Dissing Israel from the Diaspora

They really should make aliya, and vote in Israeli elections and sound off to their hearts' content, those Diaspora Jews whose "lines", to quote the Bible, "have fallen in pleasant places", and criticise the little Jewish State from comfort and safety.  I put among this number the Aussies who have of late fallen for the propaganda of the New Israel Fund, a number that, I'm sorry to say, includes representatives of a large congregation whose pst rabbis were renowned for their robust love of Zion, and whose love was infectious.

Wouldst that we will see their like again.

In 2010, not long after I started blogging, I drew readers' attention to shameful remarks regarding Israel by Sir Mick Davis, head of Anglo-Jewry's plutocratic non-elected "Jewish Leadership Council".

In his regular column in the Jerusalem Post, world-renowned Jewish leader Isi Leibler, who had some years earlier made aliya from Australia, trenchantly denounced Davis, observing inter alia:

"Mick Davis, the South African-born chief executive of the powerful mining group Xstrata, is chairman of Anglo Jewry’s United Jewish Israel Appeal (UJIA) – the principal fund-raising institution for Israel of the UK Jewish community.

He also heads a body known as the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) – essentially comprised of a group of wealthy British Jews and their acolytes who, by virtue of their financial largesse, assume a dominant influence on many levels of communal life. The power represented by their collective wealth enables them not to be accountable to anyone and few would dare question their policies....

.... Resident in London, he had the chutzpa to berate the Israeli prime minister “for lacking the courage to take the steps” to advance the peace process, arguing that “I don’t understand the lack of strategy in Israel.” He also employed the terminology of our enemies, predicting an “apartheid state” unless Israel was able to achieve a two-state solution – unashamedly blaming Israelis rather than Palestinians for being the obstacle to peace.

His sheer arrogance was best demonstrated in his most outrageous remark: “I think the government of Israel has to recognize that their actions directly impact on me as a Jew living in London, UK. When they do good things, it is good for me; when they do bad things, it is bad for me. And the impact on me is as significant as it is on Jews living in Israel... I want them to recognize that.”

Aside from implying that Israel is responsible for the anti-Semitism he is encountering, Davis is effectively warning that when considering defense issues which may have life-or-death implications for Israelis, the government must be sure not to create problems for him in his non- Jewish social circles. From his London mansion, he blithely brushes aside suicide bombers, rockets launched against our children and the threat of nuclear annihilation because his gentile friends might complain about the behavior of his Israeli friends...."

Other critics of Davis's stance included the indefatigable Melanie Phillips, in a Spectator column no longer reachable online, and Emanuele Ottolenghi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, who opined:

"As the saying goes, you should practice what you preach – not what emerged from the recent panel discussion between Peter Beinart, former editor of the US liberal weekly the New Republic and recent heir to the late Tony Judt’s critique of Zionism, Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland, and Mick Davis, chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council.

Davis lamented the existence of a supposed conformism among Jewish community leaders when it comes to voicing criticism of Israel in the open and called for more frank introspection – but the panel failed to make room for dissenting views, offering instead a harmonious choir of opinionated liberal conformism....Davis is upset because Israel’s actions have an impact on Diaspora Jewry – so are most Diaspora Jews by the way, because nobody likes to see police patrolling Jewish institutions across Europe. But most Jews would blame anti-Semites for distorting Israel’s actions and then using them as a pretext, rather than blaming Israel for their own discomfort.

Regardless of whether you approve or disapprove of Israel’s actions, it comes down to this. Do you blame the rape victim for wearing a miniskirt or do you blame the rapist? Most sane people know the answer – there is no excuse for rape.

And then there’s Davis, who, if logic follows (and it does not necessarily always do), should blame the rape victim and advocate more modest dressing.

This kind of logic sits at the helm of Anglo-Jewry today – something that should concern us infinitely more than the impact of Israel’s actions on Jewish comfort levels in Great Britain or the extent to which we allow ourselves to criticise Israel’s actions."

Regrettably, Sir Mick is at it again, as the front page of the London giveaway paper the Jewish News indicates.  Lyn Julius, who runs the admirable Point of No Return blog, has made a pertinent social media post about one aspect of his criticism:

Read more in this blog by Jonathan Hoffman, who was given an honorable mention by Isi Leibler in the aforementioned column as one of the few Anglo-Jewish leaders brave enough to decry Sir Mick's 2010 remarks.

