In September, in the wake of Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband imposing sanctions on West Bank settlements, I thought I detected a glimmer of hope that, at last, the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD)[1] influence on UK domestic and foreign policy was diluted. This sunny assessment has proved to be a false dawn. Since then, there has been a formidable assault on any pro-Palestinian, Israel-critical expression, both from within government, and from without. All seemingly enthusiastically supported by the BoD.
One cave-in[2] arose in consequence of Israel threatening to close the UK Consulate in East Jerusalem in retaliation for the sanctions. Legally, Israel has no right to do this because the consulate is in illegally occupied territory. The Consulate is formally under the purview of the UK, not Israel.
Instead of holding fast to the legal position, the UK despatched, presumably at the prompting of PM Burnham, Jonathan Powell, the UK National Security Adviser, to Tel Aviv. His task was to cobble together a ‘compromise’, one that amounts to a defeat for the UK position, but even more so for Palestinians who have lost a formidable diplomatic presence – some thirty staff – now thinned-down to a lower status Mission, with a shrunken mandate and barely seven staff.
Our Foreign Secretary, Ed Miliband, was shafted, his authority undermined by his own government. Look forward, therefore, to future climb downs and accommodations to Israel and its see-no-evil supporters, the BoD.
The IHRA
The BoD’s influence – and here I treat the BoD as representative of the UK Jewish Establishment (JE) as a whole, including its ethically impaired Sturmtruppen, Stormtrooper, division, the UK Lawyers for Israel – extends over both foreign and domestic fields. It has arrogated to itself custodianship and promotion of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, along with its free-speech consuming working examples, a principle feature of which is their disutility in identifying, let alone countering, genuine antisemitism, an assessment attested to by many scholars[3]. Notwithstanding BoD’s habit of giving the impression that it is representative of the vast majority of UK Jews, estimates suggest, to the contrary, that it may represent only 35%/40%.
A thought that is unlikely to have ever troubled BoD minds – or, if ever thought, prompted a rapid smothering – is that if the BoD is, as it claims, representative of UK Jewish opinion, how comes it that it does not bring to the fore the fact that thousands of UK Jews reject utterly Israel’s actions in Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, along with discriminatory policy and practices that weigh upon Palestinian citizens of Israel, some 20% of the population. The answer is, of course, that the BoD is an out-and-out supporter of Israel, whatever it does. This raises a wider question, which I’ll touch on towards the end of this piece.
Green Party
On October 4th the Green Party passed a conference resolution that Zionism is a racist ideology. Some days later, the Board of Deputies of British Jews retaliated by declaring the Green Party a racist party and its resolution antisemitic[4]. This is no more than can be expected from the fiercely Zionist Jewish Establishment. Its statement justifying its position included assertions that:
For many British Jews, the connection to Israel is expressed through religious practice, family relationships, language, culture and the belief that the Jewish people have the same right to national self-determination as any other peoples.
The problem with this sort of justification is the shaky ground upon which it stands. Thus, as briefly discussed here[5], self-determination can be realised without need to manufacture a state. Still less so, when that state is an alien, colonising intrusion into territory not its own, a state determined to dispossess the pre-existing, indigenous population – the Palestinians.
Additionally, feeling a connection, be that emotional, familial or religious, to lands and people in far-away places is not in itself unusual. It’s when that sense of personal connection perverts itself to become supportive of evil-doing – the modus operandi of the Israeli Jewish state – that familial warm feelings have reached beyond the limits of their legitimacy.
BoD/IHRA influence
Notwithstanding the IHRA inadequacies, it is the plat du jour for those hungry to undermine the Palestinian cause. Here, the IHRA functions as judge, jury and censor of Israel-critical thought and action.
Such is the IHRA’s pernicious influence, it is, by government decree, to be introduced into schools and universities supported by what is described as ‘training’ for teachers and other staff. The training will doubtless require staff to be particularly mindful that any criticism of Israel, whether in seminar, class or playground, must be neutralised by heartwarming incantations as to, for example, the exemplary nature of Israeli democracy, notwithstanding the institutional marginalisation of Palestinian citizens; and the luminous goodness of Israel’s law of return, applicable to Jews only.
Quite how a Palestinian or Muslim child, who may have family and friends in Israel or the Occupied Territories, is to hone their speech to the requirements of the IHRA, heaven only knows. Independent-minded, Israel-critical Jewish students, too, will likely find themselves tripping over one or more of the IHRA ‘non-legally binding’ working examples which may, or may not, indicate antisemitism.
Given these considerations, it is not surprising that the IHRA stands accused of having a chilling effect on free speech. It is also the weapon of choice deployed by such outfits as the UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) to erase almost any form of Palestinian expression, be that by Palestinians’ themselves, or those that support them.
In the matters discussed here – a non-extensive walk around the UK’s cave-in in response to Israel’s retaliation to settlement sanctions; to the Green Party being designated racist by the BoD; and the deployment of the IHRA in educational institutions – the UK Board of Deputies of British Jews fulfilled its self-appointed role as quasi-official annex to the Israeli Embassy, thereby cleaving tight to promoting Israeli interests.
This is a somewhat odd role for a British institution to fulfil. It prompts the question, is it the BoD’s view that Israel’s interests necessarily align with those of the British state? Indeed, is it the BoD’s view that Israel’s interests align with the interests of UK Jews? The BoD behaves as through the answer to both questions is ‘yes’.
Yet, at best, these positions amount to no more than untested suppositions, ones that the BoD may well prefer to remain untested. The BoD runs a tight, ideological ship, as its recent response[6] – suspensions, censure, disciplinary measures – to 36 of its own Deputies critical of its stance on Israel/Gaza appear to demonstrate.
There are strong arguments that suggest that the BoD is counterproductive for UK Jews Its hallmark habit of conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism is a foolish and dangerous approach inevitably fuelling the impression that all Jews are of one mind, and we all support a genocidal Israel.
The time has surely come for the BoD to come under serious scrutiny. A damage assessment might be a good start – it has been able to free range according to its own lights for far too long.
[1] https://bod.org.uk/bod-news/board-of-deputies-expresses-deep-regret-at-government-announcement-of-sanctions-targeting-israeli-settlements/
[2] https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-and-israel-broker-compromise-over-east-jerusalem-consulate/
[3] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/3/128-scholars-ask-un-not-to-adopt-ihra-definition-of-anti-semitism
[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckx2qyd17eqvo
[5] https://bernardspiegal.com/2026/10/19/israels-right-to-a-self-determined-jewish-state-a-fallacy/
[6] https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/board-suspends-five-deputies-over-israel-letter-warns-another-31/
Leave a Reply