jpr / news           Summer, 2000

JPR's Community of Communities report stimulates ongoing debate

In March JPR published A Community of Communities, the report of the independent Commission on Representation of the Interests of the British Jewish Community. The report received wide coverage in the mass media, both in the UK and abroad.

Affirming the diversity of British Jewry as 'a community of communities'- a term adopted as its title, the report's key principle, which underlies all its recommendations, states: 'For the purposes of representation [British Jews] should adopt an inclusive definition of the Jewish people and present ourselves as an ethnic minority.'

Above from left: JPR Treasurer Larry Levine, with commissioners Stephen Chelms and David Balckburn at the reception to launch the report

In a departure from the tradition of British Jews describing themselves solely in religious terms, the report affirms that Jews should also represent themselves as a people with cultural, linguistic, historical, geographical and social ties.

Written by twelve Commission members, the report takes note of the 'strain on the historic representational structures of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Chief Rabbinate' and asserts the value of multiple voices in order that the interests of the Jewish community may be heard. 'There is no one best way, nor is one overarching organization or leader able to speak on behalf of the entire community', states the report. The Commission was established as an independent working party by JPR to examine how the interests of the British Jewish community are represented at various levels-within the community, to Jewish communities abroad and in the wider UK society. The Commission was made up of a cross-section of British Jewry in terms of age, gender, region and religious outlook. The report is essentially pragmatic. 'Rather than focusing on the 10 per cent of the issues which divide us, it lays out-for the first time in detail-the 90 per cent of the issues on which we effectively agree,' said Professor Margaret Harris of the Aston University Business School, one of the Commissioners. 'Our community needs to plan for our objective and practical needs in social welfare, health, education, security and civil rights.' Jewish representational activity in Britain faces new and far-reaching challenges as a result of closer integration into the European Union, devolution and regionalization, changes in local government-especially the creation of a London mayor and the Greater London Authority-together with the reform of the House of Lords. To meet those challenges, the Commission's key recommendations include the establishment of:

• a new cross-communal, networking and coalition-building structure
• an independent mass media and resource office
• a development programme-geared more towards women, the younger generation, and the unaffiliated-designed to create future leaders skilled in representation. 

'The report's approach constitutes a radical departure from the kind of thinking that sees Jews as part of the status quo,' said Professor Barry Kosmin, who served on the Commission. 'It demonstrates how we can continue to be a positive and active force, both nationally and locally, while at the same time retaining our unique identity in a new era.

'The 56-page report has been disseminated to targeted organizations and agencies in the UK, as well as posted on JPR's web site. A shorter version was also mailed more widely to the general public. It included a 'feedback' form, the responses to which are providing JPR with an indication of the level of communal interest in the report's recommendations. A surprising number of respondents have asked to participate in meetings to discuss the question of representation in greater depth.

One of JPR's goals in establishing the Commission was to air these issues in the public arena. This debate is taking place. A number of communal organizations-even those who expressed reservations with its findings-have requested additional copies of the full report. They include the Board of Deputies, British WIZO, Federation of Synagogues, Interlink Foundation, Joint Distribution Committee (Israel), the Office of the Chief Rabbi, the Reform Synagogues of Great Britain, Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, the Three Faiths Forum and the UJIA.

JPR will continue to stimulate and lead a communal discussion of the principles set forth in the report, as well as monitor progress towards the implementation of its recommendations.

Media coverage

In the print media, coverage of the Commission has been considerable. Prior to publication of A Community of Communities, letters-to-the editor appeared in the Guardian and Times, while themes later highlighted in the report appeared in an article on Jewish identity in ES (Evening Standard) Magazine. Following the publication of the report, extensive coverage appeared in the UK Jewish media, including the Jewish Chronicle, London Jewish News and the Jewish Telegraph (Manchester), and totallyjewish.com (Internet), while international reports appeared in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (US), The Jerusalem Post, Jerusalem Report, Juedisches Berlin and Szombat (Budapest). General press coverage included The Independent on Sunday and The Observer, which ran a column by Andrew Marr, while in the ethnic press, Q News: The Muslim Magazine, devoted its editorial to the report.

In the broadcast media the findings of the JPR Commission were included in reports aired by (ITV) London Weekend Television's 7 Days programme, BBC's Newsnight, and the internationally distributed UK Today, produced by the Foreign Commonwealth Office. Meanwhile, BBC Radio 4 dealt with the JPR report in two separate programmes, Sunday, and Thinking Allowed, while international coverage included the BBC's Arabic news programme and a report aired by Norddeutsche Rundfunk.