Liberal Rabbis on the Wrong Side of History

Recently, on the Jewish Chronicle website, Rabbi Aaron Goldstein drew attention to a composite sermon produced by him and his two rabbinical assistants at London’s Northwood and Pinner Liberal Synagogue. He asked whether they could produce “the longest sermon in history”.

Since some of my best friends are Liberal rabbis – I had tea and scones with one yesterday afternoon – and since I’m inevitably drawn to matters historical, I decided to check it out.
http://www.npls.org.uk/Sermons/New/Civic%20Service%202011.html

I was most disappointed, and indeed perturbed, by the contribution to the sermon – a well-meaning but hopelessly rose-tinted celebration of multiculturalism in Britain – that one of Rabbi Goldstein’s colleagues, a young South American-born rabbi, had made. With what might seem a cavalier disregard for fairness towards the ethos and traditions of his adopted country, and a strange selection of "facts", Rabbi Hillel Athias-Robles opined, inter alia:

“British colonialism tried to anglicise and homogenise the different constituents of the Empire, and its missionaries sought to replace native religions with Christianity. UK Sodomy laws were exported to cultures that traditionally had more tolerant attitudes to sexual diversity. In 1864 the Anthropological Society of London concluded that Blacks were a separate species more akin to the ape, even though this was more than three decades after the Slavery Abolition Act was passed.... In the media and political discourse we constantly hear the tenets of multiculturalism come into question. We feel multiculturalism crumble as Islamophobia becomes more socially acceptable. The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into anti-Semitism reported a sharp increase in anti-Semitic attitudes and incidents.

....Giving up on multiculturalism is not the solution to our social wrongs. It is in fact multiculturalism that prevents our social wrongs from deteriorating even further.”

It was not so much the last part of this quoted passage that I found objectionable, although I agree with Jonathan Hoffman’s observation:

‘What politically correct drivel. Even Trevor Phillips said that multiculturalism is not working. And "Islamophobia becomes socially acceptable" is the PC liberal way of saying "It's wrong to point out Islamic extremism." No it's not.’ http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/can-3-rabbis-produce-longest-sermon-history(Mr

(Mr Hoffman would no doubt have added David Cameron’s name to that of Trevor Phillips, who chairs Britain’s Human Rights and Equality Commission, had the former’s Munich speech already been given.  And see the following by the great Melanie Phillips: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6699875/hemming-the-lemming.thtml)

What I really deplore is the disparaging of Britain by Rabbi Athias-Robles, with the totally invalid implication that it is an endemically racist society. This picture shows some of "the great and the good" of Victorian Britain at a rally on behalf of persecuted Russian Jewry  – one of a number of such rallies held in Britain during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to demand justice for oppressed Jewries; the participants came from all political parties, and from all branches of the Christian church, with "liberals" and Protestants predominating.  Many of the people at the nineteenth-century rallies had been active in the fights against slavery, for penal reform, for factory reform, and for Jewish parliamentary emancipation.

I’ve shown in other blogposts that post-Reformation England provided a climate conducive to philosemitism, and the rabbi’s assertion that British “missionaries sought to replace native religions with Christianity” is mischievously misleading. It was only animists – heathens – that such missionaries attempted to proselytise; they did not, and this was a matter of deliberate policy, interfere with the religions of the peoples of the British Raj, although as is well-known they did attempt to outlaw thuggee and suttee.

Disappointingly, the rabbi ignores Britain’s liberal tradition, he ignores the abolition of the slave trade and the Royal Navy’s proud record in enforcing abolition by intercepting slaver vessels and returning their human cargos to Africa, he ignores Britain’s lack of persecution of Jews (in contrast to the Continent) and the gratitude Jews showed in consequence for being in the land of freedom.  He ignores the great Wilberforce and instead invokes a bunch of obscure ratbags of the 1860s.  For he appears to have ingested the "received wisdom" of the self-hating British chattering classes that everything the British Empire did was automatically wrong, and that everything its subject peoples did was automatically right.  He ignores the fact that Britain exported parliamentary democracy to its colonies, and he has evidently imbibed the fiction that all cultures are created equal.

He implies that multiculturalism changed British attitudes from illiberalism to liberalism – when in truth some of the cultures represented are as hostile to liberalism as it is possible to get – hating secular democratic values, despising women, genitally mutilating girls, practising “honour” killings, persecuting gays, pursuing animist witchcraft that involves child sacrifice, indulging in explicit and often violent Jew-hatred, and delegitimizing Israel.  (The accompanying photos speak for themselves.)

