Baroness Ruth Deech
Jews, Israel, and the House of Lords

Baroness Ruth Deech - Jews, Israel and the House of Lords

- Good afternoon, good evening, good morning wherever you are and welcome to Lockdown University. We are very privileged to have my friend Baroness Ruth Deech on Lockdown today. Ruth, thank you so much for joining us. It’s an absolute pleasure to have you. Thank you, it’s an honour and a privilege. So before I hand over to Baroness Deech, I am going to do a brief introduction. Baroness Ruth Deech was the principal of St. Anne’s College, Oxford University from 1991 to 2004. She was the chair of the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority from 1994 to 2001, governor of the BBC from 2002 to 06, and a Rhode Scholarship trustee from 1996 to 2006. She was an honorary member of the Queen’s Counsel in 2013. She was appointed a life peer in 2005. And sits in the House of Lords as a crossbench legislator. She received her MA from Brandeis in Jewish studies, an honorary degree from Bangor University, and the Churchill Award from Technion. Her father, Josef Fraenkel was a founding member of the World Jewish Congress. Wow, Ruth, what a journey you’ve been on. So, I-

• Thank you, Wendy.

• Yeah, so interesting and really, really fascinating. So, thank you very much. Today, Baroness Deech is going to talk about Jews, Israel, and the House of Lords. So thank you and over to you.

• Right. I’m a big fan of Lockdown University, which enriched all our lives during lockdown and is the best thing to have come out of Covid. Thank you, Wendy. I’m here to talk about the House of Lords from a Jewish perspective. I’ve been a member for 18 years, but first a warning note. When I go on holiday, I try not to say who I am, otherwise there will be a barrage of probably hostile questions, as politicians always expect. But on a cruise recently I’ve managed throughout to say nothing and keep my head down. As we were disembarking, a woman to whom I chatted on the cruise bounded up to me and said, “Now I know who you are. You are the one who offends someone every time you open your mouth.” So it here goes. Next slide please. I am a crossbencher. There are 179 of us in the House of Lords and what we have in common is that we are not party political appointments, although we have a few refugees from other parties in our ranks. For example, in the reign of Corbyn, quite a few Labour members crossed the floor and joined us. Though they’ve gone back now, maybe prematurely. We crossbenchers, or independents, are appointed by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. It was established in 2000 in order to nominate people for membership of the Lords. People who were not party political, but nominated for their expertise and having something to contribute.

I was appointed under Tony Blair who’d been to my lectures at Oxford. My one regret is that my parents, my father a refugee, did not live to see this honour, as it might have made them feel that their precarious existence had born fruit. It’s best only to talk about subjects you know about in the House of Lords, because there will always be another member who knows even more. I stick to Israel, higher education, disability, family law, and a wide range of Jewish issues. Sorry, I’ve skipped forward. The intake into the Lords is largely political. Labour peers nominated by Labour, Tories by the Tory government, and you will all be aware of the fury surrounding the latest batch of nominees from Boris Johnson. But apart from that, there are far too many of all parties whose only claim to distinction seems to be the amount of cash they’ve donated to the party. There are far too many LibDems by any reckoning, because during the coalition years there must have been a deal between David Cameron and Nick Clegg to strengthen their representation and now there are 83 of them. Their outstandingly charismatic member Paddy Ashdown is sadly long gone. There are 26 Bishops, though they do not all attend at once, albeit that they would be entitled to do so. For centuries, the Lords consisted only of those born to a title or a noble. Now there are only 92 hereditary peers, a somewhat unjustifiable leftover from the deal made some years ago to end the hereditary monopoly on the Lords. When one of them dies, another is elected to take their place, and it seems impossible to reduce them. Some of them are very creditable, others not quite so much, and of course they’re all largely Tory, male and white, and they don’t include women because of the male succession rules.

People are trying to change that as has already happened with the Royal Family succession. A recent hereditary peer to join us is Viscount Stansgate, son of Tony Benn who himself renounced his title. His son has returned despite having said in 2011 in relation to the hereditary principle, “I wouldn’t like to go to a dentist who, just before he drilled my teeth, told me he wasn’t a dentist himself, but that his father had been a very good dentist.” The average age of the Lords is 71. We’ve often been challenged about the lack of young people. In part, the answer is that without extensive experience of the world, there is little that they can offer except opinion about the youth, which we can glean from our children. Now that two very young peers have joined, there is criticism of their youth and lack of experience. Another problem about age is that the position in the Lords is not salaried, so one cannot afford to sit there if one is of working age and needing an income to support a family. It’s true that there is a modest daily allowance, but if, like me, you don’t live in London and need to pay for a hotel room, not to mention all your computing, accessories, meals, journals, travel, secretarial help, et cetera, there’s little left. 29% of the peers are female and we are no shrinking violets, but have held the most important positions there, Speaker, Leader of the Party, Chief Whip. 55 peers, that’s 7%, are from ethnic minorities, many of them Muslim. There are also Hindus, Sikhs, Catholics, gay peers, disabled peers. Bearing in mind that as we get older we all tend to have either visual, hearing, or mobility problems and there’s quite a procession of walking trolleys, wheelchairs, and sticks along the red carpet. At least three of our number are blind and they do wonders with the latest technical devices. Hearing aids proliferate. If you ever think we’re asleep in the House of Lords, it’s not the case. We’re leaning back to the little microphones buried in the red bench behind us. A very varied number of professions are represented.