Who's Who: The Commission Members

David M Blackburn was educated at Cambridge and practised as a solicitor. He is now a property project consultant. 

Stephen Chelms is the managing partner of a management consultancy group working in all sectors of the economy. 

Adrian Cohen is a solicitor and former president of the Union of Jewish Students. He is a member of the UJIA Commission on Jewish Student life. 

Ruth Deech is a barrister and the Principal of St Anne's College, Oxford and is Chairman of the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

Jean Gaffin OBE JP is the former Executive Director of the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services. She currently chairs OFTEL's Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for the Disabled and Elderly.

Professor Margaret Harris is director of the Public Services Management Research Group at the Aston University Business School in Birmingham. 

Lucie Hass is a news coordinator at ITN and a former producer on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. She has served on the National Executives of both the Union of Jewish Students and AJ6.

Maurice Helfgott is a graduate of Manchester University and Harvard Business School. He is an executive at Marks & Spencer. 

Professor Barry Kosmin is Executive Director of JPR. He was founding Director of the North American Jewish Data Bank at the City University of New York Graduate Center and directed the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey in the USA.

Dr Mary Rudolf Krom is a consultant community paediatrician and clinical senior lecturer at Leeds University.

Melanie Phillips is an author and a columnist for the Times and is the former news editor at the Observer.

Carolyn Taylor is Director of the Teaching Awards Trust and previously worked in the film industry. 

JPR welcomes Melvyn Carlowe on Board

Melvyn Carlowe OBE, who retired this spring as Chief Executive of Jewish Care, has joined JPR's Board of Directors. 

'Many of the issues raised by the report express concerns that I voiced when I was head of Jewish Care. They also touch on the same critical areas I supported when Jewish Care chose to participate in JPR's Long-Term Planning Project', he said, referring to the institute's four-year project, which is mapping the financial and human resources, service delivery systems, and governance of the Jewish voluntary sector nationally.

'We can no longer just plow ahead without proper data or setting communal priorities. The halcyon days of throwing money at a problem because of a gut feeling or because of one leader's instinct are over.

Home Secretary welcomes report of JPR Law Panel on Holocaust denial

Other countries, particularly in Europe, have addressed the question of using law to punish Holocaust denial. Laws against Holocaust denial have been established in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland and Israel. In 1995 the European Parliament's Kahn Commission proposed that Member States should establish specific offences of Holocaust denial and the trivialisation of other crimes against humanity. And the current British government has been more sympathetic than the last to outlawing Holocaust denial. Anthony Julius, who chaired the JPR Law Panel, concludes in the report that 'the present risk that Holocaust deniers pose can best be dealt with by education. Existing race hate laws, if appropriately modified, together with a drive to raise public awareness of the nature of the Holocaust are sufficient to deal with the threat that the deniers pose. They are small, benighted people. Their work does not represent a challenge to historians. They are few in number, and that number is not growing. The response to denial should be proportionate to its menace.

'Holocaust denial can be regarded as a specific case of hate-speech and up until now has been outside the scope of law in Britain. Yet as the matter stands, hate-speech is largely protected in Britain unless it is associated with public disorder or an underlying crime. There are strong objective reasons for law to address the unique harms inflicted by Holocaust denial. Due to a number of factors discussed in the report, the JPR Law Panel recommends that instead of law specifically against Holocaust denial, current provisions against incitement to racial hatred should be amended to cover Holocaust denial. Alternatively, broader hate-speech legislation should be enacted that would include Holocaust denial.

In June JPR Executive Director, Professor Barry Kosmin, and Law Panel members Anthony Julius and Geoffrey Bindman met with the Home Secretary Jack Straw, the Minister for Race Relations Mike O'Brien, and two senior civil servants from the Home Office Race Equality Unit to discuss the Law Panel's report.

Jack Straw welcomed the report, calling it 'a very helpful contribution to the debate on an important area of public policy - one that has wide implications for race relations and public order in general. ...I value JPR's initiative in bringing some of the best legal minds together to research and examine this complex issue and I will look carefully at the report's recommendations'.

A chance to say "thank you"

The Jewish Culture Debate:
Lessons from America

This is an abridged version of the Third William Frankel Lecture, which was delievered in May at the Royal Society by Tom L Freudenheim and was chaired by Lord Rothchild GBE, JPR President.