In some ways, the rabbi's indictment of Britain is reminiscent of absurdities to be found on the website of the London-based Muslim Public Affairs Committee:

'Western States the real terrorists – not Muslims....

One must remember, it was not the Muslims that were responsible for such heinous crimes as the slave trade. [Their history is as dodgy as his!!!] ....

[ W]hen Britain went into India, ruling it for 200 years, massacring and imposing their rules upon the people, never integrating, never learning their languages and forcibly trying to convert its people to their customs and religion....

Much death and destruction has been committed by the British Government, yet it is British Muslims who label each other as terrorists, seeking to disassociate ourselves from fellow Muslims. It is not for us to disassociate ourselves from anyone, but rather British Muslims and the wider British population at large should hold their Government accountable over their foreign policies. We should be putting pressure upon our leaders to ensure such crimes against humanity are not repeated and that all forms of exploitation are ceased with immediate effect. It is not just for British Muslims to apologise....

We should not be seeking to apologise for anything, it is these war criminals that need to apologise to us and hang their heads in shame – not us.’ http://www.mpacuk.org/story/150211/stand-united-against-pimps-misery.html#ixzz1E94hkIfS

Elsewhere, Rabbi Athias-Robles has observed:

“You might have noticed that many of the sermons Rabbi Aaron [Goldstein] and I deliver have to do with the situation in Israel. Perhaps some might see them as political – beyond the remit of our task as a rabbi. Sometimes, it may seem that we mention to Israel too much. A few weeks ago I posted on my Facebook profile a link to an article about the enforced loyalty oath the Israeli government recently introduced for non-Jews seeking Israeli citizen, who are asked to pledge their allegiance to Israel as a Jewish state – an oath aimed mostly at Palestinians who marry Arab Israelis. Many people replied to the article I posted– some people who are usually very liberal wrote things like: It’s so easy to criticise Israel from abroad – if you want to change the country move there and vote, followed by a whole rant against Arab countries and Arab intolerance to Jews. On a similar note, when Mick Davis, head of the Jewish Leadership Council and a Zionist leader, decided to break the silence and speak out about the moral issues of the peace process, including the rights of minorities, settlements, etc. a wave of attacks ensued – he was using the language of our enemies, he was delegitimizing Israel, he had no right as a Diaspora Jew to speak out against the choices of the Israeli government. As Jews, we are expected to stay quiet – the raising of concerns equals a hateful attack against Israel”

And predictably goes on to defend his position. http://www.npls.org.uk/Sermons/New/Vayechi%205771.html

The unelected Mick Davis, by the way, is at it again, with the zealous cooperation of the Jewish Chronicle, in thral to the New Israel Fund.  (Robin Shepherd deals with this situation – and the Israel-is-an-apartheid-state canard – very nicely at http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/tag/mick-davis/)

Unlike most of their counterparts in Australia, Britain’s Liberal rabbis seem to have an ambivalent attitude towards the Jewish State. They seem to have a nineteenth-century mindset in some respects: Ma Yomru ha-Goyim? ("What will the non-Jew say?").  They have taken on the mantle of the "Gentlemen of the Mosaic persuasion".  Their full-bodied sense of Yiddishkayt is missing. And they seem to think that being left of centre religiously obligates a person to be left of centre politically. Israel is under existential threat, yet too many of them join the chorus of snipers. Their criticism, like Mick Davis’s, should be done in private, for their public condemnations serve the heinous purpose of Israel’s foes.

They remind me, indeed, of the Jacobin, famously described by George Canning as:

"A steady patriot of the world alone.  A friend to every country but his own."

Recently, British journalist Julie Burchill, known for her robust championship of Israel, revealed that she’s abandoned plans to convert to Judaism under the auspices of the Liberal movement. She’d been attending the Brighton Progressive Synagogue, but, as she explained in her final regular column for the Jewish Chronicle, the rabbi’s agenda drove her away:

‘You should know that the reason I'm stepping away for a while has nothing to do with the hysterical levels of abuse that greet any Gentile who expresses support for Israel; on the contrary, I very much enjoy a bit of a verbal scrap.

But don't get me wrong, my admiration for the Jews and Israel came first; the nasty name-calling is just a side benefit....

I realised that it wasn’t a Jew that I wanted to be, so much as a Zionist....

I began attending a shul, and took the first steps towards converting to Judaism, then threw in the towel on both.