Of course doctors and lawyers, but also nurses, trade unionists, diplomats, airline pilots, farmers, police, academics, civil servants, landlords and property owners, broadcasters, cricketers, a ballet dancer, prison lags, social workers, but because we’re not salaried, there’s a dearth of people who need to be in day-to-day activities such as teachers and transport workers. If you are used to it, it’s hard to realise just how dominant the Church of England is in our national everyday life, and very much so in the Lords. Prayers start every day’s proceedings. The 26 Bishops don’t just speak and vote on legislation, sometimes changing the outcome of votes. Note the Archbishop of Canterbury’s urging on illegal migration, but they also have privileged speaking rights over other peers. We are expected to give way when a bishop stands up in question time or in debates. They have the same consultation and access privileges to ministers as other party groups. The practise of starting every day with prayers is believed to date back to Tudor times. By entering the chamber in time for prayers, a Lord can snap up a seat for him or herself, whereas if you wait until prayers are over, there’ll be no seats. There are only about 200 seats on the red benches. This is really significant because you can only speak if you are in a seat and so those who don’t want to attend prayers are put at a disadvantage. I often stand in a row of unbelievers impatiently through prayers for that reason. My view is that there is no need for 26 bishops, one or two would do. No peerages should be awarded by the House of Lords Appointments Commission to faith representatives by virtue of their faith alone, but everyone should be appointed on merit. The only other country to give permanent seats to clerics in their legislature is Iran. Enough said. The bishops tend to vote against the government, which is easy enough on moral issues.

There are plenty of other members, for example philosophers, who could provide as good a moral input into our discussion as the bishops do. Next slide please. At my latest count there were about 59 Jewish peers. That’s about 7%. It has been higher, but bearing in mind though were only about 0.4 of the British population, we’re certainly very well represented. I’ve included in my count many who would prefer not to be identified and there are others with a long abandoned Jewish background. Jewish peers include famous names in the community such as Winston, Sugar, Michael Grade, Rosa Altmann, Julia Neuberger, Peter Mandelson, Daniel Finkelstein, David Pannick, Harry Woolf, Alf Dubs, Michael Levy, David Alliance, Charles Saatchi, and several Wolfsons. Next slide please. This was a very moving moment. Jonathan Sacks, the late Chief Rabbi, was on real ornament when he was with us. Although he only made about 10 speeches in his five years in the Lords, each one was a gem. He was one of the few speakers who, when it was seen on the screens that he was on his feet, peers would leave the bars and the dining rooms and come to listen. He dared to say things about Israel and family life that others could not. I would describe him as one of the great wordsmiths of our age. What was in his heart went through his head and then came direct from his mouth. Among his bon mot were, “My Lords, when I entered this chamber for the first time, I did so from the Moses room. I thanked noble lords for the extraordinary length to which they went to make a rabbi feel at home.” And he spoke about antisemitism and its resurgence today. In 2018, he said, “It pains me to speak about antisemitism, the world’s oldest hatred, but I cannot keep silent.

One of the enduring facts of history is that most antisemites do not think of themselves as antisemites. ‘We don’t hate Jews,’ they said in the Middle Ages, ‘just their religion.’ ‘We don’t hate Jews,’ they said in the 19th century, ‘just their race.’ ‘We don’t hate Jews,’ they say now, ‘just their nation state.’” And this has guided me in all the talk about Israel in the Lords and about Holocaust memorials, which is another story. In the Lords we have staunch non-Jewish allies, such as Lord Anderson, Lord Mann, Lord Austin, Lord Pickles, John Patten, Baronesses Ludford, Eaton, and Ramsay, Lord Bew, and the late Lord Trimble Actually, it takes a northern Irelander to understand Israel. And we have a set number of enemies, at least on the question of Israel, many on the LibDem benches, or, unfortunately, Muslims. I won’t name names, but their speeches usually start by saying, “I’m a friend of Israel. As a friend of Israel, I say this.” For example, one of them said, “Stop the creeping de facto annexation of the West Bank via further illegal settlements.” Or another said, “I’m asking her Majesty’s government what representations they will make to the government of Israel about reports of sexual threats made to Palestinian women during raids in Hebron by Israeli soldiers and settlers.” When someone uses the word reported or allegedly, that means that if it isn’t true, even if it isn’t true, the allegation is out there in the public domain unchallenged for a while. Lord Steel of Aikwood, stirring in the pot in 2015 said, “Israel doesn’t like the reference to apartheid, but the separate roads on the West Bank that can be travelled on only by Israeli citizens, which I saw on recent visits, are strongly reminiscent of what I used to find in South Africa, as is the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel itself.”

