There are about one and a half million Jews living in Europe today and two new JPR publications examine the nature of their Jewish identity. Since the mid-1990s almost a dozen large-scale surveys have been carried out in various European countries in an attempt to understand their Jewish affiliations, opinions and practices. These findings have been summarized by David Graham, JPR's Fellow in European Demography, in his report: European Jewish Identity at the Dawn of the 21st Century: A Working Paper.1 Sponsored by the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and the Hanadiv Charitable Foundation, the study was presented to the General Assembly of the European Council of Jewish Communities in Budapest in May.

The surveys clearly show, perhaps surprisingly, that Europe's Jews have little in common with one another in terms of their religious beliefs and practice, either across borders or even within the same cities. For example, belief in a divine Creator is not universal, nor is fasting on Yom Kippur, placing a mezuzah on a front door or circumcising baby boys. In sum, there is no single universal Jewish religious custom practised across Europe. Nor is there a common language; today most Jews speak the national language of their country at home. Hebrew has not replaced the former lingua franca of Yiddish and Ladino.

There is something slightly unsettling about this conclusion. Surely European Jews have rather more in common with each other than a generalized tendency to define themselves as Jews? In the Jewish and non-Jewish media there is a recognized 'given': when we speak of 'people who are Jewish…' or the 'Jewish community' we implicitly know what we are referring to. However, actually nailing down what is responsible for this perception of uniqueness is very difficult indeed. But one thing is clear: whatever this Jewish 'glue' turns out to be, it has little to do with a shared religious enterprise.

Common Jewish threads
Nevertheless, there clearly are common threads to which most European Jews subscribe, consciously or otherwise. These emerge from detailed examination of the survey reports and suggest that a universal Jewish identity does exist, and what is more, can be applied to a significant proportion of individuals who define themselves as Jewish. The common threads are found when we look at aspects of life that have little to do with religious practice. For instance, relative to their 'host populations', Jews tend to be economically distinctive in all European countries. For example, in Germany, they tend to work in professional occupations; Jewish immigrants from the Former Soviet Union are often trained as engineers, scientists, doctors, and pharmacists. In England and Wales, the 2001 Census found that the proportion of Jews in managerial and professional occupations (about half of all 'Jewish' jobs) is almost twice that for the population as a whole. Another interesting peculiarity is that Jewish women in Europe are more likely to be found in professional occupations than their non-Jewish counterparts.

'Jewish jobs' perhaps reflect the relatively high levels of secular education amongst Jews (see table), itself a function of an imprecisely defined 'Jewish work ethic'. In Hungary, Jews are better educated than the general population, with 36 per cent having a university degree compared with 13 per cent of all Hungarians.

Surveys of Jews in the UK, France, Sweden, Hungary, Russia and Germany have all found a similar picture. Nearly three quarters of Jews from the Former Soviet Union who settled in Germany since 1990 had a university or higher-level qualification.

Another common thread is demography. Jews throughout Europe show increasing tendencies to marry later (if at all) and have fewer children. The effect of these patterns is that the age profile of European Jews is getting older relative to the general populations. In Britain the 2001 Census showed that 22 per cent of Jews in England and Wales were aged over 64 compared with 16 per cent for the national population. This tendency, together with increased longevity, means that European Jews have a higher proportion of households comprising pensioners and single people. Also, many survey respondents reported that they lived alone; in the Netherlands this produced an unusually high 'feeling of loneliness' compared with the Dutch population as a whole.

On a more positive social note, the tendency for Jews to congregate residentially is another common thread, especially in large European cities. This has been observed in the UK, Hungary, France and Sweden. They also socialize together. For example, in JPR's survey of Jews in Leeds,(2) 62 per cent of respondents said that 'either all or nearly all' of their close friends were Jewish and a further 20 per cent said that 'most' of their friends were Jewish. According to several other surveys, European Jews were also found to mix in predominantly Jewish social circles. Moreover, when they socialize, they do so in a specifically 'Jewish' way. For instance, low alcohol consumption is 'peculiarly Jewish': in Russia, Jews report lower levels of alcohol consumption than the general population. Similar patterns were picked up in JPR's 2001 surveys in London(3) and Leeds, which also found that Jews smoke much less than the national average.

