Antony Lerman returns to lead JPR in new direction

JPR’s Chairman, Peter Levy OBE, warmly welcomed Tony’s return: “We are delighted to have someone so familiar with the state of European Jewry and with such strong contacts with academics, researchers, writers, journalists and Jewish and non-Jewish leaders across the continent. JPR can now build on the success of its first-rate social research on British Jewry and seek solutions to problems all Jewish communities in Europe face.”

Explaining why he wanted to return, Tony Lerman said: “I was delighted to learn that JPR’s Board had decided to take up the challenge of developing policy ideas to help advance the fortunes of Jewish communities across Europe . Good, visionary grant-making, the hallmark of Rothschild family philanthropy, is crucial for Europe , but so too is visionary thinking as well as innovative and practical ideas. I saw the JPR directorship as a wonderful opportunity to continue pursuing the fundamental aims of HCF by providing a leadership of ideas which address the problems and make the most of the opportunities of twenty-first century European Jewish life.”

The European challenge
Having travelled extensively throughout Europe over the last six years, Tony has seen the many varieties of Jewish life on the continent first hand. “Despite understandable public concern about antisemitism, most communities are firmly focused on creating a flourishing, vibrant and open Jewish life. But,” he warns, “this could be severely curtailed if we don’t find an answer to the question of how we are going to live together in peace and harmony in this common European space.”

		“Seeking a solution to this problem is not a luxury we afford ourselves after we’ve taken care of all internal communal challenges,” believes Tony. “This is a task we need to engage in now, today, for unless we find an answer, Europe could become a fractured, divided place, plagued by xenophobia, racism, and fear of immigrants and asylum-seekers— hardly conducive circumstances for a sustainable Jewish future.”
Antony Lerman

Europe is already engaged in a policy debate about how to create the conditions in which religious, ethnic and cultural groups can maintain their distinctiveness and play a full part as citizens of their respective countries; and how to define what the core values are which will hold us all together. Tony argues that “making a Jewish contribution to this debate should be the mission of JPR, and it should be a positive and not a negative one.”

Carving out a vision for the future
“In other words we should get beyond asking what Europe can give to us for past and present pain and ask instead: ‘What can we give to Europe ?’ JPR’s mission must be about carving out a vision for the future.”

Tony Lerman’s recent experience makes him well suited to guide JPR in this direction. At the end of the 1990s he was a member of the Commission on the Future of Multiethnic Britain chaired by Lord Bhikhu Parekh. Many of the Commission’s recommendations were taken up by the government. He is a member of the Black-Jewish Forum, a Trustee of the European Jewish Publication Society and was a member of the Imperial War Museum ’s Holocaust Exhibition Advisory Committee. His most recent writing and lecturing has been on the future of Europe and Europe ’s Jews.

Asked what JPR has to do to achieve its mission, Tony Lerman said: “It has to do what it says on the can: think, analyse and develop policies. Its work cannot just be a compilation of facts, figures and opinions, but the development of original policy proposals that enlighten, challenge and catch the imagination.”

The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism in the UK received two submissions by JPR in January 2006

Responding to the Committee’s call for written submissions, incoming Director Antony Lerman and JPR Civil Society Fellow Dr Paul Iganski presented two perspectives on how to understand the current resurgence of antisemitism. Below are edited versions of their papers.

The importance of monitoring antisemitism by Antony Lerman

Monitoring does nothing to combat antisemitism, but is essential because without the data, how do we know what the problem is? This seems so obvious that one would assume it is taken for granted. Regrettably, it is not. Some of the most influential voices on the issue of antisemitism barely refer to any systematically collected data. They base their judgements on anecdotal, selective readings of usually high profile incidents.

There is a serious problem of antisemitism in the UK and elsewhere, but if our understanding of it is determined by people who use partial evidence, we are in a very weak position to be able to deal with it.

Whilst there is some systematically gathered data about antisemitism in the UK , it covers only one aspect—incidents. But beyond that—and this is a Europe-wide problem— there is not much else, which leaves the field open to anyone who has a loud voice.

Given the havoc that antisemitism caused in the 20th century, why does its monitoring leave so much to be desired? What are the problems encountered in the process of monitoring?

1. The problem of defining antisemitism
There is no agreed definition of what constitutes antisemitism today. Defining it has been made acute recently by the inclusion of vociferous anti-Zionism in definitions of antisemitism— what has become known as the ‘new antisemitism’.