For many, the authentic Jewish past derives from Eastern Europe and consists of Yiddish-speakers who lived in shtetls and wore shabby clothes. Yet we need to remember that "Fiddler on the Roof" did not invent the stereotype, but simply reflected the sensibilities that were current for much of the 20th century. The need for romantic myths is always stronger than the need to face unpleasant realities. Village life in the Pale of Settlement was not, however, the only way in which Jews lived in Europe. Many people complain that their family backgrounds, in Vilna or Warsaw, were nothing like that depicted in stereotypical views of Eastern European Jews. They travelled, and spoke several languages. And they want this reflected in scholarship and in revisionist mythology.

Their co-religionists in Germany, on the other hand, do not even exist in those mythologies - since it was assumed that German Jews were all assimilated, and thus had given up any claim to authenticity. Partial truths inhabit all of these narratives, even if they do not adequately convey history.

That there were, or are Jews in the UK or the Netherlands or France, is a very odd thought for most American Jews. We know about Jews in Argentina, but only when their community centre gets bombed. Anne Frank in Amsterdam - but she represents yet another necessary mythology, which is about the Holocaust and not about Jews in the Netherlands. The JDC kitchen serving hot meals to the dispossesed remains a powerful image in the minds of American Jews. It justifies their charitable giving - we take care of our own. We prefer to encounter our homeless in the safety of photo essays mounted on museum walls. Insofar as there is a contemporary Jewish authenticity, this exists in Israel. For the Zionists, it was a new-Jew in the making. At first, this new Jewish authenticity was about greening the desert amid occasional hostilities. Most important, given the American sense that 'real Jews' are always somewhere else, Israel was a means of engaging American Jews in their sense of responsibility. Following true American melting-pot modes, a mélange of types kept coming to Israel - first from the European DP camps, then from Yemen, Syria and North Africa, Romania, the Soviet Union and Ethiopia - and until relatively recently, one could imagine a new amalgam emerging - the idealized Israeli, who has shed his history and customs. We now know the costs of depriving people of their rich personal traditions. We also know that our idealized Israeli may not just be a tough and handsome soldier, but his mourning parents, or our TV image of him as occupier, alongside the growing number of Haredim, who complicate any view we have of Israel.

I am convinced that all these half-truths remain firmly embedded in the American Jewish psyche. Except for sensibilities about American Indians, it was to Europe that Americans have always looked for a sense of their true selves and cultural authenticity. Even while relatively indigenous art forms were being developed in their midst, Americans longed for what could only be elsewhere.

No wonder, then, that this sense of cultural instability permeates the psychology of American Jews as well. To what I have described as the two American Jewish priorities - a misunderstanding of European Jewish life, past and present, and the centrality of political Israel - must be added the third overwhelming priority: the Holocaust. No one can deny that it was a defining event in our long history. But it seems to have grown as a means of Jews defining themselves, which we see in the vast resources poured into Holocaust museums, memorials, and research centres - as though millennia of Jewish history had never happened!

Finding my self-worth as a Jew via the murder of millions of Jews (including my then-14-year-old sister) is a depressingly unsatisfying route toward self-definition. We must recognize that paradigms of Jewish authenticity, centrality of Israel, and worship at the feet of the Holocaust idol may have more negative than positive connotations.

The official priorities are simply antiquated. Remembering the Holocaust - that is, the primacy of the-Jew-as-victim - still remains paramount. This is generally accompanied by anti-German feelings (strangely not by anti-Austrian feelings), on the assumption that hating Germans is a way to express one's Jewish identity. Meanwhile, Israel remains a strong agenda item, - even if the dream of ingathering applies mostly to "others". Our other, more recent major community priority is the so-called "continuity" discussion. The grim statistics have everyone worried about assimilation, intermarriage, and what some fanatics have had the temerity to term a "second holocaust".

American Jews have revelled in the opportunities available in our "land of opportunity". But they have not taken adequate advantage of the accompanying options - rethinking Jewish identity, strengthening educational opportunities, and presenting thoughtful alternatives to those parts of the population they are writing off. We are all at fault for this misdirection and misappropriation of our history and our possibilities. Jewish cultural manifestations have long been far richer than we have been willing to admit. But Jewish content in art or theatre or literature was acceptable only if it furthered some Jewish goal-especially Israel and the Holocaust. 