The bishops, of whom as I said 26 sit in the Lords, are divided. There’s usually one or two who stand out as obsessive about Israel, currently the Bishop of Suffolk. While the Archbishop of Canterbury often insinuates that Christians are being driven out of what he calls the Holy Land by Israeli action. I can name names with certitude because of the written questions they submit in our “Daily Gazette,” the House of Lords business paper. This contains everyday dozens of questions submitted in writing for ministers to answer. It’s a useful vehicle for publicising issues. As few people read the answers, which are in a different paper, and by using the word alleged or reported, people can air inimical facts about Israel, which, if they turn out to be untrue, can be whitewashed by saying, “Oh, they were only reported.” Next slide please. In the last 12 months, 89 such questions were submitted by a Baroness and 17 by the Bishop of Suffolk. In most years the number mentioning Israel is nearly the highest, but understandably this year Ukraine and China caught more mentions. Yemen and other areas of misery get little airing. Here’s a typical question by a LibDem Baroness. “Asking her Majesty’s government what assessment they’ve made of the report by an organisation called Defence for Children International Palestine ‘Year in Review: A Deadly Year for Palestinian Children.’ We’re asking the government what representations they’ve made to the government of Israel concerning the allegations that the secret evidence used against four non-governmental organisations were based in part on prisoners’ confessions obtained under torture.

We’re asking the government what assessment they’ve made of the reported policy of the government of Israel of demolishing the homes of Palestinians but not Israelis accused of acts of violence.” Much of it seems to come from Al Jazeera reports. And the Bishop of Suffolk again, “Asking the government what assessment they’ve made of the socioeconomic exclusion and marginalisation experienced by Christians in Israel. Asking the government what assessment they’ve made of the statement on the current threats to the Christian presence in the Holy Land by the patriarchs and heads of churches in Jerusalem.” And on and on, sometimes several such in one day. Overall, Israel was discussed by parliamentarians in the last year on 439 occasions. Yemen 114. Syria 360. Next slide please And every now and then, I’ve put up some more comments so you can see what they’re like. Every now and then we hear trivialization of the word holocaust used in reference to, for example, illegal migration or detention camps. I have forgotten how deep seated antisemitism can be in some people in the period between leaving school and joining the House of Lords. But by Lord’s Sacks definition focusing on Israel, it is there on the part of a few. My next slide shows you some more comments. Next slide please. And there are so many I could have put up, depressingly, many such slides. I’ve forgotten just how many such comments there are. Not about Jews of course, about Israel. Next slide please. Behind the scenes and on our feet, we who support Israel are constantly pressing the government not to vote against Israel in the UN, to prescribe the Iranian Revolutionary Guard here in the UK, to combat antisemitism, not to recognise Palestine as a state, not to ban kosher killing or halal, an area where we make common cause with Muslims.

So not to ban that killing of animals. To be aware of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, to recognise Israel’s great achievements in medicine and technology, which benefit Britain, to pressurise Poland to make restitution for the property of 3 million Jewish victims of the war, property retained by Poland. Unlike nearly every other country in Europe, Poland not only refuses to legislate for restitution, but actively works to make it more difficult and to block court cases. It is however the case that this work on behalf of Jewish issues is done mostly by about half a dozen Jewish peers. Most of the others are not active in the cause at all. And because so few of us are defending Israel and Jewish issues, there’s always the danger of being regarded as a one-trick pony and every now and then one has to give it a rest. Next slide please. A very important issue which ought to have a talk of its own one day, is what’s going on against Israel in the United Nations. And we keep up the pressure there to get the UK to vote for Israel, which it doesn’t always. And of course Israel is under constant attack in the UN, especially and most hypocritically in the United Nations Human Rights Council, which is full of countries whose human rights record is not good at all, as I’m sure you know. Next slide please. We have, however, had two successes, namely the gett and domestic abuse, intertwined as they are. I have to confess that it’s been a source of embarrassment over the years to have to explain to a non-Jewish audience the male dominance in the issuing of a gett, to set it up in the Lords, and how embarrassing it is to have to rely on English legislation to try to ameliorate what the Jewish authorities will not, namely prevent women becoming chained to men who will not give them a gett, will not divorce them.