However, the final and most 'Jewish' thread of all, relates to Jewishness itself. This does not concern Jewish ritual practices or specific observance traits but rather reflects a shared set of values and concerns. It is best summed up as a sort of 'philo-semitism' where, even amongst the most secularized of Jews, a level of concern is expressed about the welfare and future of Jewish people in general. Most European Jews feel that the increase in mixed partnerships is very much an 'issue', even if they themselves have not chosen to marry a Jew. Most survey respondents feel it is important that 'Jews survive as a people' and that 'an unbreakable bond unites Jews all over the world'. In Ukraine, people expressed a 'sense of pride' in being Jewish and, given the choice, most would like to be 'reborn as Jews'. Similarly, in Denmark, even non-observant Jews reported considerable concern for and interest in the Jewish community. If a Jewish issue appears in the news, a majority of Jews 'follows the story closely' and, if relevant, 'expresses concerns about its implications.' This tendency to care about Jews and their welfare, regardless of actual participation in Jewish religious practice, was highlighted in JPR's report on the secular/religious outlook of Jews in London,(4) which noted that what Jews had in common tended to be 'Jewish' but non-religious interests, such as belonging to a Jewish sports club, reading Jewish newspapers and books, listening to radio and watching TV programmes with a specifically Jewish content and taking an interest in and visiting Israel.

This all reflects the idea of a feeling of Jewishness. JPR's surveys have found that over 85 per cent of Jews in London and Leeds feel 'quite' or 'extremely' conscious of their Jewishness. There is evidence here of an element of unconscious Jewishness, which may be an unwritten 'Jewish value system' to which most Jewish people subscribe. For instance, the following set of values was found to be universal amongst French Jews: honouring one's parents, building a family, studying and helping others.

New Jewish Identities: Contemporary Europe and Beyond

Published recently by Central European University Press, New Jewish Identities was jointly edited by Zvi Gitelman, Barry Kosmin and András Kovács. It is based on a conference held in Budapest in 2001 which was co-sponsored by JPR, the Hanadiv Charitable Foundation and the Frankel Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Michigan.

The volume analyzes and compares how Jews conceive of their Jewishness. Do they see it in mostly religious, cultural or ethnic terms? What are the policy implications of these views? What do they portend for the future of world Jewry?

Barry Kosmin's article, Religious Identity in the Social and Political Arena: an examination of the attitudes of Orthodox and Progressive Jews in the UK, concludes that no unique package of attitudes specific to the two groups of religious Jews exists. Rather the range and balance of Jewish opinion within the synagogue groupsoverwhelmingly mirrors that of national opinion in Britain. He argues that British Jews are well integrated into British society and Judaism and religious identity are of marginal influence in forming their social and political attitudes. Jewish attitudes appear inherently mainstream British and so moderately non-judgemental.

Amongst other contributions are articles by Jacqueline Goldberg, former JPR Director of Research, on Social Identity in British and South African Jewry, by Lars Dencik on "Jewishness" in Postmodernity: The Case of Sweden and by Zvi Gitelman on Becoming Jewish in Russia and Ukraine.

For further information, please visit www.ceupress.com

The future of Jewish heritage in Europe

Scholars, heritage professionals and philanthropists from 25 countries came together in Prague in April to discuss the role of Jewish museums, archives and historic sites in Europe. The conference was the initiative of Antony Lerman, Chief Executive of the Hanadiv Charitable Foundation and was co-sponsored by the World Monuments Fund and several philanthropic foundations with the European Association for Jewish Culture (EAJC) and the Jewish Museum in Prague. Lena Stanley-Clamp, JPR's Director of Public Activities and also Director of the EAJC, was one of the organizers of the conference.

Scholars, heritage professionals and philanthropists from 25 countries came together in Prague in April to discuss the role of Jewish museums, archives and historic sites in Europe. The conference was the initiative of Antony Lerman, Chief Executive of the Hanadiv Charitable Foundation and was co-sponsored by the World Monuments Fund and several philanthropic foundations with the European Association for Jewish Culture (EAJC) and the Jewish Museum in Prague. Lena Stanley-Clamp, JPR's Director of Public Activities and also Director of the EAJC, was one of the organizers of the conference.

Interest in Jewish heritage has increased significantly, but what place does it occupy in today's Europe? What role can it play in strengthening Jewish life? The conference addressed these and other issues: the use of new technologies in heritage restoration, documentation and promotion, funding and co-operation. Historical and political overviews were provided by the writer György Konrád (Budapest), Jonathan Webber (Birmingham University), the historian Diana Pinto (Paris) and heritage expert Sam Gruber of the International Survey of Jewish Monuments.

