Stopping the War is More Important than Communal Unity.
Things are moving. After a long period that saw a high degree of support for the war, both in Israel and the Jewish diaspora, real change seems to be afoot. Increasing numbers of Israelis want the war to end and support a ceasefire/hostage deal to achieve this. There are reports that reserve soldiers are now refusing to show up, with some suggestions that the reserves are only at 40% or 50% of their full capacity. The 2023 Israeli pro-democracy movement is becoming an anti-war movement. In Britain, it is some of the most Israel-connected people who are turning against the war. The clearest symbol of that was the Deputies’ letter, signed by 36 Deputies from Reform, Liberal and Masorti synagogues (the number deliberately echoing the idea of the lamed vovniks, the 36 anonymous righteous people on whom the world depends). This was followed by a mass letter of synagogue members in support of the Deputies, and a strong letter from 30 Progressive rabbis which called for ‘an end to the bombing; an end to the siege; and the safe release of the hostages’. It is the mainstream nature of most of these people that has made them impossible to dismiss. We radical Jews have written countless open letters over the years. It’s done little good. We need the people the mainstream finds impossible to write off, so they are forced to write tedious op-eds about communal unity rather than instantly dismissing their critics out of hand.
This group have begun to talk about Palestinian suffering more often recently, particularly the near famine in Gaza, but there is no doubt that the primary motivation for the new peaceniks is getting the hostages back. The hostage movement in Israel has been solidly anti-war for a good while, seeing it as the only way to get their loved ones out of captivity. The diaspora has taken a while to catch up; simultaneously demanding ‘Bring Them Home’ whilst calling for a total victory that culminates in the destruction of Hamas; two goals which are in total opposition to one another. Crucial for the new peaceniks was the period of the ceasefire earlier this year – hostages were regularly released, as agreed, and there were no disastrous consequences. The Netanyahu government then resumed hostilities, with no pretext other than it refused to move to stage 2 of the agreement, which would have meant a permanent end to the war, instead demanding stage 1 be extended indefinitely. Centrist Israelis and diaspora Jews could see that during the ceasefire period hostages came home, once the war resumed, they did not. They have understood the obvious corollary; to return the rest of the hostages, another ceasefire is required, recognising that this means the end of the war and a full IDF withdrawal from Gaza.
This shift has allowed people who supported the war in 2023 and 2024 to oppose its resumption in 2025. This speaks to an underlying psychological reality; it is difficult for people to do a volte-face and believe they were previously wrong; it is much easier to say that reality has changed, and their position has changed with it. This shift will only be heightened by the recent announcement of an unhinged plan to fully conquer Gaza and permanently occupy it. It is increasingly clear to many that the interests of Netanyahu and his hard-right government are diametrically opposed to the interests of most Israelis and certainly of diaspora Jews.
There will be a strong temptation felt by people on the left to accuse the new peaceniks of doing too little too late. Where have they been? Why haven’t they opposed the war from the outset, when it was at its most destructive and lethal? Why aren’t they saying more about Palestinian suffering? What is their wider vision for Palestinian liberation and human rights? While such responses would be understandable, they would be tactically mistaken.
There is a broad political point here: when people come over to your side, you don’t say ‘what took you so long?’, but rather ‘welcome, it’s good to have you.’ They won’t necessarily say all the same things as us, perhaps not yet, perhaps not ever. But we need to make such people feel welcome and supported and thank them for crossing the Rubicon. There’s little virtue in being right all along and performatively declaring your absolute political purity; there is much more in creating actual political change. We don’t need everyone to sign up to some absolutist anti-Zionist platform. We just need them to agree that the war needs to end. This is a moment for a broad-based anti-war movement where we put aside our differences to stop the bombings, withdraw the troops, allow the aid in and make a deal to bring the hostages home.
How else is the war going to end? Pressure from other countries? It’s been utterly absent, particularly from the USA, with no sign of any improvement. Military defeat of Israel at the hands of Palestinian and Arab forces? That was the thesis of October 7th, that a rapid surprise attack would lead others to join the fray and force Israel to make concessions. It failed and it’s simply not plausible, Israeli is militarily far too strong. A wave of pressure from the BDS movement and international court cases? These can make a difference, but they also are not strong enough to force a ceasefire. For any meaningful change to take place, it will need the support of a reasonable proportion of Jewish Israelis. This pressure from within is a sine qua non and is needed to drive the one thing that will make a difference – mass military refusal. Were this to reach certain levels it would be impossible for it to continue the war, at least at its current level of intensity. We need to do everything we can to support Israeli refuseniks and encourage more to join their ranks.We need these people because they represe
The Jewish diaspora has an important role to play too. Not just in showing the Israeli government that it has lost their support but also in persuading Western governments to be braver. Concerted, and ‘mainstream’ Jewish anti-war activism can show governments such as Britain’s that they can take steps such as a full arms embargo, obeying the ICJ arrest warrants, sending aid into Gaza over Israeli objections and implementing a refugee scheme for Gazans who wish to flee and come to Britain (and be permitted to return to Palestine), and do so without plausibly being labelled as antisemitic or anti-Israel. Even a campaign for sanctions is also justifiable – not for the maximalist aims of the BDS movement but simply to force an end to the war.