2. The problem of what you monitor and how you evaluate the data
It is a mistake to focus only on incidents when monitoring antisemitism. One must examine a range of phenomena, including: political parties, literature, propaganda, the Internet, the media, faith groups, opinion polls, education systems and public controversies. In studying contemporary antisemitism, context is everything. The data must be set in its social, political, cultural and economic climate to develop a more rounded picture.

The significant rise—42 per cent—in reported incidents from 2003 to 2004 could suggest a unique vulnerability for Britain ’s Jews. However, according to figures for London produced by Scotland Yard and the GLA, if you’re black, Arab or from the Indian subcontinent, you’re 11-13 times more likely to be a victim of racial crime than a white European. If you’re a Jew, 3 times as likely. Highly unpleasant for any Jew suffering in this way, of course, but hardly indicative of a unique vulnerability.

3. The problems of objectivity
Underlying assumptions can affect the interpretation of monitored data. For example, looking at all manifestations of antisemitism through the prism of the Holocaust, or emphasizing the role of certain organizations. Originally this involved undue emphasis on neo-Nazi and neo-fascist organizations, however insignificant they may have been. Now there is a tendency to lay much of the blame for antisemitism on extremist Muslim groups, or even the Muslim community, even though the data do not support this.

How do you study and write objectively about something which is so morally reprehensible? A questioning approach is often taken as giving succour to antisemites. This, however, is the worst climate for developing in-depth understanding. Moreover, monitoring is often driven by the need to achieve political objectives, which can result in distortion. Antisemitism can be exploited for ideological ends, on the left and the right—usually with the aim of discrediting the other.

Capturing public attention is so important in combating antisemitism that it is difficult to secure attention for any story that does not indicate that things are getting worse.

4. Practical difficulties
The difficulties in setting up credible monitoring research projects cannot be underestimated. There is also a problem as to who should do the monitoring? Jewish groups tend to assume that this is a Jewish task. This can parochialize the problem, which must be seen as one for society as a whole, not just for Jews. Furthermore, antisemitism must be monitored within the wider context of other forms of racism, including Islamophobia.

The life and times of Yaacov Herzog

A rabbi, erudite scholar, and gifted diplomat, Yaacov Herzog served as a close adviser to four Israeli prime ministers, was ambassador to Canada and served briefly as the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain . Herzog’s life was the subject of the 2005 William Frankel Lecture, Diplomacy: Open and Secret. Yaacov Herzog and Israel ’s Early Foreign Relations. Chaired by JPR President Lord Haskel, the lecture was given by Michael Bar-Zohar*, former Member of Knesset and biographer of Ben Gurion and Shimon Peres.

		Michael Bar-Zohar characterized Yaakov Herzog as a rare example of someone who successfully bridged the milieu of rabbinic learning and the domain of public diplomacy. Born in 1921, he was the son of the Chief Rabbi of Ireland , Rabbi Isaac Halevi Herzog, who later became Chief Rabbi of Israel . Yaacov’s older brother, Chaim, later served as Israel ’s chief of military intelligence and President of Israel.
		From the left: William Frankel CBE with Shira Herzog, Michael Bar-Zohar and Lord Haskel

Yaacov Herzog emigrated to Israel in 1939 at the age of seventeen and served as his father’s secretary and speech-writer. With the outbreak of World War II, Herzog began yeshiva studies and, while translating three tractates of the Mishna, energetically immersed himself in rescuing Jews from Eastern Europe . At the end of the war he scoured a devastated Europe , rescuing some one thousand children from Poland.

Leading up to the War of Independence, Herzog joined the Haganah and was ordained as a rabbi. In 1948 he was appointed head of the Department of Christian Communities in the newly-created Ministry of Religious Affairs, a task that included diplomatic relations with the Vatican . It was there, according to Bar-Zohar, that Herzog honed his scholarly and diplomatic abilities.

Appointed in 1949 as adviser on religious affairs to Foreign Minister Moshe Sharrett, by 1951 Herzog became the Minister’s special adviser on Jerusalem . He graduated from the Faculty of Law at Hebrew University and become head of the United States section in the Foreign Ministry.

A quick succession of key postings followed. Herzog was thrust into the Suez crisis, and ultimately became a special adviser and aide to Ben-Gurion as he helped spearhead the IDF’s negotiated withdrawal from Sinai. Herzog was appointed minister at the Israeli Embassy in Washington D.C. where he distinguished himself. He coordinated Ben-Gurion’s successful visit to Washington in 1960. Later that year he was appointed Israel ’s Ambassador to Canada .

