When Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband spoke in the British House of Commons, making the case for sanctions on those who trade with “settlements” in “occupied territory”, what struck me most was not the vicious singling out of Israel, when his government has shown no concern for the real occupations such as that of Turkey in Northern Cyprus, Morocco in Western Sahara, or especially China in Tibet and Xinjiang. Nor was it the hype and government propaganda that accompanied the speech, declaring that Miliband would never let “any injustice” stand, thereby stating that only one “occupier” was committing an injustice. This was not unexpected. The idea of Israel the pariah state has moved steadily in the UK from the fringes to the mainstream left, and it was only a matter of time before it determined government policy.
(Miliband has criticised those who claim his move against Israel was antisemitic, but how else can one describe treating the Jewish state differently from every other?)
Nor was it the utter one-sided nature of his demands. Israel, he said, is causing the “two-station solution to die before our eyes”, yet he made no mention of the PA’s continued practice of “pay-for-slay”, the lauding of terrorists, the repeated offers of a Palestinian state that were rejected, and the insistence of the “right of return” that would make the proposed two states into one Palestinian state and another Palestinian state. An honest observer would acknowledge that these actions make the Palestinian leadership at least as culpable as Israel for the evaporation of the “sacred” two-state-solution. Yet in Miliband’s world there is only one party that needs to be held to account and sanctioned. This infantalising and racist denial of agency for the Palestinians is another staple belief of the left and has been presented previously, especially when the UK government unconditionally recognised the State of Palestine last year.
Even the failure to understand that Israel has, since 2005, allowed Gaza to become a Palestinian state in all but name and that that gesture was answered clearly on October 7, was anticipated. Western leaders long ignored this reality and have never realised that the reason not one mainstream Israeli political party in the forthcoming election is proposing a Palestinian state is because Israelis know that such a policy would make their children and grandchildren vulnerable to a massacre, not just in the Gaza envelope but throughout the country. Not one Western leader has explained to Israelis how, after October 7, a two-state-solution can keep them safe. Miliband is the latest in a long line of politicians to refuse to address the gaping hole at the heart of their policy.
But what did stand out from the speech as something new, was Miliband’s attempt to present himself as the mother of all “as a Jew”s (AAJ’s). These Jews are to be found on every anti-Israel hate march, directing films full of blood libels, writing and widely distributing articles in which they claim the Jewish establishment denies them the right to publicise their views. “AAJs” claim that their background gives them special insight and extra reason to condemn Israel whilst rarely explaining why this should be so. “AAJs” have no greater expertise on geopolitics than others; they rarely have been to Israel to see facts on the ground for themselves. Rather, they state that it is their Jewish values that oblige them to speak out against a state that, they claim, have deviated from their beliefs.
Yet undermining this argument is often a complete ignorance of what Jewish values actually pronounce and any evidence that these values play an important role in the lives of the “AAJs”, when they are not protesting against Israel.
Whilst this phenomenon is far from new, Miliband has taken it to the next level. Repeatedly in his speech he referenced his own Jewishness, calling himself a “proud British Jew”. He recalled visiting Israel in the 1970s and “picking oranges as a kid on the kibbutz where my cousins lived”.
But does this mean that being Jewish is central to his life? That Jewish values influence him? That there is any reason for him to repeatedly refer to his Jewishness as if that justifies his condemnation of Israel?
In Miliband’s case we know the answer. After his accession as leader of the Labour party he wrote an extended essay describing his origin, including much about being an atheist Jew, the son of Marxist Jewish refugees. This alone does not make him an insincere “AAJ”; many Jews find ways to live meaningful Jewish lives without God.
But Miliband does not. In the essay he stated that his atheist parents did not provide a bar mitzvah for him, but they did bequeath “fragments of Jewish culture” which Miliband hopes to pass to his own children. And what are these fragments? Miliband names three: Yiddish curses, Woody Allen and matza-ball soup.
And that’s it.
And it is on these scraps, utterly unconnected to Jewish values and indeed from Jewish life, does Miliband base his Jewish identity. And it is this, value-free, absurd pale shadow of “Jewishness” that Miliband uses to give authority to his demonisation of Israel and the double standards with which he condemns Israel as uniquely barbaric.
Miliband was a total failure as Leader of the Labour party, losing a general election and facilitating the succession of Jeremy Corbyn. But we can congratulate him on one achievement – being the most hypocritical and dangerous “as a Jew”, who justifies his antisemitic policy by memories of matza-ball soup.