Challenges facing Jewish museums
This was the subject of a session chaired by Lena Stanley-Clamp with a distinguished panel of museum professionals: Laurence Sigal (Paris), Leo Pavlat (Prague), Edward Van Voolen (Amsterdam) and Bernhard Purin (Munich).

In her report to the final session, Lena stressed the enormous expectations placed on museums. The debate was so passionate, she said, 'because we are all stakeholders in Jewish museums, whether as heritage professionals or just visitors. Museum visits provide the kind of personal experience of our heritage that a computer screen or printed page cannot convey'.

She highlighted some of the ideas and recommendations, which emerged from the session:

• Representation is a central function of Jewish museums, which are uniquely placed to shape people's perceptions about Jewish life, history and religion. Museums must therefore ensure that exhibitions and programmes address the full spectrum of Jewish religion and experience, as well as represent a living, vibrant culture, not a 'dead civilization'.
  
  
• Curators were encouraged to stage exhibitions by contemporary artists or on contemporary themes.
  
  
• For Jewish museums to be European must mean more than just a European address: they must reflect the trans-national history of the Jewish people and present their exhibits in a wider historical, social and Jewish context.
  
  
• Concerns were expressed that the 'Disneylandization' of museums in response to the funding pressures and the need to attract large numbers of visitors might lead to a dilution of the Jewish content.
  
  
• Restitution of art and artefacts continues to be a problem. Jewish museums should look into their own collections and consider the identity of the rightful owners of some of their artefacts.
  
  
• There should be increased collaboration between museums: sharing of expertise and technological resources, mentoring and online publication of guidelines on governance and best practice.
  

Lena Stanley-Clamp concluded that 'Museums are the custodians of Jewish heritage and key institutions which shape perceptions and identities. As one of the greatest assets of European Jewry, they deserve the fullest support.'

The European Council of Jewish Communities General Assembly in Budapest

The third General Assembly of the ECJC was held in May in Budapest at a historic moment in the history of Europe as the EU welcomed ten new member states. One thousand Jewish activists and experts in the fields of social welfare, education and culture from over 40 countries met to discuss issues of common concern.

The newly elected ECJC President, Jonathan Joseph, welcomed the current renaissance of Jewish life and culture in Europe, which was taking place against the backdrop of a Middle East in turmoil and concerns about anti-Zionism and antisemitism in Europe. However, he stressed the importance for European Jewry to define itself in positive terms rather than focusing exclusively on issues of defence. JPR's contributions to the programme included a presentation to the plenary session by Professor Barry Kosmin (above left) on Communities and Jewish identities in Europe, in which he outlined the findings of the JPR study European Jewish Identity at the Dawn of the 21st Century, (see page 1). He also presented findings from demographic studies in a workshop entitled Adults: the neglected ones of the Community?

Truth and fiction: the Holocaust on stage and screen

	This is an abridged version of a JPR lecture given in April by Ronald Harwood CBE, playwright, novelist, winner of the 2003 Academy Award for the screenplay of The Pianist and Board member of the European Association for Jewish Culture. The meeting was chaired by Dr Anthony Julius.
	Ronald Harwood CBE

We know there is no such thing as undeniable historical fact. From the story of Creation to the recent invasion of Iraq, history is disputed, falsified and ignored. Witnesses are accused of faulty memories, of being self-serving, vengeful and naive. All of which tends not to illuminate the past but to obfuscate it.

There is a further problem for the analyst of historical truth which I can best illustrate by quoting from my play, Taking Sides, which concerns the denazification of the German conductor, Wilhelm Furtwängler. A young American intelligence officer, trying to placate a distressed witness, says to her, 'We're just trying to find out the truth.' To which she replies, 'There's no such thing. Whose truth? The victors? The vanquished? The victims? The dead?'

I think it is possible to reveal the truth, yet not necessarily through accounts written by historians. The truth can best be revealed through fiction. The individual artist's truth allows us to accept the validity of the past. My understanding of history has been immeasurably enriched by novels, plays and films. My understanding of the declining years of the Austro-Hungarian empire came from The Radetzky March by Joseph Roth. I was first made aware of the evil of apartheid in the country of my birth by Alan Paton's Cry, The Beloved Country. The list is endless and I haven't even touched on the momentous achievements of Victor Hugo, Dickens or Shakespeare.

