Din, concluded that the crime against humanity of apartheid is being committed in the West Bank. The perpetrators are Israelis, and the victims are Palestinians. In 2021, another Israeli Human Rights org, B’Tselem, reached the conclusion that the bar for defining Israel as an apartheid regime has been met.

This report goes further than some previous reports in that it draws less of a distinction between Israel within the green line and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Some of the recommendations the report makes also go further than others do, and do not extend to a political resolution for both nations to be able to live side by side in peace.

We do not endorse all the findings and recommendations in the report. We remain firmly committed to a negotiated political agreement, which will guarantee the safety, security and self-determination that both Israelis and Palestinians desire and deserve, and (will) end the repressive systems in place that are well documented in this report.

Yet we take the findings of this report extremely seriously. Our community cannot ignore the brutal reality of occupation and human rights abuses, particularly in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. If we want to see a just end to the conflict – resulting in peace, equality and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians – we need to work with, not against, human rights organisations.

The Jewish community’s leadership and representative organisations cannot continue to wage war with the human rights community and dismiss the findings of this report and others as simply an attempt to smear Israel or perpetuate antisemitism. The AI report is strongly supported by evidence from Israeli Human Rights Organisations and the Israeli media, both of which serve as a check and balance on the Israeli government. The work of these Israeli institutions should be a source of pride for those who claim to be committed to Israel maintaining a democratic character. It will be to our collective detriment if we side-line the content of this report, instead choosing to focus solely on the rights and wrong of the use of the word ‘apartheid.’ ”

Na’amod

“Amnesty International’s report last week made them the latest human rights organisation to accuse of Israel of committing the crime of apartheid, joining Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, Yesh Din and countless Palestinian organisations before them. Na’amod members don’t all agree on the applicability of the term ‘apartheid’ to Israel-Palestine, but we do agree that this report should have prompted deep reflection from everyone in our community with a connection to the State of Israel.

Instead, the Board of Deputies – which claims to be “the voice of the UK Jewish community” – launched a smear campaign against Amnesty. The President, Marie van der Zyl, accused Amnesty of using a “preposterous slur” and perpetrating “an attack on the Jewish people”. She went on to defend Israel as a “vibrant democracy” and criticised the Palestinian Authority for a lack of democracy in the West Bank, entirely ignoring the 54-year long occupation.

The Board’s response misrepresents the many British Jews who share Amnesty’s opposition to human rights violations against Palestinians, even if they don’t agree on terminology. Moreover, the cynical insinuations of antisemitism used against Amnesty will make it harder to confront real antisemitism when it arises – actively putting Jews at risk.

The Board must apologise for these disgraceful attacks, made in the name of all British Jews. Send a letter to the President today.”