For some, the stories told in foundational texts – Old and New Testaments, the Mahabharata and so forth – are parables and myths illuminating paths to right conduct. For others of a more literalist bent, what is written is hardcore objective historical fact, pointing, in a no-nonsense way, to what has happened in the past, and what is required in the future.
Rabbi Mirvis, Chief Rabbi of United Synagogues – a union of Orthodox British synagogues, but not of other Jewish formations, religious or secular, representing1 perhaps around a third of British Jewish congregants – is seemingly of a literalist bent. In a recent New Statesman article he penned what amounts to an apologia for Zionism and Israel. Here, he takes the religion, Judaism, and in an interpretative flourish thrusts Zionism down its throat, arguing that there is not a cigarette paper between Zionism and Judaism. As he says, Zionism is ‘inseparable from our Judaism’ the ‘our’ irresponsibly capturing by implication all Jews in his unwanted embrace.
Apparently, according to Rabbi Mirvis,the ‘Torah (Five Books of Moses) is, in effect, a 3,000-year-old constitutional document for the establishment of a nation state…this constitution establishes institutions and infrastructure for national life.’ He continues, ‘the Jewish relationship with Israel is built upon ‘a foundation of historical fact, theological axiom and innate love’. Yet, Jewish history – ‘historical fact’ – is deeply contested by scholars2, and ‘theological axiom’ – that is, the assertion of self-evident truths – in this case refers to blind dogmatism and wishful thinking.
‘I am a Zionist because I am a Jew’, says Mirvis. This assertion, coupled to his view that Zionism is inseparable from Judaism, are irresponsible utterances, for, if only by implication, he suggests that Jews, because they are Jews, support the Zionist project, the outcome of which is the Jewish supremacist Israeli state.
Mirvis’s thinking constitutes a sort of dreamland, as the extract below from Mirvis’s New Statesman article surely demonstrates.
The fallacy that Zionism and, more specifically, the existence of Israel, is fundamentally incompatible with the well-being of the Palestinian people has become increasingly pervasive over recent years, and its prevalence serves only to harm the cause of peace. We must have no truck with the narrative that Zionism is somehow inherently prejudiced. Zionism advocates self-determination for Jews. It does not agitate against the welfare and well-being of Palestinians. Consequently, I can, at one and the same time hold Zionism at the core of my Jewish identity whilst simultaneously feeling deep pain in seeing the suffering of numerous innocent Palestinians.
His ‘deep pain’ at the ‘suffering of numerous Palestinians’ has not compelled him to urge – demand! – as a spiritual leader, that Israel’s onslaught in Gaza and the West Bank must cease. To the contrary, he has said Israel’s actions in Gaza are the ‘most outstanding possible thing that a decent, responsible country can do for its citizens and people.’
In the Mirvis world, there is no Nakba, no ethnic cleansing, no Zionist doctrine the fulfilment of which requires the removal, or subjugation of Palestinians living in the land between the river and the sea. Here, there are no armed settlers stealing Palestinian land. Here there are no laws and practices systematically discriminating against Palestinians. Here there is no Nation State Basic Law enshrining the principle that ‘Exercising the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.’ A law, as Adalah says, that ‘requires racist acts as a constitutional value.’
Wider implications of Rabbi Mirvis’s role and views
What is worrying, is the degree to which Government, and others, appear to accord to Rabbi Mirvis authority to speak for UK Jews in general, notwithstanding the limited authority and role he fulfils as spiritual head of but one Jewish institutional formation – the United Synagogues. This tendency to accord avowedly Zionist Jewish organisations, the Board of Deputies is another, as somehow representative of UK Jews as a whole, effectively blots out Israel-critical Jewish voices, of which there are many.
In truth, Rabbi Mirvis strives to minimise or silence pro-Palestinian voices as witnessed most recently in his effort to prevent, or at least disrupt, the London Palestine solidarity march planned for 18 January using the spurious ground that Jews going to a synagogue near the march would feel intimidated. This assertion, made in face of the fact that there have been numerous London marches since 7th October 2023, two of which followed the route proposed for the 18th, all peaceful, and all including a significant – vocally and visibly present – Jewish bloc. The other notable feature is the degree to which Muslims, Jews, Christians and those of no faith strode together in common cause; the tangible expression of solidarity.
The tendency to listen primarily to pro-Zionist voices – the UK Jewish Establishment – extends also to mainstream media, very much including the BBC. And the Church of England, when under the now-retired Archbishop of Canterbury, seemed particularly prone to cleave to Rabbi Mirvis, a man, as demonstrated, of pronounced, extreme, Zionist views. Many Jews expressed their alarm at what appeared to be a too-close relationship between Rabbi Mirvis and Archbishop Welby in an open letter to him, signed by some 630 Jews.
The hope is that a new Archbishop of Canterbury will fully engage with Israel-critical Jewish organisations and individuals. Not to the exclusion of what I have characterised as the UK Jewish Establishment – for example, the Chief Rabbi of United Synagogues, the Board of Deputies, the Community Security Trust and others – but certainly with a wider range of Jewish perspectives than the Establishment embraces. Establishments, of course, by their very nature, are most comfortable engaging with other establishments, all having a vested interest in blotting out perspectives that run counter to their own views and interests.
The danger that lurks in the primacy accorded to Israel-supporting Establishment views is two-fold. One, as indicated above, that it plays to the antisemitic trope that all Jews think the same, and act only in their own nefarious interests. And second, of the greatest significance, is that Palestinian perspectives are marginalised or ignored. Palestinians of course speak for themselves, but UK voters and opinion-formers have a role to play in ensuring that Government and others not only listen to Palestinian voices, but understand what is being said.
Bernard Spiegal 
Leave a comment