Making More of Europe: Perils and Prospects of European Jewish Advocacy
Date: Friday 22 Feb 2008A JPR policy seminar was held in February to explore the problems of developing European Jewish advocacy, cooperation and effective representation of European Jewish interests. Forty people attended, representing many of the organisations involved in this work in Europe: B’nai B’rith, the European Council of Jewish Communities, the American Jewish Joint Distribution, the Anglo-Jewish Association. The panellists were Professor Jerome Chanes, Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University and expert on the organisational structure of American Jewry; Dr Nick Lambert, author of Jews and Europe in the Twenty-First Century: Thinking Jewish with experience of representation and lobbying from working in Brussels; Jean-Jacques Wahl, Director General, Alliance Israélite Universelle, Paris, an observer of and participant in the European Jewish organisational world; Gidon Van Emden, Policy Officer, Centre Européen Juif d’Information (CEJI), Brussels. The seminar was chaired by JPR’s Director, Antony Lerman, whose briefing paper provided the basis for the discussion.
In his introduction, Tony said he hoped that this seminar would open up a wider, frank debate to help the process of change and reform.
Is there such a thing as a European identity?
Jean-Jacques Wahl questioned whether there was such a thing as a European identity at all. He argued that the majority of Europeans had no sense of their identity as Europeans. Indeed, he asked, what is Europe today? Is it the Council of Europe? The EU? What is the role of Russia, which belongs to the Council of Europe but not to the EU? Or of Turkey? All these answers are less clear now than in the past. This lack of European identity is also a Jewish problem, he claimed. How do European institutions currently regard Jews? When it comes to religious life, the success of Chabad, for example, is clear to see. In terms of culture too, minority cultures are always popular. This explains the interest in Ladino and Yiddish, as well as anything involving archives and history, but modern Jewish culture is not so favoured, as it is deemed ‘too Jewish’. He also pointed out that thousands of Europeans may feel some link to the Jewish community but may not be halachically Jewish. What does Jewish culture mean to these unaffiliated people? He felt that it is important that these questions are considered for the future.
Call for more transparency, resources and political experience
Nick Lambert argued that Europe is in essence a Christian environment, in which many Jews feel uncomfortable working. He questioned where the funding comes from for some of the big Jewish organisations and called for greater transparency. In his experience, American Jewish organisations working at the European level fail to represent European Jewish honestly. They paint a picture in which Muslim militants and figures such as Anne Frank feature too prominently. However, many American organisations are very well funded, have enormous clout and are better placed than most of the European Jewish organisations. He felt that there does not have to be a vacuum for an American organisation to become involved in Europe – there just has to be an opportunity. He regretted the fact that Jewish activists too often lack any political or lobbying experience or foreign language skills. He called for more mergers and pooling of finances and for incompetent officials to be replaced.
European Jews resent ‘Big Brother’ yet need his help
Jerome Chanes said that the issue of American Jewish organisations working in Europe raises many questions but is more nuanced than is normally portrayed. One of the changes in the American and European condition of Jews is their ability nowadays to do something about their situation, which is a very different state of affairs from the 1930s.The ‘Never again’ dictum has long motivated the American Jewish community, which is not defensive or isolated, but feels free and comfortable in its home country. American Jews feel a sense that they should help their brethren in Europe, and they do not regard the European Jewish leadership as effective in dealing with governments and antisemitism. He conceded that the principle that nothing should be done without first consulting the local European Jewish community is not always respected. He quoted the example of the Anti-Defamation League, which carried out a poll in many European countries without prior consultation. Polling is a sensitive issue. The American Jewish community has resources, expertise, and a huge sense of responsibility, but chutzpah too. While the European Jewish community needs help from its ‘Big Brother’, it resents this help as it exposes its sense of inadequacy.