So it has been with the Holocaust. With the advent of television and cinema as the truly popular art forms, there have been countless plays and films that have dealt with the industrial slaughter of the Jews. Among the most memorable for me were The Diary of Anne Frank, Judgement at Nuremberg, Ghetto by Joshua Sobol, Stephen Spielberg's Schindler's List, and recently, Conspiracy. Each time such a work reaches the public the truth is proclaimed.

The artist as a prism
It is self-evidently impossible to tell the whole story of the Holocaust. But all these works have one thing in common: they focus on a particular character, episode or event and strive to discover the essence of what happened and by so doing contribute to the whole. They are epic tales if you accept my definition of an epic as one man or woman standing for many: Anne Frank, for example, standing for all the children lost, Schindler for those who saved Jews, Heydrich for those who murdered them. By using this epic form they are able to express an accurate, vivid emotional experience. And because the makers were conscientious, they were, in that particular way, true to the experience they dramatize. In short, they were true to the truth. Their truth. In dramatizations of events concerning any historical subject, but especially the Holocaust, the individual artist is trusted as a prism, and it is his or her integrity which is the filter. We trust the artist to tell us the truth.

It has been my lot to work on several subjects concerning the Holocaust. My preoccupation with this horrific period in Jewish history is a burden, an obsession, and I have tried to analyse why. I was five years old when war was declared. My home was in Cape Town, and I remember vividly the excitement during that time: the convoys carrying British and Commonwealth troops on their way to the Far East, the BBC news bulletins and Winston Churchill's speeches.

I decided that this investigation would serve admirably as the setting for the play. By doing so, I would be able to avoid the drama-documentary form and write what I hoped would be a valid piece for the theatre in its own right. The fact that there were no records allowed me to invent the investigative group, especially Furtwängler's chief protagonist, an American Major who would brutally hound the conductor for what were believed to be his Nazi sympathies.

Could I be true to truth by inventing characters who may, or may not, have existed? There were, of course, clues. One was a notion that the Americans were determined to make examples of Germans prominent in public life, to establish the concept of collective German guilt. So I created Major Steve Arnold, an Insurance Claims investigator before the war, who came to me harsh, foul-mouthed and disrespectful. American critics took great exception to him. They thought he should have been less of a Philistine. But I wanted to show the great cultural divide emerging between the old world and the new. While all the other characters in the play talked of music, art and culture, the Major was the only one who talked of the dead because he had smelled the burning flesh of the crematoria and witnessed the bulldozing of the corpses into mass graves, the memory of which had haunted him ever since. My point was that the Major is human though not cultured, anti-Nazi without being liberal. The argument fell on deaf ears.

I since discovered from letters written to me by former American intelligence officers, the actual interrogators of Furtwängler were much more savage than my Major. They were mostly farm boys from Milwaukee, chosen because they spoke a sort of German, and had little or no interest in European or any other culture. So, one could say that life imitates art.

The two cardinal rules
There are, I believe, two rules that can be applied to all dramatizations dealing with the Holocaust. The first one is manipulation, which must be ruthlessly avoided because it is a distortion of the truth. And because the events speak loudly enough for themselves. The second rule, and perhaps the more important, and one that I follow scrupulously, is that sentimentality must also be shunned mercilessly because the events are burdened with genuine suffering and therefore capable of provoking genuine feeling.

Sentimentality is a particular vice of some American filmmakers, because of the demand that the audience leave the cinema with 'the feel good' factor. This is why films so seldom present a genuine tragic experience. Aristotle believed that catharsis was the inevitable result of witnessing tragedy in the theatre. The cinema repeatedly fails to allow catharsis to take place because the desire for the feel good factor results in manipulation, sentimentality and gross falsification. Intensifying the emotion of characters, making the victims too noble or the villains too inhuman, using lush music to accompany scenes, are best described as schmaltz and should be resisted.

This lack of sentimentality was especially evident when I first read The Pianist, the book by Wladislaw Szpilman, who wrote of his suffering as if it had happened to someone else and described the terror without comment. Roman Polanski sought me out as a result of my play, Taking Sides. He saw the excellent Paris production and thought I might be the man to write the screenplay of The Pianist, which describes Szpilman's gruesome experiences in the Warsaw Ghetto, from which he managed to escape. Once outside the ghetto, Szpilman was sheltered by courageous Poles until he was forced to fend for himself alone. He suffered hunger and illness. Weak and desperate, he was befriended by a German officer who brought him food and helped him to survive until he was liberated. I read the book in one sitting, telephoned Polanski and said yes.