The Divorce Religious Marriages Act 2002 provides that either party can apply for a decree absolute in secular law. That’s a document which will sever a marriage under civil proceedings and you can apply for it to be withheld until a gett has been granted. However, if a husband doesn’t care about getting the document, this is ineffective. I need hardly explain that a Jewish couple will not regard themselves as divorced, even if they have a civil divorce, until the gett is granted. There are abundant painful stories of husbands who will not give their wife a gett without payment for example, or the return of whatever assets the civil court ordered him to transfer to her on their civil divorce. Or on conditions relating to children regardless of the civil law’s insistence on the welfare of children being paramount in divorce. Or men delaying in every way the issue of a gett while the wife is getting older and approaching the end of her childbearing years. The Beth Din in London, unfortunately, has the reputation of being rather unbending and unsympathetic compared with batei din in other countries that have found a way around this. It has been something of a national scandal in the UK, a throwback to some dark age it must seem to those not acquainted with Jewish law. It might be possible to use criminal proceedings under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 to seek recourse against such men based on their coercive behaviour against the other party if they will not grant a gett until the other party, usually the wife, agrees to a smaller financial settlement than she would otherwise be entitled to. Or perhaps in respect of the arrangements with whom a child should live or future contact arrangements. The risk is that under religious law, unless the gett is given of the man’s free will it isn’t valid, so a threat or the actuality of criminal sanctions might well be held to vitiate his free will and therefore the gett itself. But this has never been tested in court. It’s got close, it’s never actually been tested. An opportunity to improve the situation presented itself in the House of Lords in the Domestic Abuse Bill 2021, which is now an Act of Parliament. The bill was about the offence of controlling and coercive behaviour, often, but not always, by a man towards a woman. I mustn’t be sexist about this.

The kind of behaviour I’ve described in relation to withholding a gett was not always recognised as harmful because the police and the authorities saw domestic abuse through the prism of physical ill behaviour, ill treatment, not mental, and evidence of the refusal behaviour, since it wasn’t physical, was hard to obtain And to rely on. An alliance of Baroness Altman. Sorry, this is moving around again. An alliance of Baroness Altmann, Lord Mendelsohn, and myself set to work, and other peers, to ensure that the new emphasis and definition of domestic abuse would include refusal of a gett and the pressure involved. The new law sets out that domestic abuse may exist even when the couple are no longer living together and that the definition of abuse extends to violent or threatening behaviour, controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse, psychological, emotional or other abuse, and that it may be directed at a child of the family, not just a partner. The act doesn’t mention Jewish divorce specifically, but the issue is set up in the statutory guidance accompanying it. It is now possible for a husband who refuses a gett to be prosecuted because his behaviour can be defined as controlling and coercive, which is an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2015. But this can’t go too far otherwise, as I explained, the gett might not be valid because it was obtained by duress. But it does make it easier to put pressure on a refusing husband. His behaviour will be classified as if he were being physically violent. It makes it easier for an agune, a chained wife, to speak out and to have it known that her husband is behaving wickedly. The defence a husband might have had in the past under the law, that he was no longer in a relationship with a woman under duress because they’d separated can no longer apply.

The statutory guidance accompanying the act explains that a form of domestic abuse may include the withholding of a religious divorce as a means to control and intimidate victims. Abuse relating to faith can amount to psychological or emotional abuse, coercive controlling behaviour. Of course it works both ways, though much more rarely, that is if a wife unreasonably refused to accept the gett. The guidance explains for the benefit of those not familiar with Jewish law, that refusal means the wife cannot remarry and her children would be stigmatised if she did as mamzerim. The guidance sets out the same explanation for divorces in Islam, which follow a similar pattern. Sadly, an immediate response from Federation Rabbis, that is the more orthodox ones, to the new law was that it would make no difference as its threats amounted to depriving the husband of his free will. The Federation of Synagogues Dayans said that a gett given under duress, whether in response to physical threats, financial threats, or the threat of imprisonment is absolutely invalid as a matter of halakha, Jewish law, and the couple would remain married to one another notwithstanding the granting of a gett. “If a woman uses the provisions of the Domestic Abuse Act,” Federation said, “she will have tied the beit din’s hands. Clearly the husband in such a situation will be acting under duress.” Next slide please. But can these unsympathetic and unbending rabbis be in the last chance saloon? Daniel Greenberg, an Orthodox Jew of whom you may never have heard, is one of the most important men in Parliament. He’s the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, an officer of the House of Commons, charged with monitoring the code of conduct for MPs and investigating possible breaches.

He’s a highly skilled lawyer specialising in parliamentary procedure and drafting legislation, which is one of the most difficult jobs I’ve ever come across. He’s frequently to be seen around the Palace of Westminster in his yarmulke and tzitzis. Somewhat surprisingly, he’s written the most radical and empathetic book about the gett and how to get around difficulties. It’s called “Getting a Get” and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the topic. He sets out the exploitation that can go on when a spouse uses the gett as a bargaining chip and he calls it an unacceptable corruption of religion and it’s a form of abuse the secular law must deal with if the community authorities are unable or unwilling to address it. He also points out that if the rabbis of the Beth Din collude or help a man who’s trying to extort money or unwelcome conditions from his wife as a way of bargaining over the gett, those rabbis could be assisting in the crime of blackmail, a criminal offence in itself. He also urges rabbinical courts to leave issues of money and custody of children where they belong, in the secular family courts. He uses harsh but deserved words for the Beth Din that if they allowed Jewish law to be a tool of oppression of spouses, they render themselves unfit to exercise rabbinic authority. He’s called for a review of the Beth Din and clearly does not have the highest opinion of the current holders of those posts. While forcing a husband to give a gett could invalidate it, a rabbi who inhibits a woman from starting a prosecution for coercive control could be, would be perverting the course of justice under criminal law. Mr. Greenberg calls for a fresh examination of halakha to end the complicity of the Beth Din in coercive control. After all, bigamy was outlawed in much of the Jewish world centuries ago in light of changing social behaviour.