Public debate with Arnold Toynbee
For Bar-Zohar, it was during this period that the single, most defining moment of Herzog’s career occurred with his debate with the world-famous British historian, Professor Arnold Toynbee. Toynbee had served in the Foreign Office, was a member of the British delegation to the Paris peace conference in 1919 and had opposed the Balfour Declaration. Declaring his unalterable opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel, Toynbee argued that in 1948, the Jews treated the Palestinians the same way the Nazis had treated them.

Bar-Zohar explained that Toynbee’s vilification of Israel and the Jews was aired before thousands of students and with considerable press coverage at a series of public lectures at McGill University in Montreal in 1961. When Herzog learned of Toynbee’s speech, he was appalled. Acting on his own without permission from the Foreign Ministry, Herzog challenged Toynbee to a public debate. Leaders of the Canadian Jewish community (as well as some of Herzog’s Foreign Ministry colleagues) reacted with hostility and anxiety, arguing that Herzog’s challenge would evoke the model of medieval disputations, force the ‘Jewish Question’ to the surface and provoke antisemitic reactions.

Nevertheless, the debate took place, during which Herzog systematically dismantled Toynbee’s arguments from a legal, historical and moral basis, forcing the charismatic professor to retract his statements before radio listeners in Canada , the U.S. and Israel .

Herzog returned to Israel in 1963 to become deputy director-general of the Foreign Ministry. Later that year he became the first Israeli diplomat to hold secret meetings with King Hussein of Jordan , and also carried out secret negotiations with official representatives from Yemen .

In 1964, the name of Rabbi Dr Yaacov Herzog was put forward to become Chief Rabbi of Great Britain and the Commonwealth. On the one hand, said Bar-Zohar, it seemed like a natural fit. But could he leave the political world and abandon top-level developments in Israeli diplomacy? Herzog accepted the post, but he had been recuperating from appendicitis at this time. It was a choice that led to a conflict-ridden period of illness. He retracted his decision and eventually returned to Jerusalem as director-general of Prime Minister Levi Eshkol’s office, where Herzog continued to serve through the Six-Day War. With Eshkol’s death in 1969, Herzog was eventually sidelined by Eshkol’s successor, Golda Meir. Suffering from exhaustion, Herzog died in March 1972 at the age of 50.

At the end of the lecture, Yaacov Herzog’s daughter Shira gave a heartfelt vote of thanks to Bar-Zohar, in which she paid her own personal tribute to her father.

*Michael Bar-Zohar’s book, Yaacov Herzog – a Biography is published by Halban Publishers.

The moral state we’re in

Baroness Neuberger DBE, author, broadcaster, rabbi and a Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords, delivered the sixth Morris and Manja Leigh Memorial Lecture in December 2005. Julia Neuberger served the South London Liberal Synagogue for twelve years, before leaving to pursue her interests in research and healthcare ethics. She is the author of books on Judaism, women, healthcare ethics and palliative care. Her latest book The Moral State We’re In was published in 2005. At present she is working on a new book on old age.

		Julia Neuberger introduced her comprehensive tour of the moral state of the country by highlighting two major failings in British society and the Jewish community; both are poor at imagining what suffering is like, and have become increasingly risk averse in tackling the broader issues around palliative care and death and dying.
		Photograph courtesy of Derek Tamea

Analysing the situation of older people, Baroness Neuberger noted that that there are approximately 737,000 people aged between 85-89 in the United Kingdom today, and some 400,000 over 90. By 2010, there will be around 840,000 people with Alzheimer’s disease, according to the Alzheimer’s Society, and by 2050 the total is expected to reach 1.5 million. Given these high projections, Julia Neuberger warned that providing sufficient good residential care will simply not be possible, as there will be 79 dependent older people for every 100 of working age.

Quoting from JPR’s report Facing the future: the provision of long-term care facilities for older Jewish people in the United Kingdom*, to which she referred several times during her lecture, Baroness Neuberger noted that the British Jewish community pays above the national average for residential care. Yet generous communal funding will not be enough to pay for adequate care as the numbers of people requiring such assistance continue to grow.

Death with dignity
For Baroness Neuberger, the cost of caring for the Jewish elderly is also compounded by ‘attitudinal’ problems. She regretted that the traditional Jewish ethos of preserving life can often translate into a refusal or unwillingness to accept the inevitability of death. This can result in denying the terminally ill the chance to prepare for death with dignity. In reality, she observed, Jews are better at dealing with the bereaved than with the dying, as they are unwilling to look dying in the face and talk about it.