The utilization of culture

That is precisely the problematic point - utilization of culture for some other end, be it Holocaust remembrance or support of Israel. The notion that Jewish culture has validity of its own is not yet an accepted part of the equation. This is all the more tragic when one sees the richness of that culture in America. Whether in the scholarly realms, in art, theatre, dance, music or film, the world of Jewish cultural manifestations is almost overwhelming. Indeed, the greatest influence of that culture has been on other ethnic groups. Before there was a range of ethnic museums, there were Jewish museums. Before there was a plethora of angst-ridden dramas and novels exploring the pain of a multitude of ethnicities, there was Arthur Miller, Henry Roth and Philip Roth. Their utility for Jews, however, was limited by the nagging question of whether what they did was "good for the Jews". And that generally meant furthering Jewish priorities - Israel and the Holocaust and Jewish self-worth.

The notion of an indigenous American Jewish culture was kept at bay. Combined with the American sense that others are really the source for culture, and the Jewish nervousness that a critical cultural response to Jewish ideas and issues might be embarassing, it was a no-win situation for several generations. And the Jewish creative community received the message loud and clear: our efforts are not valued.

How, then, has this cultural situation developed more recently in the States? We are seeing a major shift in attitudes and perceptions. Creative Jews now feel a far greater sense of freedom to assert themselves as Jews and as artists. Most importantly the organized American Jewish community now validates cultural expression for its own sake, and not simply because it furthers some other agenda. True, the major thrust is still one of utility: how can we use culture as a means of helping with this continuity crisis? If the Holocaust and Israel have failed us - have perhaps even been counterproductive - can culture provide some solid basis on which to develop complex and commited attitudes toward Judaism?

Today the road looks quite different and bodes well for the future - even if we are still at an early stage. I believe there are several usable proposals that might stand as models beyond the States.

American Jews need to realise that there exist Jews, and rich Jewish life, outside the USA and Israel. This means simply returning to a nice old Jewish concept of K'lal Yisrael. Not because we need to watch out for one another, but because we share a common heritage, however differently each of us may reflect that. We have opportunities for enriching our cultural creativity, thereby letting future generations know that our values, based in a common tradition, were and are vast sources for new manifestations in music, dance, theatre, art and all the exciting new media. We need to figure out a new language to deal with concepts about Israel. The reality of Israel remains a challenging and exciting prospect. Expulsion from one's land was and remains a powerful and painful problem. But I see it on TV every day, and Jews do not own heartbreak. Most Jewish creative artists and presenters do not see themselves as dispossessed. Well perhaps dispossessed by their fellow Jews and by Jewish officialdom.

The need for validation

What the creative community seeks is validation. Art, the arts and artists have generally been international. Their task has always been the breaking down of boundaries. In this age of instant communication and easy travel that is ever more true. Jewish cultural energies need to function in an environment which appreciates them for their specific Jewish engagement, as well as for more general interests.

When I speak of validation, I also mean patronage. We know how important Jews are to cultural patronage in the States. Some of these patrons need to engage in assisting Jewish manifestations in the visual and performing arts - both mainstream and risk-taking ventures.

The community of presenters also seeks validation. We have in the States a large array of Jewish museums, film festivals, and performing arts programmes, but most of them survive on the edge. Their local communities play them against so-called 'more urgent priorities' such as Israel, Holocaust museums and memorials, social services and health care. The reality is that this is not an either/or situation. It's a matter of inclusiveness - becoming part of the Jewish agenda. Imagine the feelings of a Jewish artist, who can get no attention paid to his work but watches Jewish organizations sponsor Israeli art fairs, on the theory that this somehow constitutes something more Jewish.

These are issues that need to be addressed now. We are in the midst of an amazing rebirth of pride and sensibility about combining one's Jewish persona and interests with the self that functions in the world at large.

Are there useful next steps to recommend? Perhaps. Much more needs to be done to broaden the understanding culture plays in Jewish life - indeed in determining what is understood by the term "culture". We now have many sophisticated social science tools with which to find out more about these issues. JPR's Barry Kosmin has been a leader in applying these skills to understanding more about Jewish life (in the UK and in the States), but much more needs to be done, especially insofar as the cultural world is concerned.

I was fascinated by the recent JPR Report, A Community of Communities. I was struck by some key words: inclusive definition, multi-faceted, flexible, responsive, structural changes, global Jewish people, reform, viable models. I was heartened by places in the Implementation section where a cultural agenda might emerge.

I would especially urge that item 2 in this section, 'A development programme for future leaders', might work to view Jewish culture as a priority agenda item. Indeed, I suggest this as a priority for all Jewish communities. A better understanding of who the actors and cultural generators are, and a better sense of what they need and how we can assist in supporting those needs is vital.