So it should be seen that forcing a person to remain in a marriage is as objectionable in Jewish law as forcing someone into a marriage. He believes that the Torah should not be read as giving a husband a veto or a right to extort money for a gett. This is revolutionary stuff. It’s had an effect. A United Synagogue review of divorce practise in the Beth Din has just reported. While it doesn’t go as far as Mr. Greenberg recommends, it calls for harsher penalties against refusers, for a complaint system, for a more sympathetic court atmosphere. So, if there is one thing at least that Jewish peers can be happy about, it is that their work contributed something to a better outcome for chained wives. That is of course a specialised contribution, but the spirit of championing the underdog is one that we can apply to wider national and international issues. And we can also be proud of our Jewish perspective and use our voices to let us stand up for better treatment of Israel in the national and international forum. Politicians are content to keep saying glibly “never again” in relation to the Holocaust. The most practical way of ensuring that is to make sure that the only safe haven in the world for Jews, and the place where 7 million Jews now live, is protected against the prejudice of boycotts, international sanctions, and the armed threats from its neighbours. That’s where we Jewish peers may keep on reminding them. The next bill we have our eye on is the one that will prohibit local authorities from boycotting Israel in procurement decisions. And that, I think, will have a difficult passage through the House of Lords. Most peers are well informed and well disposed, and most work hard to scrutinise legislation which has been rushed in draught form through the Commons. And the peers have, overall, a liberal perspective.

To conclude, I disagree with the LibDem peer, now retired, Lord Tyler, who joked, I think, “The Lords is the best daycare centre for the elderly in London. Families can drop in him or her and make sure that the staff will look after them very well. Nice meals subsidised by the taxpayer and they can have a snooze in the afternoon in the chamber or in the library.” That does go on. But I assure you that most of the laws are working very hard and your Jewish peers will continue to do all they can to defend Jewish issues, and even more poignantly, Israel issues. Thank you very much. And now I’m going to look at the Q & A and see if you’ve got questions for me. Thank you.

• Ruth, I’m going to just jump in quickly before you answer questions to say thanks a million for your very informative presentation. We’re certainly lucky to have your measured voice championing our cause in support of the State of Israel and we particularly appreciate your efforts to keep pressure on those that have such pressure against Israel in the UN. You know, terrible prejudice. It’s absolutely shocking.

Q&A and Comments:

• Right, I’m just having a look at the Q & A. Right.

Q: “What percentage of Lords are Muslim?” Someone says, “What percentage of Lords are Muslim?”

A: I’m not sure quite how many, but about 7% are ethnic minority, and a lot of them are Muslim, so it’s probably 4, 5%. There’s no breakdown of Christian sects that would be meaningful, but there’s certainly several Catholics as well as C of E.

Q: “Should cognitive issues surface in a Lord’s member?”

A: I think you mean or is someone getting gaga? Well, hopefully someone will tell you, because there is no mandatory retirement age. Maybe there ought to be. One of the ways it’s been discussed of reducing the number of peers, which is really necessary, is that there should be a retirement age. For example, 80, 75, or that you should only be there for say 15 or 20 years. I think many people know that Lord Janner, the late Lord Janner, who did wonderful work for the Jewish community, was rather losing it when he left the Lords and that was a shame because most of his career had been so spectacularly good on behalf of the Jews.

Q: Someone says, “What power does the House of Lord have in making policy or law?”

A: Well, a lot. I mean, in theory we are equal with the Commons because any new law has got to be passed by the Commons and the Lords. So what happens is usually when a bill goes through the Lords, through the Commons, and it has its third reading. It comes to us usually in a rather undigested state, because they rush things. We don’t have what’s called a guillotine. We can spend as long as we like looking at each word of that new law and suggesting alterations, which we do at leisure. And then we send those alterations back to the Commons. Now in the last resort, we can hold up a bill for about one year if we don’t like it. But in the last resort we tend to give away to the Commons because they are, after all, elected and we are not. But very often, we in the Lords have suggested an amendment, and the Commons have accepted it, either because they agree with us or they’re in a hurry to get that bill into law. So we do have actually quite a lot of power. Equal in theory, but not in practise.