In the future, she warned, as British Jews are faced with the prospect of being unable to care adequately for older people, a new and painful question will rise to the fore: How should we treat the dying? As an ageing community, British Jews will have to think long and hard about how to cope better with dying and about their obligations to the old and frail.

Need for more palliative care
At present, approximately one quarter of deaths in Britain is from cancer, which usually involves acute pain and psychological distress. Good palliative care is therefore vital. But the question remains: where is this care best carried out? National surveys have shown that 80% of the population would prefer to die at home or in a hospice, yet only one quarter of the dying actually manages to achieve this. The majority of deaths occurs in hospitals or in nursing homes without good palliative care. Half of all palliative care is currently provided by the voluntary sector and the need for this will increase as the community ages. Similarly, as heart and lung failure will cause a higher proportion of deaths in the future, this will also result in an increased need for more specialist nurses and support, as yet not available.

Baroness Neuberger predicted an increased demand for euthanasia, which she described as an emotionally charged and divisive issue. While clearly opposing it herself, she warned that it will appear an increasingly attractive option as other alternatives seem too expensive. This moral debate keeps recurring in Parliament and the voices in favour of euthanasia are getting more vocal, she said. ‘If the choice is between death or inadequate care, then what choice is that?’ she asked.

She warned that we must improve the quality of care, particularly of those people who are dying slowly, which will be the fate of most of us. While people worry about facing senility and cancer, the reality is that we are more likely to die of other causes.

She also regretted the inadequacy of hospice-type and palliative care specifically catering for Jews. A feeling still lingers amongst some people that a hospice is an admission of imminent death and not right for Jews. Yet we have to think hard about where we want Jewish people to die. There is one multi-faith hospice in North London , with strong Jewish involvement, as well as other hospices that look after Jewish patients very well. But local health authorities will by no means always pay for hospice care, particularly if the people concerned are not suffering from cancer. Those 75% dying of something else tend to get short changed. Yet it is hard to see what the Jewish community is doing to debate this issue, or to give greater support to people who are dying and their carers.

We must also think hard about the Jewish medical tradition, which can be invasive even where there is no hope. The Maimonides Code is life-enhancing and does not allow for any shortening of life. Jews are not good at accepting death and should prepare better for dying. Jews tend to die at an older age than the national average, a statistic that was reported in JPR’s research*. She also quoted from JPR’s study that, whereas the Jewish community has excellent sheltered housing, residential and nursing homes and provides high quality care, a serious problem exists: the difficulty in attracting Jewish care workers. While there is no shortage of Jewish social workers in the UK , the same cannot be said about care workers, who have to work shifts and are poorly paid. This has major implications for maintaining a Jewish ethos in residential homes, which is, after all, the reason why many Jews choose these facilities.

Where are the Jewish volunteers?
In conclusion, Baroness Neuberger posed a number of soul-searching questions and challenges facing British Jewry: As an ageing community, do we not have an obligation to do more than merely provide the money and the doctors to look after our elderly? Have we adequately addressed the need to recruit more Jewish volunteers to work in residential homes, since most volunteers prefer to work in day centres? Volunteers come forward during the Christmas season, but what about at other times of the year? While Jewish volunteers are often willing to entertain older people, they do not wish to help with basic personal care. Indeed, most Jewish volunteers are older than many of the residents at the homes. Whilst the League of Jewish Women has a commendable track record in this field, why is there a shortage of male volunteers? And where will the next generation of volunteers come from?

Baroness Neuberger also pointed out the huge cultural divide between the residents of homes and their care workers, particularly in the case of Holocaust survivors, where the workers know little or nothing about the suffering of their patients. Providing more training is useful, but not as valuable as the additional empathy and understanding that Jewish staff could provide.

Moral challenges for the future
Finally, do we wish to live in a society that does not take its old people seriously? Should we disregard the wishes expressed about how and where people want to die? What is our view on euthanasia? Indeed, does the Jewish community have a single voice on this question? Should we assume more of the burden of caring for our elderly ourselves, both financially and morally? Should this not be an issue for young people too, many of whom are concerned about how their grandparents are being treated? And should we not do more to help those who are dying of causes other than cancer?

Julia Neuberger called for greater imagination, volunteerism, forethought and planning and less complacency in dealing with these enormous moral issues which face the Jewish community today and in the future.