At this juncture I want to address the arguments raised by the Board of Deputies President Phil Rosenberg against the 36, even though they are entirely risible. The central claim is that the group sought to pass off their own positions as being that of the Board as a whole, and thus were duplicitous. A moment’s thought shows this to be nonsense. The letter writers described themselves as ‘representatives of the British Jewish community’ – exactly what they are – rather than ‘the Board of Deputies’, or the leadership of it. This was reflected in the coverage of the story which noted that the letter writers represented around 10% of the Board, explicitly distinguishing it from the whole. Rosenberg and Weiger relied on this figure, contrasting it to an assumed 90% which support the leadership (although subsequent reports cast this in doubt, showing that around 30 more deputies had been considering signing). If 10% is insufficient there would presumably have been a number which was sufficient – 20%? 30%? 51%? – and thus a majority. For Rosenberg to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the deputies is a risky game for him to play – since his legitimacy as President is entirely dependent on the Deputies who voted for him last year. In the first round of voting (which showed a voting electorate of 244, making the 36 signatories more like 15%) Rosenberg scored 39%, so presumably this is the percentage critics would need to achieve. Of course, for us to be able to do this kind of analysis properly, the BoD would have to release the numbers of Deputies that exists, the numbers of organisations represented, and the numbers of votes received for Deputies in external elections, all of which they refuse to do. (I wrote a decade ago about the Board’s lack of real democracy).
The repeated claims that ‘the vast majority of the community’ support certain positions and the leadership of the Board lack any evidence whatsoever. A genuine democratic exercise would show the existence of at least four camps on Israel; non- and anti-Zionists who are constantly under-counted; Kahanists, supporters of genocide against Palestinians; liberal Zionists, who are now largely ‘new peaceniks; and a traditional centre-right who hope for a return to the pre-October 7reality and believe criticisms of Israel should only be made in private and that a public face of unity must be maintained at all times. This last group reflects the positions of Rosenberg and Weiger, but I would wager that it is a minority position, heavily reliant on the Kahanists when it needs to reach any kind of numbers.
But it’s not really about numbers. The claims that the 36 are not entitled to speak out, and the bizarre move to subject them to disciplinary measures by an internal kangaroo court is not based on majoritarianism but rather on a notion of heresy. Rosenberg is behaving like a secular chief rabbi, declaring certain views to be outside the boundaries of normative Judaism and thus impermissible in the goyish public domain. Zionism, in its contemporary Netanyahuist form, is the new orthodoxy, and all dissidents from it need to be excised or at least silenced. According to this reading, there is no percentage of deputies, or British Jews, that would make an anti-war or Israel-critical position acceptable. Even if a future letter could get 50%, 60% or 70% it would count for nothing because the ‘position of the mainstream Jewish community’ is not susceptible to democracy; it is a dogma that relies on a model of rabbinic fiat. Rosenberg behaves less like an elected leader and more like a posek, issuing halachic guidance to his followers and placing his opponents in cherem.
Being a Chief Rabbi, this language comes naturally to Ephraim Mirvis. In an op-ed designed to give religious support to Rosenberg’s reign of reaction, Mirvis issued an impassioned call for communal unity. Firstly he referenced Pirkei Avot 2:4: ‘do not judge your fellow until you have been in their place’, to suggest that diaspora Jews shouldn’t criticise Israelis until they have lived in their shoes, meaning had to serve in the IDF or run to bomb shelters. He then quoted the halachic principle that ‘One who is a witness cannot become a judge, suggesting that ‘it is the observer with distance and perspective [i.e. diaspora Jews] who sees more. How can this apparent contradiction be resolved? Simple: the first applies when it is diaspora Jewish voices that need to be silenced; the second when it is peacenik Israelis that need to be ignored. He didn’t literally say that. But he might as well have done; his appeals to ‘context, intention and audience’ amount to the same thing. When prominent Israeli critics of the government wrote in support of the 36 they can safely be discounted; ‘transplanting criticism from one political context to another can be ill-judged and damaging’ apparently. Evidently, they are the wrong kind of Israelis, just as the 36 and their supporters are the wrong kind of Jews.
The question that must always be raised in response to calls for unity is – unity on whose terms? If there is no suggestion of a compromise position between different sides then this is simply a call for submission, for the dissident group to shut up. This is a unity behind warmongers, betrayers of the hostages, enforcers of starvation and usurpers of the Jewish ethical tradition. We must not consent to this. I hope that the new peaceniks, who inevitably disagree with me on some things, are not seduced by these false calls for unity. If I may speak to them directly; chaverim, you are doing vital work and you have the warmongers rattled. Please do not give up. We need you to stand firm against calls for censorship. We cannot do this without you. We need to focus laser-like on stopping the war. Disagreements over the long term can come later. Without an end to the bombing, the full resumption of goods into Gaza and the associated return of the hostages, nothing good can happen. As the great Israeli anti-war song Shir Lashalom has it: S’u einayim betikva lo derekh kavanot / shiru shir la’ahava velo lamilchamot: Lift your eyes with hope, not through the rifles’ sights. Sing a song for love and not for wars.