Someone else just said they’ve read Rabbi Sacks’ “The Dignity of Difference.” It was brilliant. I agree. The current Chief Rabbi is not in the House of Lords, so I can’t say anything about his impact. And as I said, worthy though he may be, I don’t think any head of a church should get a place just because they are head of a church. I think people should gain places on their own merits.

Q: Someone else says, “Can’t we who support Israel put down questions in our ‘Daily Gazette’ about Israel that are supportive?”

A: And yes, we do. We do put down, but there is something very vindictive and numerically almost overwhelming about the number of anti-Israel questions that are put down from a smallish number of peers. Perhaps I’m being oversensitive about this, but it is really quite prominent, and as I said, far more anti-Israel than ever about other countries. It’s like any little thing that happens and is reported, well relative, is reported in Al Jazeera, will get an airing in that daily House of Lords business letter. I have to say that government is really quite supportive. Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, Tariq Ahmad, represents the foreign office and he answers almost invariably, very sympathetically. He really is sympathetic towards Israel and Jewish issues. The only area which bothers me is the UK vote in the United Nations. As you know, Israel has been referred to the International Court of Justice. There’s at least one commission sitting, looking at Israel’s alleged war crimes and so on. And I just wish the UK government would use its vote more often in support of Israel in the United Nations. As I said in my talk, if you really believe never again, you’ve got to be conscious of the need to protect 7 million Israeli Jews conveniently gathered together in a tiny speck of territory with Iran’s developing nuclear weapons pointed towards it with very hostile and aggressive neighbours. And if you want to protect Jewish lives today, an important place to start is of course the United Nations. Let’s see.

Q: “What is the situation now with the proposed Holocaust Memorial next to the Houses of Parliament?”

A: Don’t get me going on that. I could give you a whole hour on that if you let me. At the moment there is an Act of Parliament dating back to 1900, which prevents building any building in Victoria Tower Gardens, which is a little park, it’s very small, I think it’s the size of three football fields, sort of behind Parliament, along Millbank. The government has brought in a bill which hasn’t yet passed to say, nevertheless, a Holocaust memorial can be built there with an underground learning centre. Now, you might say to me, “Why am I against this? Who could be against a Holocaust memorial?” I’m against it because it’s neither about the Holocaust, nor is it a memorial. What is actually proposed is a monument to British values. The memorial has an incomprehensible design of 23 pillars sticking up in the air, which would be meaningless to anyone who passed by. The underground learning centre is going to be about not just the Shoah, but other genocides, at first other Nazi ones, now it’s modern ones like Kosovo, with the lesson you shouldn’t be a bystander. And what I object to is that it doesn’t focus on the Jewish genocide. It doesn’t explain a thousand-year history of antisemitism in Britain. It doesn’t explain even what happened during the Holocaust because it’s too small. And that’s explained in, for example, the Imperial War Museum. It’s about rescuers and the British reaction to the Holocaust, some of which is quite painful.

All right, the kindertransport came, but where were their parents? Why were the gates of Palestine closed? But above all, it doesn’t explain, as far as I know, the need for Israel today. If it had something to say about Israel as a safe haven, I might drop my opposition. But I fear it will just lead people to say, “Oh, that was the Holocaust. That was a long time ago. We Brits are now are very well behaved, nothing to do with us, thank you. All done and dusted.” But it’s a very complicated topic, and believe me, I oppose this. I do it for the sake of my grandparents, who I think would be turning in their graves if they knew how the deaths of at least two of them were being used.

Q: Someone says, “Is it right that young Charlotte Owen has been made a Lord?”

A: Well, she’s 29, she’s a leggy blonde. I’m sure she’s very clever. Your guess is as good as mine. Why would Boris want to promote her? I don’t know. I’m sure she’s very clever, you know, she has good repute. But it is bit difficult to think of why it should be her when there are so many other worthy people with more experience of politics and the world. But I’m sure, I’m guessing, that she knows the criticism. She’ll probably work extra hard to show that she’s worthy of her place. So the outcome may yet be good.

Someone mentions here Lord Dubs. I’m very sorry to hear that he’s ill, I didn’t know. I’m sure we all wish him well. He has been an absolutely wonderful, exemplary member of the House of Lords with a high moral tone, with terrific speaking skills, and someone that we all look up to. He is the very best example of someone who came here as a refugee and has contributed beyond any imagining to British life and to our parliamentary procedures. He is a wonderful man and I wish him refuh shleima. I didn’t know that he was ill, and I hope it’s a short illness and he’s back to join us soon.

