Like all jokes, the old line about ‘‘two Jews, three opinions’’ is funny because it has a kernel of truth. Which is why the role of any representative body for our community is so difficult. Periodically, an issue arises which causes deep divides. The latest is the proposed annexation by Israel of parts of the West Bank.

Understandably — and entirely properly — the President of the Board of Deputies has refused to make a statement on one side or the other. Cue outrage from some of those who oppose annexation and argue both that silence is a form of tacit approval and that the board has a moral duty to condemn the Israeli government’s behaviour.

It is of course entirely proper for those who oppose annexation to make their case widely and loudly (as it is for those who support it). But it is no less proper for Marie van der Zyl, the Board’s president, to refuse to make a statement either way. The clue is in the name of the organisation: the Board of Deputies of British Jews. It is not an Israeli body; it is not even a British body focused on Israel. It is a body of, and for, British Jews and their communal concerns.

Those Jews who demand that the British Jewish president of a British Jewish organisation condemn the actions of an Israeli government in order to demonstrate moral probity are a mirror image of those non-Jews on the hard left and right who make the same demand of British Jews.

Quite apart from that, the very strength of the Board lies in its capacity to include people and affiliated organisations with deeply held but widely divergent views across a range of issues. Any Board president walks a tightrope even when it comes to the relevant concerns of the organisation. Forcing them to become involved in an issue for which they have no responsibility and no mandate is simply wrong.