We all need to learn from one another. American Jews must gain a better understanding of their European brothers and sisters. Your ways of seeing yourselves as Jews are often very strange to us - our social structures and histories are different from one another. Nevertheless, we have a great deal in common. The moment for radical change is now upon us. It is an extraordinarily exciting time to be young and Jewish. Those of us with young progeny need to remember how important our role is - to validate a variety of Jewish creative efforts, and to assert that the range of options is far more open now than it was when we were growing up.

Isaiah Berlin-between three cultures

Seeking a key to Sir Isaiah's unique charm, Dr Ignatieff focused on the way in which he succeeded in braiding his three different cultural identities - his Jewishness, his Russian side and his Englishness, into a single, mutually enhancing whole. For Dr Ignatieff, Sir Isaiah's mysterious elixir of happiness and lightness of being was even more inspiring than his intellectual capacity. He represented a rare example of the intellectual as a happy figure. Yet as a child of the Russian Revolution, and of exile and dispossession, his experiences might easily have damaged him.

Sir Isaiah owed his fascination with ideas and his intellectual vocation to his Russian heritage. Born in Riga, he was the son of a Baltic Jew, a timber merchant, who was a member of the Schneerson family. 

A proud Diaspora Jew 

Sir Isaiah's Englishness (not Britishness) was defined by Oxford and London. This gave him his liberalism and politics. His Jewish heritage was at the very heart and soul of him, both as a man and a thinker. This was the fundamental place where he worked out what freedom was. While never personally religious, he felt a deep respect for religious traditions.

A lifelong Zionist, he resisted pressure from Chaim Weizmann to move to Israel. By the same token he refused Arthur Koestler's suggestion to assimilate. He wanted to be a proud, upstanding Diaspora Jew, insisting on the sovereignty of his own choice.

He always saw himself as a Russian - not as an English Jew. It was ironic that by the end of his life he was regarded as a scion of the English establishment. He always felt a sense of apartness. He was extremely sensitive to being seen as the court Jew, or entertainer, who was allowed inside but never given full membership. Yet he never felt there was a gentile conspiracy to exclude him. 'Isaiah Berlin was the least repressed man I have ever met,' said Dr Ignatieff, 'and as a result - the freest and the most lucid I have known.

The visual arts and Jewish culture today

In the modern period, Jewish artists became very prominent in the avant-garde. At a time when many professions were closed to Jews, art was a free zone, offering an opportunity to attack the establishment. Even so, David Breuer-Weil asked, were Jewish artists, anti-establishment out of choice, or because they were denied entry into the mainstream society?

Some artists at the seminar expressed frustration that the visual arts are not given space in the Jewish cultural debate; others confided they did not feel part of the conventional Jewish community, which has no interest in Jewish art. On the other hand, identifying oneself as a Jewish artist leads to being perceived as parochial in the wider art world. It was felt that Jewish patrons of the arts, or the heads of public galleries and museums are doing little for Jewish artists. Ironically, the reverse side of this picture, participants agreed, was the explosion of Jewish identity among young artists and consumers of culture. This feeling was coupled by a growing realization among younger Jews that their parents' neglect or rejection of the Jewish/Yiddish culture represented an irretrievable loss. 

The discussion revolved around ways of promoting emerging Jewish artists. Some felt there was a need for a public space for Jewish artists to meet and exhibit. A consensus emerged about the need for a forum like JPR to discuss radical ways of opening up Jewish culture to the world. 

Following consultations and international conferences, JPR has been working with the Paris-based Alliance Israélite Universelle on plans to create a European Foundation for Jewish Culture. 

Parallel to this initiative, JPR has undertaken a research project mapping Jewish culture in four European countries. This research will not only look at output of artistic expression, but at sponsorship, marketing and audiences. This new knowledge base will, in turn, help to develop guidelines on how to support cultural activities most effectively.

It was stressed that a European framework would be beneficial for everyone; British Jewry on its own did not have a sufficient critical mass for a thriving cultural sector.

Challenges for the UK Jewish voluntary sector

Following the publication in May of two JPR reports, The financial resources of the UK Jewish voluntary sector and its companion, Grant-making trusts in the Jewish sector, JPR invited experts from a wide range of Jewish organizations, including the Stamford Hill-based Interlink Foundation, to a seminar to discuss the policy implications. The discussion was introduced by JPR Director of Research, Dr Jacqueline Goldberg.