“Some people equate anti-Israel to antisemitism.” Well, I’m sorry to say there is a very heavy overlap. I suppose it is possible to be anti-Israel without being antisemitic, but it’s difficult. For example, we all know how Russia is behaving in Ukraine. I haven’t noticed people saying that Russia should be wiped off the face of the map, or all anti-Israel. People say they’re anti certain Russians, including members of the government. They don’t say the creation of Russia was a mistake. They don’t say that Russians, for example, students should be persecuted. Ditto China. I therefore find it very hard to see the obsession with Israel and the attacks which go beyond the government of Israel but to the actual existence of Israel, as anything other than antisemitic. I therefore support the IHRA, the International Holocaust Remembrance Association, definition of antisemitism, which has 11 examples, which include as antisemitic equating Israel with Nazis, calling Israel a racist endeavour, calling for Israel to be wiped off the face of the map, which at least one member of Parliament, of the Lords has done in the past. So I think mostly being anti-Israel is antisemitic, and I’m appalled at how anti-Israel attitudes are spreading amongst young people, amongst students. The Israel Apartheid Week you find on campuses, the way that Israeli speakers have shouted down, the way the Israeli ambassador is literally chased away when she tries to speak on campus. So I’m taking as a broad brush, most anti-Israel activity is in fact antisemitic.

Q: Someone else says, “It’s existential?”

A: Yes, it is. It is.

Q: “Why don’t I use my abilities to change the Holocaust memorial?”

A: I’m trying, believe me. I’m not the only objector. Many members of the Jewish community, and, most importantly, a number of survivors object. But it has proved impossible to get government ministers currently it’s Michael Goth who’s in charge, to discuss it or answer letters or meet. The same with the project leaders. They won’t discuss, they won’t compromise, they won’t meet. I just get stonewalling, insults, and so on. It’s become very dogged. And what we objectors will put forward very soon will be a constructive alternative, one that focuses on the Jewish genocide, on antisemitism then and now. And I bear in mind that the Jewish Museum in Camden is closing down. Surely we can’t face a British future where there’s going to be an expensive, ugly, meaningless memorial costing at least 138 million pounds to dead Jews and nothing about the living. ‘Cause if there’s one thing our kids need to learn, it’s about living Jews. So if anyone’s listening, I call on the project leaders and the politicians please to stop and think and take a different look at this. What else?

Q: “Do I think Keir Starmer has reformed the Labour Party?”

A: He certainly made a start. And he’s well disposed. Sometimes when you read stuff online and tweets, you see that sort of buried in the thickets of his members there are still people who seem to be very antisemitic. But I hope and I trust that he will keep on rooting out the antisemites, because I feel that many members of the Jewish community would like to swing behind Labour, which traditionally was their party decades ago. But they’re still a little bit worried that there may be antisemitic elements there and certainly anti-Israel elements. Which is why I think it’s so important to keep analysing what people say about Israel and ask yourself whether this is just a pure political comment or is it the sort of comment that nobody would ever make about say, China or Syria. We’ve forgotten about Syria, haven’t we? No one ever seems to talk about it anymore. If attacking Israel is out of all proportion to what Labour Party members or anyone is saying about Russia, China, Yemen, Sudan, all the other offenders then ask yourself what’s going on.

“The political upheaval in Israel.” I don’t talk about this in public. All I’ll say is I’m worried about the fractures in Israeli society. I don’t take a public view because I don’t vote in Israel. I don’t live in Israel. My children aren’t fighting there. I want it to be safe. They have a democratic process. I wish they had a written constitution. I almost wish they had a House of Lords, with all its faults. If Israel had a House of Lords as well, there would be a check and balance on what’s going on. They need that, and also it shows the dangers of proportional representation. But I don’t take a position on that.

Someone says, “The Holocaust memorial, keep blocking it until Labour gets in.” Well, I don’t think that will work, because Labour, I perceive, is frightened to say anything about the Holocaust memorial because they’ve been told that if they do, it’s antisemitic. The message has been pedalled to them. “If you oppose it, you are Corbynite, you’re being antisemitic,” and they’re terrified. So the first thing I say to Labour people when I meet them is it is not antisemitic to oppose the current plan and call for a much better one, which will address the evils of antisemitism today. Which will address the thousand-year history of antisemitism in this country, which was after all the first to expel the Jews. We expelled the Jews in 1290. The first to require Jews to wear a yellow badge, I think. So it is not antisemitic to oppose it. Please tell your Labour friends that and to have the courage of their convictions.

Q: “Can we have any influence on the actions of the current Israeli government?”

A: I don’t sign these letters addressed to Netanyahu because I don’t believe that Netanyahu is going to get a letter from British people, smack his hand to his head and say, “Oh my goodness, British academics don’t like what I’m doing. I shall change tack.” So I don’t really think we have any influence. Britain would have more influence if it always solidly supported Israel in the UN. But if it doesn’t, you can’t really expect Israel to listen to Britain. The other thing is when you consider how Britain has handled Ireland over the ages with religious divisions, with barbed wire, with fences, with sectarian divided schools, with ongoing terrorism. Britain is hardly a model on how to handle deep-seated divisions in other countries. So I don’t think Britain really has any influence. What does work well is the Labour friends of Israel, the Tory friends of Israel, LibDem friends of Israel, they send delegations of British peers, usually non-Jewish to Israel to visit. And the one thing that makes friends for Israel is to send people there to visit. Once they’ve been there and they’ve seen it, then they come back and their minds are open and usually in favour. So that’s well worth it.