Basically, I don't go to a synagogue on a Saturday morning to be preached at about how Islam is the equal of Judaism, and yet that's what I got the last time I was there – from a female, gay rabbi, already!

I'd love to see her walk into a mosque and tell the worshippers that Judaism was the equal of Islam, that women should be just as able to be preachers as men and that homosexuality is every bit as valid a personal choice as heterosexuality.

I wonder how many minutes she'd last?

Which makes my point completely: an intolerant religion is not the equal of a tolerant religion. And to say that it is, is surely pretzel logic of the most twisted kind.

I've also been back to Israel three times since my initial visit in 2004, and each time I have marvelled at the beauty and rudeness of its people.

At home I have witnessed the self-loathing Stockholm Syndrome of what my hero Howard Jacobson fingered in his Booker Prize-winning The Finkler Question as the ASHamed Jews, and came to the conclusion that it wasn't a Jew that I wanted to be so much as a Zionist.

And I can do this by helping to buy fire engines for frontline Israeli towns like Sderot, and by donating a good whack of cash each year to send care parcels to lone IDF soldiers - and still stay in bed with my husband of a Saturday without having to schlep off to a shul and receive lectures on the wonders of Islam.

Sorted!

Toffs For Terrorism or We Are All Hizbollah Now, Yah? Back in the summer I turned on the TV the day after the flotilla was floored, and there was a man called Lort-Phillips, bewailing the plight of his sister, one Alexandra Lort-Phillips.

A few days later a piece turned up on the society page of the Daily Mail explaining that Lort-Phillips is the great-niece of Dame Frances Campbell-Preston, a woman of the bedchamber (not as fun as it sounds) and friend of the late queen mother of England, who inexplicably claimed, "I am very proud of her. She is standing up for her principles."

Wow, from royalty-flunky to Hamas-groupie in two generations - that's the spirit that made this country great! At least, though, the old broad had the excuse of being 91 years old to spout such twaddle.

What was everyone else's excuse for sailing on the Ship of Fools?

The Jews: The Greatest Story Ever Told. You pick your team and you stay with them, through good times and bad. I may not be writing this column for awhile - but I'm not going anywhere.

L'hitraot!' http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/42900/my-loyalties-wont-fade-away

From the Community of the “Trembling Israelites”, Taylor-Made Nonsense attacking Isi Leibler

Owing to distance, I’ve only just received my copy of the 24 December print edition of the Jewish Chronicle, and note that the “Mick Davis Affair” rumbles on in its pages. There’s a big article in support of Davis by new boy on the payroll Orlando Radice, but it was a letter from a Derek Taylor of Hampstead attacking Isi Leibler for daring “to drag the British into his quarrel [with Davis]” that’s the unwitting star of the issue. It’s a tissue of stupidities.

Mr Taylor notes that Leibler claimed that “In the United Kingdom ... demonisation of Israel – not to mention antisemitism – has reached record levels. ”

“What rubbish!” Taylor fumes, with blinkered disregard for the facts.

“Antisemitism in Britain remains as insignificant as it always has been.

Mr Leibler might like to compare it with, for example, the ethnic cleansing of Aborigines in Tasmania in the nineteenth century.”

This childish jibe involves an allegation regarding Tasmania that is actually untrue, as Mr Taylor would know were he au fait with Australian scholar Keith Windschuttle’s magisterial The Fabrication of Aboriginal History: Volume One: Van Diemen's Land 1803-1847 (2002).

“Only two Aborigines have ever been elected to the Australian Senate. How does that compare to the record of the similar number of Jews in Britain?” Mr Taylor asks, with baffling logic, and proceeds to pontificate patronisingly:

“It’s far too easy for non-British Jews to try to equate the treatment they find Jews suffering from in other countries with our situation.

It would be better if they devoted their energies to copying us.”

Mr Taylor is evidently unaware that there have been Jews in Australia from the first day of European settlement; that, just as in Britain, there have been dozens and dozens of Jewish parliamentarians in Australia from the nineteenth-century to this, including a colonial premier (V. L. Solomon), that there have been two Jewish governors-general, and so on.

I don’t know for certain whether Derek Taylor the letter-writer is the Derek Taylor who, with Lord Janner, authored Jewish Parliamentarians (2008), a book about Jewish MPs in Britain that – quite frankly – is full of regrettable and even risible errors and a marked pro-left bias which manifests itself in near-hagiography towards MPs of whose policies they approve and hatchet jobs on certain MPs of whom they disapprove. But if he is, his ignorance of the situation in Australia is underlined by the statement in the book that General Sir John Monash (pictured, who commanded Australia’s Expeditionary Forces in the First World War) was a New Zealander! Oy vey!

