On Sunday, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz held its first conference in Britain. Haaretz is the Israeli equivalent of the Guardian and many of the views expressed at the conference could have been taken from the Guardian, mirroring as they did the left-liberal critique of Israel which has become fashionable in the West. Indeed, the organisers could have saved themselves travel expenses by inviting a series of Guardian columnists in place of those from Haaretz. There were also two speakers from Fatah who had been in Israeli prisons for terrorist offences. One, whose commitment to liberal norms is somewhat dubious, insisted that Israel's occupation policies were "fascist" and "racist". If those in the audience disagreed with that assessment, they did not show it.
None of that was a surprise. But the conference did display a fundamental misconception concerning the relationship between Israel and Jews in the diaspora.
Many British speakers declared that they were opposed to the policies of the Netanyahu government and were becoming ashamed of Israel. They were, they said, becoming disturbed in their Jewish identity, since so much of that identity was bound up with Zionism and Israel.
From their side, many Israeli speakers urged British Jews to speak out and endorse their criticisms of the Netanyahu government. It was not enough, they said, for British Jews to support Israel with money. They should also let ordinary Israelis know of their disgust at Israeli policies, and put pressure on the government to change its ways. British Jews should add their voices to those of the peace camp in Israel.
There is indeed an important debate going on in Israel between supporters and critics of the Netanyahu government. For the time being, the peace camp is very much on the defensive. It is not difficult to explain why. It has been gravely weakened by the consequences of Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and, above all, from Gaza, since these have not led, as so many expected, to peace.
Netanyahu turned out to be right about Gaza
Benjamin Netanyahu was amongst a small minority who warned that the withdrawal from Gaza would lead not to peace but to rockets. He was right.
Indeed, Gaza has become, not, as many Israelis hoped, the model for Palestinian statehood but a terrorist state. It is understandable if many Israelis fear that a similar kind of state would come into existence in the West Bank were Israel to withdraw.
Many in Israel also hoped that the Arab spring would lead to a more liberal atmosphere in the Arab world, and the development of a genuine civic society in the West Bank. But that has not happened either; indeed there has been no presidential election in the Palestinian Authority since 2006. Mr Netanyahu predicted that the Arab spring would turn into an Arab winter. Again he was right. Perhaps Haaretz seeks outside pressure on Israel because it has lost the argument. If the left were in government, and Likud were to seek to mobilise British opinion against it, Haaretz would be the first to cry foul.
None of this is intended either to endorse or to criticise the Netanyahu government; and of course Jews are perfectly entitled to criticise - or even to support - Israeli policies, as are other British citizens; nor should critics be accused of disloyalty. British Jews are under no obligations to the Israeli government. Most Jews feel affection towards Israel, but that is quite different from obligation.
Outside critics, however, should not expect their views to weigh with Israel's government; nor should giving money to Israel yield privileged access. Many of the discussants at the Haaretz conference seemed to see the Israeli government as the headquarters of a world Jewish movement with obligations towards the diaspora. It is not. Israel is a sovereign independent state and its primary duty is towards its own citizens. After all, if Israel's government makes mistakes, the effects will be felt by its citizens, not by those living in comfort in Hendon or Hampstead.
