British Jews disagree. We should stop pretending otherwise

The last few days have been depressing.

Of course, any Jewish writer over a period spanning several millennia could have opened with the above sentence. Even so, it has been difficult; and perhaps precisely because there are no easy answers, one of the results has been the unfortunate tendency of our community to turn on each other.

There have been various pieces written by British Jews about British Jews over the last few days. Where do we stand on the government’s announcement on West Bank sanctions? In the broadest and most basic of binaries, are we with the foreign secretary or the Chief Rabbi?

Get The Jewish News Daily Edition by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

For the benefit of wider society, I thought it might be helpful to clear up a few things.

First, in response to those who have gleefully pointed it out as if it is some sort of state secret, yes, Chief Rabbi Mirvis represents a single denomination of Judaism within the UK (albeit the largest – and he also holds a Commonwealth role).

More by Daniel Sugarman

27 minutes ago

‘Ukraine has no Iron Dome – it needs equipment to defend itself’

By Daniel Sugarman

Aug. 28, 2026

Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir publicly squabble over electoral strategy

By Daniel Sugarman

Aug. 28, 2026

Hackney Council may withhold emails over 7 October twinning deadline

By Daniel Sugarman

The others, broadly speaking, are Progressive Judaism, Masorti Judaism, the S&P Sephardi community, the Federation of Synagogues and the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations. And that’s before we get into details about the different Chassidic sects and who they might be affiliated to, as well as the Jews who don’t identify with any denomination at all.

Not everyone within the United Synagogue will agree with the Chief Rabbi here, but equally (something the people pointing out his denominational status have largely ignored) his view on the lack of wisdom of the government’s actions is something that a swathe of those from other denominations may identify with. When it comes to religious denominations, “Orthodox” does not always mean “right wing” and “Progressive” does not always mean “left wing” – particularly on foreign policy.

Second, there appears to be a view that Rabbi Mirvis has stepped beyond his brief in condemning the foreign secretary’s sanctions announcement. Personally I think that given Ed Miliband chose to begin his comments by stressing that he is a proud British Jew, and in effect connecting his announcement of sanctions to that Jewishness, it was not unreasonable for Chief Rabbi Mirvis to respond.

But further than that, the idea that by his remarks Chief Rabbi Mirvis was breaking down some separation between synagogue and state is ludicrous for anyone with knowledge of British Jewish communal history. For British Jews of a certain age, despite the manifold abilities of Rabbi Mirvis and the prodigious talents of his predecessor Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, the chief rabbinate was synonymous with its holder for a quarter of a century, Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits.

Rabbi (later Lord) Jakobovits was a man of strong opinions, and certainly did not view his position as a barrier to making them known. He had a strong relationship with Margaret Thatcher, to the extent that he was widely viewed as being closer to her than any Christian denominational leader during her time in office.

His 1985 work From Doom to Hope: A Jewish view of “Faith in the City” was a response to a Church of England report which had been highly critical of Thatcherite policies. His critiques of state welfare and trade unions in that document went well beyond anything that a Chief Rabbi – any Chief Rabbi -would likely dream of opining on now. [In his latter, post-rabbinate years in the House of Lords, his comments about homosexuality would generate considerable notoriety].

It is deeply ironic, therefore, that when it came to foreign policy, and specifically the issue of Israel, Lord Jakobovits espoused sentiments which would today put him firmly in the minority bloc occupied (if occupied is the appropriate term) by Yachad, on the fringe of what is called Liberal Zionism. He first aired his notion of support for a Palestinian state in 1978, almost a decade before the first intifada.

I know many British Jews who are likely to slip through the cracks of whatever polling you may choose to conduct

His 1984 book on Zionism, If Only My People, was critical about certain aspects of the Israeli state’s behaviour, and what he viewed as the arrogance of its secular founders. However, he was also scathing about the beliefs of right-wing religious Zionists in Judea and Samaria, describing his fears about “a new pseudo-Messianism” which could eventually reach… some breaking point in war or civil strife.”

His comments regarding Israel and the West Bank in particular reached the point that his Israeli Ashkenazi counterpart once called for him to be excommunicated.

Is there a significant difference between the position that the Chief Rabbi of the United Synagogue gave then and the one put forward now? Yes. Nor can we know what Lord Jakobovits would think were he here today; It is a fool’s game to assume that you can divine what an individual might say now based on what they wrote 40 years ago, given everything that has happened since.

We are all products of our environment, and our views can change based on events. In 2010, polling showed that large majority of British Jews – approximately 78% – supported a two state solution. Last year that number was at 49%. (a third said they supported the idea of a bi-national Israeli Palestinian state). Contrary to what anyone, left or right in the community says, there is no current data to suggest what British Jews think of the government’s position (the data we have is more than a decade old). And that is the point.

I know many British Jews who are likely to slip through the cracks of whatever polling you may choose to conduct. They strongly dislike the Netanyahu government and are appalled by violence perpetrated by Israeli settlers in the West Bank – and the actions of radical far-right members of Israel’s governing coalition.

They also see a difference between a bunch of rifle-toting fanatics in shacks on hills overlooking Palestinian villages, and towns of tens of thousands of people which any serious peace plan ever been mooted has assumed would be subsumed into Israel in exchange for land swaps.

They do not believe that the British government cares to make that distinction, and they feel, given the Prime Minister’s apology about Labour’s attitude towards Israel under his predecessor, that domestic political considerations have been brought to bear here in a disturbing fashion, as the government seeks to win back the wider Left. They worry that countries which take a more hostile stance on Israel tend to become more hostile for Jewish people in general.

As you have probably have guessed, this is a set of views I largely share. I would like to think that it is the majority view, because most people would prefer to think that their community is broadly in the same place as they are on certain issues. But is it the general viewpoint of British Jews? In the absence of any recent proper polling, anyone honestly answering that would have to do something which I will do here – something which opinion columnists rarely do and perhaps, should do more – say that I don’t know.