KO’d by his own fist, I would say of Mr Taylor – certainly he failed to land a punch at Isi Leibler CBE.

His Master's Voice – From the NIF's Mouth to the "Organ of Anglo-Jewry"

Snow-bound in her igloo somewhere in the ice-covered rural landscape of the British Isles, this sun-loving Aussie gal wasn't able to pick up her hard copy of last week's Jewish Chronicle (17 December) until the lanes became passable. 

And what did I find? Why, the JC and the New Israel Fund tucked up in bed together.  Yes, cosily between the JC's sheets is a loose tabloid-sized four-page insert calling itself New Israel News ("NIF Publication", Winter 2010).  Under the banner headline "New debate welcomed by NIF", the insert's main frontpage article declares: 'The move by Mick Davis and leading figures in Anglo-Jewry, to engage in "honest and open debate" about the policies and actions of the Israeli government, has been welcomed by the Chair of the New Israel Fund (UK), Nicholas Saphir.' 

The article generously quotes Mr Saphir (pictured), and when we turn to page two we find – lo and behold! – an article by that gentleman entitled "Diaspora Jewry must speak up".  At the foot of the article is the note "Nicholas Saphir is Chair of the New Israel Fund" – he’s also, as a matter of fact, a trustee of the Kessler Foundation, which owns the Jewish Chronicle, as was noted in my recent post called "Screwing the Right".

Yes, folks, that’s the same New Israel Fund whose dodgier initiatives have been exposed by NGO Monitor, as I indicated in that same post.  And that’s the same Jewish Chronicle which has yet to feed its readers all the hard sober facts about the existential threats faced by Israel – for example, I have looked in vain yet again for anything about the possibly domino-effect recognition of a Palestinian State with its borders pre-Six Day War (those "Auschwitz borders" for Israel) by several South American nations (four at last count; the JC hasn't even reported one!).  I thought this news, which was ignored by thewebsite, would be in the hard copy.  It's been a futile search, and I don't think I need Specsavers.

Oh –  there is the now seemingly obligatory article denouncing the EDL, which according to the JC's headline has 'left the BNP a mere sideshow'. The report claims that the anti-fascist monitor Searchlight (whose representative is the source for the report and its analysis), "will launch a think tank to examine new forms of extremism such as the anti-Muslim politics of the EDL and totalitarian Islam".  Ah, so! We live in interesting times.

On page 26 the JC carries an article by Isi Leibler.  (Although he’s bestrode the Jewish world like a Colossus this past quarter-century and the “Organ of Anglo-Jewry” might be expected to be au fait with his name, they’ve in two places managed to misspell it as Liebler.)  His article declares – in response to criticism in the JC last week by the left-leaning journalist Jonathan Freedland – that he stands by his criticism of Mick Davis and reiterating why.   

As usual, he's a fount of sagacity.  The article, reposted to his blog, says:

'In these pages last week, Jonathan Freedland accused me of indulging in a “viciously personal” attack on, and misrepresenting the views of, Mick Davis.

Let me begin with a clarification. My source was the Jewish Chronicle itself, which summarised Davis’s remarks by stating: "One of British Jewry’s most senior leaders this week shattered a long-standing taboo by publicly criticising Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu over the peace process, voicing moral reservations about some of Israel’s policies and calling for criticism of Israel to be voiced freely throughout the community."

In an exchange of correspondence initiated by Mr Davis, who also claimed I misrepresented him, I responded that if the JC report was incorrect or if quotations attributed to him were false, he was duty bound to request a correction - something he failed to do for obvious reasons.

I am personally unacquainted with Mick Davis and hold no animus against him even when he depicts me as "that mad Australian who attacks everyone".

My criticism was not about freedom of expression or the right of Davis to criticise Israel. My concern is about the propriety of a person holding one of the most senior positions in a major Jewish community publicly questioning the morality and “courage” of the democratically elected leadership of Israel and, from the vantage-point of London, having the gall to challenge Israeli security policies which have life-and-death implications for Israelis.

It is in this context that Davis made the bizarre statement: "I think the government of Israel has to recognise that their actions directly impact on me as a Jew living in London, the UK. When they do good things, it is good for me, when they do bad things it’s bad for me. And the impact on me is as significant as it is on Jews living in Israel… I want them to recognise that."