Polanski had turned down an offer from Stephen Spielberg to direct Schindler's List, which is set in the Cracow ghetto from which Polanski himself had escaped at the age of six, because the events would have been too close to him. His parents and sister were taken off to the camps. But The Pianist offered a means of expressing his own feelings about the horror of his appalling childhood.

In search of our own truth, Polanski was dredging his own memories for details and incidents. I remember one in particular. I had accurately reproduced the moment in the book when a Jewish policeman saves Szpilman from boarding a cattle truck bound for Treblinka. Szpilman describes himself running from the scene. "No!" Polanski said. "I'll tell you what happened to me, it'll be better." He, too, was saved in a similar manner but when he'd been pulled out from the crowd and started to run, his saviour hissed, "Walk! Don't run!" And so we changed it. I knew this was a reality I personally could not have invented.

In describing my own approach I am speaking for all who work on these themes. There is a vast conscientious effort by everyone involved, from the director, the set and costume designers, the actors, to be accurate, so that what is finally produced on the screen or the stage is true to the truth. Anything less would be an insult to the subject matter and to the dead.

I like to think that I have followed the epic form in the plays and films I have written on the subject. Furtwängler stands for all those who wavered, who were cowardly and courageous, who believed in the greater good but also in their own self-preservation. And Szpilman stood for the survivors, men and women, like Polanski, who somehow managed to live through the horror and survived to tell the story.

I have the good fortune to have my plays and films taught in Holocaust studies in Germany where a great effort has been made to face its terrible past. Reconciliation is essential if the history about which I, and others, have written is never to be repeated.This brings me to the heart of the representations of the Holocaust on stage or screen. One would be foolish to claim that they are entertainments. So, what are the reasons for these plays and films?

Bringing to the stage and screen aspects of the Holocaust is one of the most powerful methods of informing and educating. But I am not so naive as to believe that people will really learn anything from them. The lessons of history are seldom learned, however often and well they are taught. But that doesn't mean we must not persevere. With the passage of time, succeeding generations, all over the world, are ignorant of the massive suffering endured by European Jewry and these plays and films do, from time to time have the desired effect.

Unfortunately, the need for these dramatizations to inform and educate is more urgent now than ever. From the vile propaganda that is spewed out daily in the media in the Middle East to the biased reporting in some quarters in the West, the text and sub-text is clear: if Israel, the only democracy in the region, ceases to exist, the troubles of the Middle East would disappear and terrorism would lose its raison d'être. These attacks on Israel are also a camouflage worn by antisemites. Antisemitism threatens not just Jews, but all the standards by which decent, liberal, democratic societies should judge themselves.

I said earlier that I do not look for the themes about which I write - they look for me. I hope they will either become less obsessive or alight elsewhere, perhaps on younger writers and filmmakers. I long for other themes to find me and provide respite. But that may be a forlorn hope. I also long for films and plays about the Holocaust to become less
necessary but that, too, I suspect, is a forlorn hope.

The Orthodox/Non-Orthodox Divide: Are We Indeed One People?

	Rabbi Shmuel Jakobovits from Jerusalem gave a seminar at JPR in March. Founder and Dean of Ura Kevodi, the Association of the Ultra-Orthodox for the Study of Contemporary Jewish Issues and The Harav Lord Jakobovits Torah Institute of Contemporary Issues, he is also the co-founder of The Yachad Council for Secular-Religious Relations.
	Rabbi Jakobovits with JPR Patron Felix Posen

JPR Director Professor Barry Kosmin noted that the seminar had attracted participants from across the Jewish community, including charedi (ultra-Orthodox), Masorti, Reform, Liberal and secular Jews.