* Facing the future: the provision of long-term care facilities for older Jewish people in the United Kingdom * (Oliver Valins, 2002) available from JPR at £10 per copy or at www.jpr.org.uk/Reports/ PJC_Reports/ no_1_2002/main4.htm#care

The muse of censorship: Jewish-Arab theatre

Dr Miriam Yahil-Wax, dramaturg at the Habimah National Theatre and former Artistic Director of the Haifa Theatre Festival, introduced a seminar last September on The muse of censorship: Jewish-Arab theatre. Chaired by Michael Kustow, author and playwright, the seminar was held under the joint auspices of JPR and the European Association for Jewish Culture and was attended by many prominent British Jewish playwrights and directors.

		Looking back over her experiences at the Haifa Municipal Theatre during the 1980s and 1990s, Dr Yahil-Wax said that the most exciting theatre was the intercultural, political kind, thriving on censorship and controversy. She and her colleagues explored the challenge of bringing minority voices centre-stage. She recalled that, in the 1970s, some very talented Israeli-Arab actors graduated from leading drama schools and looked for work.
		Dr MiriamYahil-Wax and Michael Kustow at JPR

The Haifa Municipal Theatre wanted to include them in a bi-national company and create a relevant repertoire. The make-up of the company itself was a political statement. She considered the Haifa Theatre experience relevant to British society; in Britain today, as in Haifa then, giving voice to the minority, perceived as the enemy, is particularly poignant and challenging.

Dr Yahil-Wax explained that, although censorship was unofficial, it still existed then, so the company resorted to the classics. They domesticated the texts to an extent, and cast Arab actors in central roles that gave additional meaning to the plays. The theatre enjoyed its best period between 1985-8 under the artistic direction of Israeli director Gdalia Besser and playwright Joshua Sobol, whose motto was that theatre dies if it surrenders to the ‘dictatorship of consensus’. In 1985 Sobol’s play The Palestinian created a huge scandal when it toured Europe , including Germany . In another of his plays, Ghetto, an Arab actor was cast, controversially, as the head of the Judenrat.

A brave experiment
The Arab actors gradually began to question whether they could be successful in getting their voices heard by joining a majority theatre. The theatre therefore decided to set up an Arab language stage, in the hope of attracting new audiences. Once again, they resorted to classical plays about repression and human rights. However, although the Arab stage attracted the Arab intelligentsia, it did not achieve a breakthrough. They tried, unsuccessfully, to source good plays in Arabic. When they managed to find them, they were unable to obtain rights to perform them in Israel . The company therefore decided to adapt a book by Emil Habibi, The Opsemist (optimist + pessimist) and perform it in Hebrew as well as in Arabic, to bring home to Jews the Arab viewpoint. This experiment proved very successful. Surprisingly, it did not attract criticism for its extreme political standpoint, as it was seen as a product of the Arab language stage.

In 1987, a controversy erupted over the staging of Sobol’s play The Jerusalem Syndrome. The public assault almost prevented it from seeing the light of day. On the surface, the play was about the historical Jewish wars that ended with the destruction of the Second Temple , but it was interpreted on more than one level. It was chosen to launch the celebrations of the 40th anniversary of the state of Israel , but even before the opening night, the theatre received hate calls and funds were withheld. On the opening night, stink bombs exploded and demonstrators tried to stop the show. Meanwhile, the first Intifada was beginning, which, in the context of theatre, heralded the end of the bi-national experimentation in Haifa . The artistic management departed, as did most of the Arab actors. Sobol left Israel for a few years, very hurt.

The experimentation of the Haifa Municipal Theatre had a huge impact in its time — rabbis even prohibited their communities from seeing the productions. But theatre groups today who attempt political protest seem unable to make the same powerful impact. Times, politics and the media have changed.

Michael Kustow commented that the Haifa Theatre carried out a very heroic activity for several years and pressed Israeli democracy as far as it could go. Dr Yahil-Wax hoped that a future generation would continue this work, but warned that in the present painful political climate, co existence in the theatre was no longer deemed very important. She regretted that no producer or playwright had emerged from the Arab theatre in Israel to make their voice heard. While theatre could do little to solve the problems of the Israeli Arabs, she said, at least it could cry out for attention.

Michael Kustow concluded the seminar by comparing the role of theatre within society to that of litmus paper, in that theatre can reveal so many crucial signs about the state and ethos of society.

Current Jewish-Muslim dialogue in the UK

In December 2005 a seminar was held at JPR to discuss the current state of Jewish-Muslim dialogue, attended by key people within the Jewish community involved in this field. The discussion, introduced by Neville Nagler and chaired by Rosalind Preston OBE, suggested new initiatives to ensure that such dialogue features more prominently on the Jewish agenda in the future.