I am also appalled that, instead of rallying Jews to support an embattled Jewish state, Davis called on them to join in the criticism of Israel. It is not surprising that Freedland, who admits he condemned Davis for speaking at a rally supporting Israel, now rushes to defend him.

Having occupied senior leadership positions in national and global Jewish organisations, I reaffirm the view that a person heading bodies like the UJIA and JLC [Jewish Leadership Council] is totally out of line in making such remarks. I would further submit that, in the United Kingdom, where demonisation and delegitimisation of Israel - not to mention antisemitism - have reached record levels, it is the height of irresponsibility for a communal leader to behave in this manner, knowing that such remarks represent fuel for our enemies.

No other Jewish community in the world would tolerate such outbursts from a leader. American Jews are more inclined towards liberalism than their Anglo-Jewish counterparts but one could not visualise any mainstream American Jewish leader expressing such views.

My vexation is not merely that Davis still fails to appreciate that he was out of line, but that most Anglo-leaders lack the backbone to condemn his behaviour or have become so adjusted to living in an environment hostile to Israel that they cannot even appreciate the lack of propriety when one of their leaders acts in such a manner.

It was shameful that Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom was obliged to intervene and say what should have been conveyed to Mick Davis by his peers.

I hope Mr Davis resumes his positive work on behalf of Israel but refrains from unleashing his personal criticism until such time as he retires from his leadership positions. Had he not held office when he made his remarks, I doubt whether anyone would have noticed.

Anglo-Zionist pioneers of the calibre of Chaim Weizmann would turn in their graves were they aware that those who consider themselves Jewish leaders could voice public condemnations of Israel, when the embattled Jewish state is a facing such enormous pressures from a biased and largely hostile world.'

Princes in Israel ... and "Trembling Israelites"

For a Jewish community on the “Edge of the Diaspora”, to use the title of Suzanne Rutland’s history, that of Australia has produced more than its fair share of titans. Among its native-born sons have been such internationally-known figures as philosopher Samuel Alexander, composer Arthur Benjamin, First World War commander-in-chief General Sir John Monash, and two governors-general, Sir Isaac Isaacs and Sir Zelman Cowen. The community’s overseas-born sons have included Lieutenant-Colonel Eliezer Margolin, renowned for his service in Eretz Israel, German refugee Rabbi Herman Sanger, considered by his contemporary Sir Robert Menzies – no mean orator himself – to have been the greatest public speaker in the country, international jurist Julius Stone, who wrote, inter alia, on the Israel-Arab dispute, and a host of outstanding post-war communal activists of Eastern European background (including the grandparents of a certain Mark Regev), who turned a small and shrinking “Anglo” Jewish community threatened with extinction through apathy and intermarriage into the vibrant one that exists today.

For a quarter of a century, until he made aliya in 1999, the dominant communal leader in Australia was Antwerp-born Isi Leibler (pictured), who grew up in that country from the age of five. Having obtained a first-class honours degree in political science from the University of Melbourne, he embarked on a doctorate with the intention of becoming an academic or diplomat, but the early death of his father compelled him to take over the running of the family diamond business, and he subsequently headed his own renowned travel company, Jetset Tours.

A charismatic leader in the original, Weberian sense – one who dominates by the sheer force of his personality – Isi Leibler was long active in combating antisemitism and improving intra-communal relations as public relations supremo of the Board of Deputies in the State of Victoria, before serving for very many years as president of the community’s chief body, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, and in due course being elected senior vice-president of the governing body of the World Jewish Congress.

During his years as head of the Australian Jewish community the fearlessly frank and extraordinarily dedicated Leibler met many world leaders. In the nineteenth century, the Anglo-Jewish philanthropist Sir Moses Montefiore, who headed the fledgling Board of Deputies of British Jews, made several visits overseas on behalf of oppressed Jewries. In the twentieth, it was Isi Leibler who, long before the cause of Soviet Jewry was taken up by others, strove for the rights of the trapped and persecuted Jews of the USSR. Owing to his endeavours, Australia became, in 1962, the first country to raise the issue at the UN, and his book Soviet Jewry and Human Rights (1965) –  which sits beside me as I type – forced the Jewish Left throughout the world, which had hitherto consisted of servile apologists for Soviet antisemitism, to reassess its attitude.

