Vast majority of Jews support police march ban

Community leaders representing the overwhelming majority of British Jewish opinion have applauded the Metropolitan Police’s decision to prevent an upcoming pro-Palestine march from starting near a central London synagogue.

It comes after the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and Stop the War Coalition, the organisers behind the Gaza march on January 18, tried to co-opt fringe, anti-Israel Jewish voices to back their campaign.

Last week, the police used powers under the Public Order Act to prevent the protestors gathering for the start of the march a few hundred yards from Central Synagogue at Portland Place, the BBC’s headquarters.

On Sunday, the PSC released an open letter signed by 13 Holocaust survivors and relatives condemning the police’s attempt to move the start point of the march.

A separate letter criticising the police’s position was signed by more than 700 people “who identify as Jewish”, including Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC, author Gillian Slovo and anti-Zionist actress Miriam Margolyes.

The letter said, “As Jews we are shocked at this brazen attempt to interfere with hard-won political freedoms by conjuring up an imaginary threat to Jewish freedom of worship.”

But leaders in the Jewish community have urged the Met not to give into pressure from the protesters. The Jewish Leadership Council, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Community Security Trust released a joint statement on Tuesday in support of the Met’s position.

“This Saturday’s National March for Palestine must not take place in the vicinity of BBC given its proximity to a synagogue and the impact on worshippers,” the statement said. "We support the right to peaceful protest and are not asking for this march to be banned.

"However, we support the Metropolitan Police in imposing conditions to protect those who are attending Central London synagogues. Other routes and days are available. This march must not be allowed in the vicinity of a synagogue at any time on Saturday.”

Two-thirds of British Jews said they would avoid city centres where pro-Palestine protests were taking place for fear of their safety, according to an Institute for Jewish Policy Research survey published last October.

Rabbi Daniel Epstein from Western Marble Arch Synagogue called the PSC’s reaction against the Met’s decision a “disgrace”.

Speaking to the JC, he criticised the organisation for “misframing” the issue.

“They're trying to frame the people who are not in favour of the march as being not in favour of protest, and actually it's completely cynical. As if we're anti-democracy and anti-freedom.”

He said that those who have an issue with the march are not trying to limit the freedom to protest but instead trying to protect the freedom of religious expression.

Referencing the 700 Jews who had signed the letter advocating for the march, Rabbi Epstein said: “Judaism is in favour of free speech and protest. The entire Jewish community is comfortable with it.

“In fact, we are the protectors of protest and demonstration. We are the counter cultural voice against the empires who decided that tyranny was the way to go.”

He accused the PSC of “weaponising the very freedoms” that Jews have fought for throughout history.

“To use [the right to protest] to cynically discriminate against the very group who throughout western civilisation have been the voice of protest against tyranny is the absolute lowest,” he said.

Regarding the statement by Holocaust survivors and their descendants, Rabbi Epstein accused the organisation of “weaponising Holocaust survivors”.

"All Jews, whether religious or not, should be entitled to freedom of protest. But if that freedom includes the preclusion of Jews to freely worship how they wish, religious or not, it stands against the very ideals that we fought against to ensure the Holocaust will never happen again.”

On Monday the PSC announced its intention to gather at Whitehall and march to the BBC — a reversal of the original route.

In response, police said the route was “not one we have agreed and it would breach the conditions that have been imposed under the Public Order Act”.