		Participants agreed that the Muslim community was not a single united community any more than was the Jewish community, thus making dialogue very difficult and fragmented for both sides. They noted that there was as much ignorance and lack of understanding in the Jewish community about the diversity within Muslim communities, as among Muslims about the different Jewish identities.
		Rosalind Preston OBE and Neville Nagler at the seminar on Jewish-Muslim dialogue

And while they recognized that there was clearly antisemitism within the Muslim community, it was equally important to acknowledge that Islamophobia exists within the Jewish community. Indeed, there could be scope in working together with Muslims to combat prejudice within both communities.

It was felt that Jews and Muslims have many common interests, both nationally and locally, particularly in the field of education, where they work well together at the grassroots level. One participant recalled that Jewish-Christian dialogue originally started by focusing on the issues of commonality; this would be a good lesson to apply to Jewish-Muslim relations today.

Each community views the other as a mirror image of itself. On the one hand, the Muslim community sees the Jewish community as stronger, more influential and better integrated. On the other hand, the Jews see the Muslim community as stronger in numbers.

While it was accepted that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the denial of Israel ’s right to exist remain a major obstacle to Jewish-Muslim dialogue, nevertheless, leaving this major issue off the table is a form of self-censorship; true dialogue must involve putting oneself at risk.

The need for a network for sharing skills, information and mentoring in the field of Jewish-Muslim dialogue was recognized. It was also agreed that the use of the term ‘interfaith’ was not always appropriate. Instead, the broader term ‘inter-communal dialogue’ should be used, which reflects the way that dialogue is often conducted around secular issues.

Participants concluded that it was important for both the Jewish and the Muslim community to move beyond the notion of seeing themselves as victims. Moreover, helping Muslims to integrate represented an investment in the Jewish future. It was crucial to oppose the magnet of extremism by working together to build constructive views of British society.

Barry Kosmin and Stanley Waterman leave JPR

Barry Kosmin joined JPR as Director of Research in 1996 after occupying academic and Jewish communal posts in the United States . He was the founding director of the North American Jewish Data Bank at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center and had conducted numerous studies of Jewish populations world-wide, including the 1990 US National Jewish Population Study.

		Taking over as Executive Director of JPR in 1999, Barry directed the Long-Term Planning for British Jewry project. This project, which resulted in 11 important reports, included surveys and research into the infrastructure of the Jewish Voluntary Sector, helping it to develop policy recommendations and strategies for change in the welfare, educational and social sectors.

During his tenure at JPR, Barry collaborated on, or co-authored several publications, including The social attitudes of unmarried young Jews in contemporary Britain, The attachment of British Jews to Israel, Ethnic and religious questions in the 2001 UK Census, Patterns of charitable giving among British Jews, Jews of the ‘new South Africa’, The future of Jewish schooling in the United Kingdom,and A portrait of Jews in London and the South-east – a community study.

A frequent speaker at international Jewish forums, in spring 2005 Professor Kosmin delivered the prestigious Sherman Lecture Series at the Centre for Jewish Studies at the University of Manchester .

In autumn 2005 Barry moved back to the United States to become director of the newly established Trinity College Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture in Hartford , Connecticut .

Stanley Waterman, JPR’s Director of Research for the past four years, returned to Israel at the end of January 2006. Stanley ’s association with JPR began in 1999 when he wrote the JPR policy paper Cultural Politics and European Jewry. He originally came to JPR in June 2000 as a Visiting Fellow and consultant for the survey section of JPR’s Long-Term Planning for British Jewry project, on which he worked for the following four years. He subsequently took over as Director of Research.

		Stanley was responsible for several JPR publications. He was the author of The Jews of Leeds: portrait of a community and principal author of A portrait of Jews in London and the South-east: a community study. He also wrote an extensive introduction to Ernest Schlesinger’s Creating community and accumulating social capital: associating with other Jews in Manchester . In the past year, he has collaborated with David Graham on the underenumeration of the Jewish population in the UK 2001 Census. His final contribution to JPR will be published later in the year: A Report on Jews in the 2001 UK Census, in collaboration with David Graham and Marlena Schmool.

In 2004 Stanley became Professor Emeritus of Geography at the University of Haifa and is looking forward to an active retirement from university teaching and committee work—writing articles on Israeli cultural geography, maybe even a book, and photographing Israeli urban landscapes, as well as finally getting round to taking courses in music, cookery and French.

The staff and Board of JPR wish Barry and his wife Helen, and Stanley and his wife Vivien every success and happiness in the future.