Alexander Lerner, Andrei Sakharov and Isi Leibler in Moscow

In 1967 a young Isi Leibler, representing Australia, received a standing ovation at the WJC in Strasbourg when he accused the WJC’s president, Dr Nahum Goldmann, of shtadlanut for opposing public rallies to publicise the cause and relying exclusively on unobtrusive overtures.

Over the years, Leibler made several visits to the Soviet Union, befriending refuseniks and Prisoners of Zion, and interceding on their behalf. “Even if I am not able to realize my dream of returning to my homeland in our lifetime, we are still happy to take part in this biblical event,” the late and noble Professor Alexander Lerner, dismissed from his job for applying to emigrate, once assured him in an effort to cheer him. “We feel we are involved in dedicating ourselves to our people and our country.”

In 1987, Leibler was invited by Moscow’s chief rabbi to address worshippers from the pulpit of the KGB-controlled Archipova Synagogue at Rosh Hashana . “Giving a Zionist address in broken Yiddish to a packed synagogue in the presence of refusenik friends ... was an unforgettable experience”, Leibler has recalled.  And in 1989, thanks largely to Leibler’s efforts, the first Jewish Cultural Centre since the advent of glasnost, the Solomon Mykhoels Centre, named for the celebrated Yiddish poet murdered on Stalin’s orders in 1948, was opened in Moscow.

These days, the man who as a young leader had the courage and the audacity publicly to berate Dr Goldmann for his “silent diplomacy” – and who has claimed many scalps in his time – remains frank and fearless, writing a much admired Jerusalem Post blog entitled “Candidly Speaking ...”

This summer Mick Davis , who chairs Anglo Jewry’s United Jewish Israel Appeal (UJIA) – the principal fund-raising institution for Israel of the UK Jewish community – and also heads the so-called Jewish Leadership Council (JLC), a non-elected body composed of very wealthy individuals like himself – raised many eyebrows with his insistence that the Diaspora, as an “equal” partner, has a legitimate right to engage in the Israeli policy-making process.

Among those deploring this ridiculous notion, none was more eloquent or trenchant than Isi Leibler, who justifiably stated:

'We have grown accustomed to the ravings of the Jew haters of Zion - the loony left who identify with Hamas and Hizbullah rather than their own people, the post-Zionists who seek to undo the Jewish character of Israel and the bleeding heart liberals who make excuses for the criminality of our neighbors and condemn us for defending ourselves.

But what is more frustrating is an emerging new trend, involving even well-meaning friends of Israel, primarily liberals, who demand that as Jews and "partners" of Israel, they are entitled to partake in determining Israeli security and defense related policies....

Despite living thousands of miles away and not subject to the consequences of the policies they promote, they have the gall to insist that they are more sensitive to the security needs of the Jewish state than we Israelis. Being "genuinely pro-peace," they purport to be acting in our best interests by exercising "tough love" ... Their hubris and arrogance is mind-boggling.

....We all agree that Diaspora Jews have been and remain the most important partner of the Jewish state. No one challenges their right to provide input toward Israeli decisions which impact on the future of the Jewish people. But that principal was always accompanied by a caveat that campaigning against government policies affecting security was absolutely off limits for non-Israelis.

....We are one people. But Diaspora Jews and Israelis are not equal partners.

Whereas during the formative founding years of the state, the financial contribution of global Jewry was crucial, today Israel has evolved into a powerful economic entity and Diaspora support represents a minimal percentage of GNP. In many respects the principal benefit of Diaspora funding is that it represents a key element in maintaining Jewish identity by providing constructive involvement with the Jewish state.

However if Jewish philanthropists believe that contributing toward worthy causes in Israel makes them eligible to become involved in security related decision-making, they should retain their money. There is no question that ultimately only Israelis can determine security-related policy. It is we, our children and our grandchildren who will be placing our lives on the line, not Jews in New York, London, Melbourne or Rio....

Surveys show that the dropouts, the new liberals who are alienated from Israel, primarily originate from assimilated and intermarried families and those overwhelmed by the hostile culture and media surrounding them especially on the campus.