The reports represent the first segment of JPR's four-year policy research project, Long-Term Planning for British Jewry, which has been funded by Jewish charitable organizations and individuals in the UK, together with a grant from The Housing Corporation. For the first time, the research will provide the hard data that will enable Jewish organizations-from kindergartens to synagogues and old age homes-to carry out strategic policy planning for the 21st century. The UK voluntary sector has received the findings with interest. Articles on the reports have appeared in NCVO News, Third Sector and Trust Monitor.

Discussing the findings, Anthony Krais, a consultant for the third sector, suggested that trustees should be educated to look at funding matters afresh. A forum for trustees to meet would be helpful, he said, noting that too many trusts made decisions on emotional, rather than objective grounds. Councillor Aba Dunner thought donors should recognize the overall needs of the community and think in terms of what he called 'macro Anglo-Jewry'. 

Future concerns

In Barry Kosmin's view, the main problem highlighted by the research related to the accurate reporting of facts. Transparency was not only a legal obligation, he said, but the basis for good citizenship. The non-compliance of many Jewish trusts and organizations with new charity laws was of major concern. He noted that the overall amount of funding received from the public sector was lower than one would expect, given that the Jewish community caters for much of its own educational and social welfare needs. 

Financial analyst, Stephen Cushnir, pointed out that there was also a below average level of financial support from the business sector. Ian Harris, a risk/reward consultant, drew attention to the role of legacies as an under-utilized source of funding for Jewish communal organizations. It was agreed that the JPR research had demonstrated a remarkable level of energy and activity for an apparently declining community. 

New faces at JPR

Professor Waterman received his PhD in Geography from the University of Dublin. He has twice served as Chairman of the Department of Geography at the University of Haifa and was Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences from 1992-95. He has held visiting appointments at the University of Toronto, LSE, and Queen Mary and Westfield College.

Professor Waterman's areas of interest lie on the interface of social, cultural and political geography. His publications include the statistical compendium, co-authored with Barry Kosmin, British Jewry in the Eighties, published by the Board of Deputies of British Jews in 1986. In recent years, he has written widely on arts festivals and cultural policy in Israel and is the author of the JPR report Cultural Politics and European Jewry, which was published in 1999. 

He has carried out research in the United States and Britain and published articles on the ethics of punishing 'hate'. He has an interest in the moral dilemmas posed by using the law to criminalize antisemitism and racism. 

He is carrying out a review of JPR's online publication Antisemitism in the World Today and is commissioned to write scholarly articles drawing from the JPR report Combating Holocaust Denial through Law in the UK. In April, he presented a paper titled 'Do we need legislation against Holocaust denial?' to the annual conference of the Midwest Sociological Society as part of a series of presentations on far-right, extremist and white supremacist movements.

'Taxi driving and other jobs for nice Jewish boys'

In March JPR Executive Director, Professor Barry Kosmin gave a talk at the Jewish Museum, in conjunction with its exhibition on Jewish taxi drivers and the London cab trade*. He gave a similar talk in May to residents at Nightingale House, including a retired taxi driver who gained his badge in 1932. 

Barry Kosmin estimated that in the 1980s, Jewish taxi-drivers represented around 30 per cent of the capital's 15,700 drivers. Given the trends towards the professions and other high-status industries, the very large Jewish participation in this service industry might seem anomalous. But, as Professor Kosmin explained, certain elements of the history and structure of the trade are in keeping with general observations of Jewish occupational demands and preferences.

Jewish immigrants to Victorian London stood no chance of being employed at the docks or in the London produce markets, where the indigenous labour force was violently hostile to foreign competitors. But they were able to compete on equal terms in new fields. They could obtain a cab licence by an oral test, which, although difficult, could be passed by a newcomer with little formal education. The reputation of Jews for sobriety also stood them in good stead. An additional attraction was the location of stables. Most of the bases were situated in East End areas of high Jewish settlement where property was cheap. 

By the second generation of immigrants, many Jews rejected the traditional 'schmutter trade'. The sweatshops of London's East End were the scandal of late-Victorian Britain. The experience of their parents fostered a general distrust of industrial labour and a desire for independent economic activity. Taxi-driving offered complete independence and freedom from routine and supervision. Democratically organised, it could be a full or part-time occupation, with obvious advantages for observant Jews. Moreover, taxi-drivers were seen as socially classless. Often an inherited taste, several Jewish families are known to have been in the trade for over one hundred years. 

* open until 29 October 2000 at the Jewish Museum, The Sternberg Centre for Judaism, 80 East End Road, London N3 .