Minority issues increasingly important to the EU
Gidon Van Emden argued that the EU plays a huge role in the lives of its citizens and that Eurosceptic Britain should acknowledge this; 50-80% of laws enacted by national governments are inspired or mandated by European decisions. For example, a EU directive makes it harder to ban shechita (Jewish ritual slaughter) in the nation states. The EU has become more active on anti-discrimination issues and inclusivity and funds NGO’s programmes on diversity. In fact, 2008 is the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. From the perspective of a European lobbyist, minority issues are increasingly important to the EU. It was important that European Jewish organisations should start to make use of this opportunity to have their voice heard, even if it is a small voice. Often, American Jewish organisations are simply more effective because they have the resources to hire lawyers and pay their staff competitive salaries.
Make your voice heard loud and clear
Glynn Ford MEP, who was due to appear on the panel but unable to attend at the last moment, contributed a paper which stressed the importance of the EU, which he claimed has changed lives for the better. While there are over 3,000 registered lobbyists in Brussels all trying to influence legislation and protect the interests of the groups and organisations they represent, the Jewish lobby has increasingly disappeared. And its absence has pushed the centre of the debate in the wrong direction. To keep issues on the agenda Jewish groups need to engage more effectively at the local, national and European level to have a meaningful dialogue with MEPs, political groups, the Commission and the Council. He recommended that ‘this needs to be done in a co-ordinated fashion with clear messages and clear leadership to make sure your voice is heard loud and clear over the siren calls of a still existing antisemitism in Old and New Europe. There are many ears willing to listen and act. Use the All Party Anti-racist Group in the European Parliament to voice your concerns…..Use your MEPs to help advance and protect your interests. Minorities working together become majorities. Freedom for all is a far greater achievement than freedom for a few.’
In the general discussion, Professor David Newman pointed out that all the panellists had avoided bringing Israel into the debate. He questioned whether the Israeli belief that Israel is the defender of the Jews all over the world was detrimental. He argued that relations between Israel and the EU had improved phenomenally in the past few years.
Nick Lambert replied that Israeli organisations did not have as high a profile in Brussels as American Jewish organisations, and tended to meddle less. Israel-Palestine youth dialogue organisations were the flavour of the month. Jerome Chanes agreed that Israeli organisations are virtually invisible in Europe.
Gidon Van Emden explained that CEJI avoids discussion of Middle Eastern issues as it makes their main work on anti-discrimination much harder. Although they were originally set up as a pro-Israel lobby group, they now deal only with internal European affairs.
Rosalind Preston OBE said that American organisations have obviously moved into Europe to fill the void. On a national level the Jewish community suffers from a lack of proper co-ordination and qualified professionals. On a European level there is a lack of knowledge about how to lobby MEPs. She said that Glynn Ford had provided a wake-up call and she wanted to know why the Jewish voice was not being heard.
Mark Goldberg felt that some of the information presented at the seminar made him think that it was not just a question of not doing enough, but also a question of doing too much. While focus was important, European Jews also needed a sense of their own unimportance, a little more modesty and a sense of reality. Things were getting out of hand with the recent call for Diaspora Jews to have a voice in Israel.
Peter Levy OBE returned to the question of European Jewish identity. He wondered whether there was a commonality of views across Europe? In the British Jewish community there was a proliferation of views. It was important to continue to support those Jewish organisations which did good work. Good lay and professional leadership was required. Effective associations with American organizations are inevitable, but it is essential to sit down and agree in advance with them the base rules for such partnerships.
June Jacobs welcomed the contribution of Paideia, the European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden, which she said would provide the leaders of the future. She predicted that in ten years’ time there would be a much stronger Jewish leadership in Europe.
Gidon Van Emden suggested that Paideia should hold a one-day seminar on the EU. He argued that if you have expertise and resources your voice will get heard. He did not understand the general obsession with representation. He felt that there should be a plethora of Jewish voices and that sufficient money should be raised for the voices that you want to be heard.
Nick Lambert explained that communal lobbying and representation were problems which did not just affect Jews. Vast numbers of Jews in Europe are not affiliated to any organization and feel unrepresented.
Jonathan Boyd, the newly appointed Director of Operations at the JDC’s International Centre for Community Development, said the Joint showed an admirable belief in the value of every single Jew, even those living in very small communities.
Tony Lerman concluded that JPR’s aim was now to draw together the proposals and discussions, consult further with the participants and publish a full policy paper with concrete recommendations.
To read our related news release, click here
To read our related news release, click here