Instead of becoming obsessed with an urge to tell us how to run our affairs, Jewish activists should ensure that the new generation of Jews in high school and on the campus are imbued with an understanding of our history and heritage and above all exposed to the Israel narrative which will strengthen their morale and enable them to withstand the external onslaughts. That should be their primary objective, rather than groveling to left liberals who magnify every minor fault in our society while closing their eyes to the horrors that could engulf us if the barbarians at our gates succeed.' http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=2279

And so, it is not surprising that, when Mick Davis made some truly egregious remarks this month, that again serve only to bring aid and comfort to Israel’s enemies (including the extraordinarily repellent assertion that “the government of Israel has to recognize that their actions directly impact on me as a Jew living in London ... When they do good things, it is good for me; when they do bad things, it is bad for me”) Isi Leibler –  never one to suffer fools gladly – should once more be in the forefront of the criticism:

‘Needless to say, Davis is fully entitled to say whatever comes to his mind. Nobody seeks to deprive him of freedom of expression.

Many Jews are critical of Israeli governments.

But for a person holding senior public office in a major Diaspora community to indulge in crude public attacks on Israeli leaders and relate to Israel’s security requirements in relation to their impact on his image in non-Jewish circles is surely bizarre and utterly unconscionable.

While occupying the role of chairman of the UIJA in a country in which hatred of Israel and anti-Semitism have reached record levels, Davis brazenly incites his fellow Jews to criticize Israel.

Resident in London, he had the chutzpa to berate the Israeli prime minister “for lacking the courage to take the steps” to advance the peace process, arguing that “I don’t understand the lack of strategy in Israel.” He also employed the terminology of our enemies, predicting an “apartheid state” unless Israel was able to achieve a two-state solution – unashamedly blaming Israelis rather than Palestinians for being the obstacle to peace.

His sheer arrogance was best demonstrated in his most outrageous remark: “I think the government of Israel has to recognize that their actions directly impact on me as a Jew living in London, UK.  When they do good things, it is good for me; when they do bad things, it is bad for me. And the impact on me is as significant as it is on Jews living in Israel... I want them to recognize that.”

Aside from implying that Israel is responsible for the anti-Semitism he is encountering, Davis is effectively warning that when considering defense issues which may have life-or-death implications for Israelis, the government must be sure not to create problems for him in his non- Jewish social circles. From his London mansion, he blithely brushes aside suicide bombers, rockets launched against our children and the threat of nuclear annihilation because his gentile friends might complain about the behavior of his Israeli friends.

.... It is telling that over recent years, Davis has not been renowned for condemning the shameful policies of British governments in relation to Israel. And it is no coincidence that immediately after the UK abstained from the UN vote on the Goldstone Report, Davis chaired a JLC reception at which former foreign minister David Miliband [pictured, who, by the way, has tweeted his approval of Davis’s latest comments, calling them “very brave and impressive”] was the key speaker. On that occasion, the “outspoken” Davis felt constrained not to express a single word of complaint or disappointment at the perfidious behavior of the British government in relation to this issue.

Admittedly, Davis’ latest outburst is neither intellectually challenging nor persuasive.

But emanating from a Jewish “leader” in the anti-Semitic UK environment in which campaigns to boycott and delegitimize Israel are at an all-time high, and at a time when Israel is under siege and fighting for its existence, it surely represents a level of unprecedented vulgarity.

In any self-respecting Diaspora Jewish community, Davis would have been obliged to tender his resignation immediately after making such outrageous remarks.

Not so in sunny London.

Instead of condemning him, the Anglo- Jewish establishment groveled. Many even seemed delighted that one of their leading spokesmen had distanced himself from what many of them may regard as the unsavory government which the people of Israel had democratically elected.

Anglo-Jewish leaders share a long tradition of burying their head in the sand, avoiding confrontation and displaying a determination not to rock the boat under any circumstances. One of their leaders actually wrote in The Jerusalem Post, proudly boasting how their pro-Israel advocacy approach was based on “whispering” rather than “shouting.”

Today, by lacking the courage to challenge the propriety of one of its most senior “leaders” indulging in coarse public condemnations of Israel, the trembling Israelite establishment has further undermined the standing of the UK Jewish community.

When one proudly recalls the outstanding contribution of British Jews to the development of Zionism, and the role played by leaders of the caliber of Chaim Weizmann, one is left with a sense of profound sadness. The Anglo-Jewish Zionist pioneers would turn in their graves were they aware of the irresponsible behavior of those who have currently assumed the mantle of leadership of their community.' www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=196652

I would add that if Mr Davis and others of his ilk are so keen to see a change in Israeli policy, they should pack their bags and make aliya, in order to participate in the democratic process at the ballot box. 

For other biting criticisms of Mick Davis see:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6493974/the-british-jewish-le...
http://www.thejc.com/node/41756
www.jwire.com.au/news/a-harmonious-choir-of-liberal...ottolenghi/13410