Rabbi Jakobovits explained that the issue of Jewish unity, while profoundly agonising, was the impetus behind his efforts to promote dialogue between the strictly Orthodox and secular. It was important to acknowledge that while there are many areas where opposing sides must 'agree to disagree,' the charedi world should join other sections of Jewry in advancing the goal of collective Jewish responsibility. 'If we are to do anything about the threat of mass assimilation,' he said, 'the first step is to regain a sense of belonging together'. Although the charedi community could never compromise its commitment to the 'integrity of Torah tradition,' it should nevertheless cooperate with other Jews to strengthen Jewish identity.In the past, Rabbi Jakobovits said, strictly Orthodox Jews appeared insular because they saw themselves engaged in a battle to ensure the survival of Torah tradition. Now, having become a more confident community, the charedim need to face a more pressing challenge affecting Klal Yisrael (the Jewish people as a whole): maintaining Jewish solidarity as an antidote to the mass defection of Jews from Judaism and the Jewish people.

While acknowledging that dialogue between charedi and other Jews on theological differences would be divisive, Rabbi Jakobovits called for increased dialogue concerning the pragmatic agenda of Jewish survival. It was important for the Torah community to correct the impression that it cared only for its own survival. He called for charedim to promote interaction with other Jews wherever they are-ideologically or geographically. If such efforts were to succeed, he predicted, it would be easier for other sectors of the Jewish communities to reciprocate.

Antisemitic 'hate crime' in London: what can we learn from police statistics?

This was the subject of a JPR Seminar held in March in association with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), with Dr Paul Iganski, JPR Civil Society Fellow and Lecturer in Sociology and Criminology, University of Essex and Vicky Kielinger and Susan Paterson, Senior Consultants of the Understanding Hate Crime (UHC) Project, Diversity Directorate, MPS. The seminar was chaired by Professor Stanley Waterman.

The researchers presented preliminary findings from a project that aims to shed new light on the nature and social context of antisemitic incidents recorded by police in London. The subject was particularly timely given the rise in incidents over the last two years recorded by the Community Security Trust, the way that street-level antisemitism continues to make the news in the Jewish press, and also the attention it has been given in the recent report on antisemitism in Europe produced for the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.

The research team also made a presentation at the annual Nottingham Hate Crimes Conference in February, and held a consultative seminar with the CST in March. They will present their findings to the British Society of Criminology Conference at the University of Portsmouth in July. The research findings will be made available by JPR in the autumn, which will be the first time that data on antisemitic incidents recorded by the Metropolitan Police Service will be published.

Geneva, the separation fence and the peace process

	Professor David Newman (left) of the Department of Politics and Government at Ben Gurion University, gave a seminar at JPR in February, chaired by Harold Paisner (right), a member of JPR's Board of Directors, and Chairman of the Ben Gurion University Foundation.

Professor Newman analyzed whether the barrier performs the function it was designed to fulfil, and how its costs and benefits could be assessed. He estimated that 90% of what had been constructed is a fence and only 10% a wall, yet he pointed out that most pictures printed in the international media portray the sections where it is a wall. However, the huge debate about whether it is a wall or a fence is not just semantic. The Israeli government has officially named it 'The Terror Prevention Fence', thereby emphasizing its security function. However, it is also of great significance in the unilateral determination of future boundaries and has given rise to a public debate in Israel concerning the future location and role of a border if and when a Palestinian State is established.

The fence came into being because of continuing waves of suicide bombings; public discourse in Israel has naturally centred on the prevention of such violence. On both the political left and right, there has been tremendous grass roots support over this issue; public opinion polls showed that over 70% of Israelis saw the construction of the barrier as a panacea. David Newman remarked that Israeli grass roots do not normally affect government policy, but in this case it had a strong impact. He believed the jury was still out on whether the fence actually succeeded in preventing violence. However, he thought that perception was more important than empirical facts - most Israelis felt safer and were therefore able to return to their normal practices, and this has had enormous economic implications. Professor Newman noted that Israeli society was becoming more pragmatic and less ideological. Most Israelis now accept a two-state territorial resolution, but the existence of the fence prevents the full acceptance of such a solution as many settlements are left 'on the wrong side'; this conveys a clear message that those settlements will have to go. Moreover, there is also a question about the status of those Palestinian townships trapped on the Israeli side, in a spatial limbo. Professor Newman claimed that the fence was created with such haste - despite budgetary problems - that several issues were not addressed in advance. Each section of the fence was put out to separate tender to construct it as speedily as possible. Such speed is rare in Israel, he remarked, and only security issues are responded to in this way. Professor Newman stated that the growing consensus in Israel over the necessity for a political resolution of the conflict and the desirability and inevitability of a two-state separation is about much more than appeasing the United States. It is about demographic realities. The Jewish public wants to ensure above all else that Israel remains a Jewish state with a Jewish majority.

