The Chief Rabbi and the Church of England.

The Synod of the Church of England voted to heed a call for disinvestment from "companies profiting from the illegal occupation [of the territories] such as Caterpillar Inc [which makes the bulldozers that are used for land clearance and the demoliton of Palestinian houses]."

The way the Chief Rabbi has responded to this is unfortunate in many ways.

First, he sees it as the Church of England taking sides in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and as an attack on Israel at a time when Israel is more beleaguered than ever by the victory of Hamas, by the threats from Iran etc. and when Israel should instead be praised for her unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Incidentally, his article in the Jewish Chronicle says that the vote related to "companies associated with Israel" - a considerable widening of the text. It is true that the text uses Caterpillar as its prime target while behind it is the wider group of companies profiting from the occupation, and that could be regarded as the thin end of a wedge that could eventually embrace all companies associated with Israel; but the deliberate widening here is the Chief Rabbi's and not the Synod's.

It is true that the Church of England has taken sides by referring to the "illegal occupation", but then of course the Chief Rabbi has taken sides himself, and much more sweepingly so.

Secondly, the Chief Rabbi, saying that "Jews and Christians at last learned to speak to one another", sees the resolution as imperilling this dialogue (and for good measure, he invokes the Holocaust). He is one of those Jews who seem incapable of distinguishing between criticism of Israel and an attack on Jews. Of course Jews who identify themselves so closely with Israel that they see any criticism of it as is an attack on themselves will feel that the resolution has "added to our sense of vulnerability". Dr Sacks has for some time now spoken of an increased insecurity among Jews in Britain which I, for one, cannot detect in the section of the Jewish community with which I am familiar. (To the extent that they do feel threatened, it is certainly not by Christians, but rather by those Muslims who have heeded inflammatory sermons from some of their clergy.)

There are in fact many Jews inside and outside Israel, most of whom of course wish Israel well, who nevertheless feel profoundly critical of the ways in which Israel has been inflicting sufferings on the Palestinians. I need only mention B'tselem inside Israel and the Peace Now movements throughout the world. If they feel a sense of vulnerability, it is caused, not by criticism of Israel, but by people like the Chief Rabbi producing exactly the result he deplores. If Christians were really to believe that all Jews, by virtue of being Jews, support everything the Israelis do, and feel that any criticism of Israel is a criticism of themselves, then of course they would have to accept that by criticizing Israel they are attacking the Jews. Fortunately, the vast majority of those Christians who criticize Israel (unlike fanatics among the Muslim) can still distinguish between the two.

Finally, the Chief Rabbi's article has been published several days after the Archbishop of Canterbury's open letter to Dr Sacks. The Archbishop voted for the resolution and had explained why he had done so, but he had made clear the philo-Judaic position of the Church of England, and in particular its rejection of hostility to the State of Israel as such. If anything were imperilling the continuation of Jewish-Christian dialogue, it is the Chief Rabbi's decision to go ahead with the publication of his article as if he had never received or read the Archbishop's letter.

Cartoons of Mohammed.

First of all, before Muslims rage against cartoons about Mohammed, they would do well to look at the Stuermer-like cartoons which are daily being produced in the Muslim world. The media in the Muslim world frequently revive the Blood Libel. Some Muslim clerics regularly select the more violent passages of the Koran and the Prophet's hadiths to justify killing infidels in general, and Jews in particular. Ignoring the more tolerant passages in the Koran, they describe militant jihad, suicide bombings of civilians etc as a religious duty, enjoined by the Prophet and rewarded by bliss in Paradise; so they cannot complain if such incitements to murder are translated into cartoons.

However, two blacks don't make a white. While of course the Press in the Western world has a perfect right to satirize everything, that does not mean that it was sensible to exercise it in this way. It is well known how sensitive even peaceful Muslims are about any mockery or even portrayal of Mohammed; and in the present climate it is surely irresponsible to to stir up this particular hornets' nest. It could also have been anticipated that the Muslim response would be totally excessive and infantile, taking their rage out against Danish-produced milk products (!), imperilling or doing damage to people, buildings and institutions that have nothing whatever to do with the publication, recalling diplomats although they know that Western governments, unlike Arab governments, have no control over the Press, etc. And even if Jyllands Posten had not anticipated all this, the papers which have now deliberately reprinted the cartoons after the row had already started, have inflamed it further: and that is totally irresponsible. The fact that we have no censorship does not absolve the press from observing a degree of self-censorship. Anyone who wanted to see the images that caused all the fuss could easily access them on the Internet (as I did): there was no need to reprint them in order to inform the public, and especially not after Jyllands Posten had expressed its own regret. One suspects that the desire to boost circulation, rather than all the high-minded talk about standing up for the freedom of the press, had more than a little to do with it. It would not after all be the first time that the freedom of the Press has been hypocritically invoked to publish offensive material.

There is, I know, the counter-argument that witholding publication would be giving in to blackmail. There are unfortunately many occasions when one has to run the risk of saying or doing something that inflames the Muslim world and that may do disproportionate damage, but publishing or republishing these cartoons was not one of them.