Q: “How can we lobby Israeli policy while being supportive of Israel’s existence?”

A: Well, surely we can be supportive of Israel’s existence. We are supportive of America’s existence, even if we don’t like Trump or don’t like Biden. We’re supportive of Poland’s existence no matter what it does. So of course we support Israel’s existence. We can’t be expected to criticise the very existence of Israel. One Baroness, a well-known disliker of Israel, said, “You Jewish peers, after all you’ve been through in the Holocaust and so on, how can you support Israel? Use your influence to change the Israeli government’s policies.” No, it’s not our business to change Israel’s government. And when it comes to that often repeated phrase, “After all you’ve suffered, how can you do that to a Palestinian?” My answer is, it is the perpetrators of genocide and horror who have to learn a lesson, not the victims. What the victims learn is that you’re only safe and defended if you have your own state. What victims of genocide have in common is they’re minorities. The only safety appears to be having your own state. If Israel had existed in 1938, think how different history would’ve been. Think how many hundreds of thousands, even millions might have gone there. But that wasn’t the case. And that’s something I always remember. So I think we have a duty to support Israel’s existence, and we no more criticise it than we would criticise the existence of Australia, which I think wiped out their Aborigines. Didn’t the US? Didn’t New Zealand? No one says to them, “Goodness me, you know, go back where you came from. You shouldn’t exist.”

So I will continue to support Israel and Israel’s existence. So that’s what, I am worried about a theocracy there. I am worried, but it’s not my business to try and speak out on that. They have a democracy and I don’t live there. That is their problem. A number of countries around the world, which are going extremist. I mean if you look across Europe today, there are really rather frightening swings to the right in Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Hungary. And, I mean I have a theory about that, but that’s not for now. So I worry about extremism and religious oppression wherever it turns up. But I’m not a voter in Israel. All I can do is sit out here and defend Israel’s existence, just as I wouldn’t call for Poland to be wiped off the face of the map or Russia or China. I think that’s all the question, oh no, here we are. Of course I have skin in the game. I’m a Jew. Yes. I mean after all, Biden in America keeps going on about his Irish ancestors and how much he loves Ireland. Imagine if we had a Jewish president of the US who went on repeatedly every day about, you know, “I have Jewish blood, I love Israel. We must do all we can to defend Israel.” There would certainly be rumblings if not more, but we take it from Biden because he says, “Oh, I’m Irish.” You know, so well, okay. Yes. And people who have Pakistani origin are welcome to speak up about Pakistan and so on. As I said, you know, I can’t vote there. If I did, I would use my vote, but I don’t, so I’m not going to sit here and tell the Israeli government what to do 'cause they’re not going to listen to me anyway.

I think that’s all the questions. No, they’re keeping coming.

Q: “Have I been to the Holocaust section in the Imperial War Museum?”

A: I haven’t. I’ve looked at it online and it is indeed excellent. As is the Holocaust Centre in Newark, Nottinghamshire. The Weiner Library, the recordings of survivors in the British Library, the little, modest memorial in Hyde Park, the Kindertransport memorials, Liverpool Street, Huddersfield, there are lots and lots of Holocaust museums and memorials up and down the country. I do wonder what effect they’ve had.

Anyway, been wonderful to talk to you. I think it’s six o'clock, and thank you, Lockdown University, I’m your biggest fan. It is a great institution. Thank you, Wendy. You are a great founder, along with founders of other universities, thank you so much.

• Oh, thank you, Ruth. Thank you for really a superb, superb presentation. And honestly, as I said earlier, we are so lucky to have you as our champion in the House of Lords. Thrilled to have you on and we would love to have you back. I absolutely agree with you about the Memorial Holocaust Museum. I mean it’s absolute, it’s astonishing that they were even going that route. Well, is that Michael Gove who’s championing that?

• He is a minister in his department that is sitting now. I had a meeting with him a year and a half ago, but the department doesn’t answer letters now. At least they wait six months before they answer. I dunno what’s going on.

• Okay, well let’s see if we could get him on Lockdown to see if he can defend their turf.

• But you have to understand Jewish history in depth. It’s, I can understand well-meaning people who say, “Holocaust Memorial, of course.” But if you really study the literature, you get a deeper, more nuanced view.

• No, absolutely. And if we aren’t able to maintain a Jewish museum in London, I mean honestly, that really needs, that’s a big question. Why do we not have an amazing Jewish museum in London? You go to, you go around the world, you see incredible Jewish museums. So that’s another debate to have. Anyway, thank you very, very much. Thank you to all our participants for joining us. Thank you for making Lockdown University and welcome. I’m looking forward to seeing you, if not soon, certainly in Cape Town

• Thank you.

• Thank you very much. Thanks. Bye-Bye.