Given the unilateral imposition of the fence and the fact that it has created severe hardship for many Palestinians, it is little wonder, Newman said, that the Israeli government has failed in its public relations attempt to portray the fence as contributing to the safety of the local population divorced from all the other political and social implications.

Panellists debate merits of faith-based schools

In February JPR participated in a panel discussion called 'Faith Schools: Their Role and Future', at the Institute of Education at the University of London. It was organized by the Jewish Museum with JPR and the Institute of Education in association with an exhibition to mark the bicentennial of the Jews' Free School (JFS). Panellists included JPR Executive Director Professor Barry Kosmin, Professor Gerald Grace, Director of the Centre for Research into Catholic Education and Dr Michael Hand, lecturer in education at the Institute of Education. Central to the discussion was the question: Is 'faith-based education' a positive force in British society or does it promote difference and division among social-religious-ethnic groups?

In his opening remarks Dr Hand explained that faith schools are often opposed because they are seen as promoting social division, intolerance or religious indoctrination-the last by far the most problematic of the objections. Faith schools are inherently discriminatory, he said, because their chief aim is to inculcate religious beliefs and to advance a particular worldview. Faith-based curricula appeal to emotion rather than reason and constitute a form of 'religious indoctrination'.

Professor Grace took issue with this analysis. He noted that since the passage of the Education Act of 1944, all British parents have the right to provide for their children's education as they see fit. Moreover, he said, Western democracies are characterized by a variety of educational provisions. He challenged the idea that all religious instruction is by nature 'non-rational'. A cornerstone of Catholic educational theory begins with the premise that 'you cannot force someone to have faith'. Finally, he said, even in cases where sectarian strife is highest, such as Northern Ireland, most discrimination and prejudice is not caused by faith-based education but by social and political forces.

Departing from the philosophical approach of the previous speakers, Professor Kosmin examined the subject from a social science perspective. 'The question is not whether faith-based schools are good, bad or indifferent,' he said. 'The fact is, they are a given in UK law and under the European Convention on Human Rights. They will not disappear. The key question, therefore, is: what are the educational outcomes? ' Citing the 500 per cent growth of Jewish schools in the UK in the last 50 years, Barry said that key factors for Jewish parents in determining whether to send their children to a Jewish school are educational achievement and social factors as well as Judaic content. He quoted three JPR reports relevant to the debate*. Rather than 'indoctrination', Barry said, the majority of Jewish faith-based state schools inculcate a dynamic of socialization and behaviour. Jewish schools are more about involvement in community and solidarity.

*The future of Jewish schooling in the United Kingdom, by Oliver Valins, Barry Kosmin and Jacqueline Goldberg; Responding to Diversity? An Initial Investigation into Multicultural Education in Jewish Schools in the UK, by Geoffrey Short, and The Jewish day school marketplace: The attitudes of Jewish parents in Greater London and the South-east towards formal education, by Oliver Valins and Barry Kosmin. These reports are available in hard copy from JPR on 020 7935 8266.

William Frankel CBE and Lord Woolf receive JPR Golden Jubilee Awards

	Nearly 200 guests attended a Celebration Dinner at the Savoy in May at which Awards were presented to William Frankel CBE, JPR's Vice-President and the Rt Hon The Lord Woolf of Barnes, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. JPR Golden Jubilee Awards are given for outstanding contribution to public life. Previous recipients have included the late Lord Goodman, Dr Henry Kissinger and Prince El-Hassan Bin Talal of Jordan.
	From the left: Lord Woolf, William Frankel CBE and Lord Bingham

Lord Woolf presented the Award to William Frankel. He singled out the greatest of William's achievements as his enormous contribution to JPR and to the wellbeing of Anglo-Jewry generally. He described the years between 1958 and 1977, when William was editor of the Jewish Chronicle, as a period during which the paper flourished as never before. Lord Woolf recalled how, after William had transformed the newspaper, he turned his attention to the Institute of Jewish Affairs, as JPR was then known. He served as Chairman from 1989 to 1992 when he became Vice-President. He was instrumental in laying the foundations for a sound financial basis for the Institute and provided wise guidance during its transition from a purely academic research institute to the Jewish think-tank it is today.

William Frankel CBE, JPR Vice-President		Peter L Levy OBE, JPR Chairman		Lord Haskel, JPR President and host of the Celebration Dinner