Johnson’s Jewish history
Johnson’s ease with the community is unsurprising. Although he is an Anglican, his maternal great-grandfather was a rabbi from Lithuania. Johnson also has a connection to one of Britain’s leading Jewish families: his father’s second wife, Jenny, is the stepdaughter of Edward Sieff, the philanthropist and former chairman of retail giant Marks & Spencer. (Johnson also has Muslim ancestry: his great-grandfather, Ali Kemal, was the last interior minister of the Ottoman empire after World War I).
It was, though, thanks to the Sieff family’s connections to Kibbutz Kfar Hanassi that Johnson and his sister spent a summer in Israel while he was studying at Oxford University. According to Rachel Johnson, the experience didn’t entirely suit her brother’s temperament. “Boris’s memories aren’t quite as fond as mine,” she told one newspaper in 2013, noting that his work assignment in the “searingly hot” kibbutz kitchen was “brutal.”
Despite the Conservative politician’s perhaps not unnatural aversion to collective living, he nonetheless appears to be a strong supporter of the Jewish state. During his final months as mayor, Johnson visited Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Ramallah. He was reportedly visibly distressed during his visit to Yad Vashem, afterwards describing it as “an incredibly emotional experience.”
For much of the trip, Johnson loyally stuck to the British government’s line of supporting a two-state solution – using a speech in honor of his hero, Winston Churchill, to both flatter Israel and show empathy for the Palestinians. He noted that the Jewish state and Churchill shared certain qualities — “daring, audacity, derring-do and indomitability.”
At the same time, he also recalled that Churchill had told Jewish audiences they had “the chance to create a land flowing with milk and honey,” but warned that “every step that you take must therefore be for the moral and material benefit of all Palestinians.” “I think today we have to admit that the present situation does not entirely accord with that Churchillian vision — not yet,” Johnson argued.
However, it was the ensuing row over the BDS movement which captured the headlines back home. After saying that he could “not think of anything more foolish” than BDS (noting that Israel was “the only democracy in the region — the only place that has, in my view, a pluralist, open society”), he went on to describe its leaders, in typical Johnson style, as “ridiculous, snaggle-toothed corduroy-wearing lefty academics.” As a result, most of the mayor’s planned meetings in Ramallah ended up being cancelled.
When he returned to Israel 18 months later as May’s foreign secretary, it was a more diplomatic – some might say, dull – Johnson that was on display. However, on his watch, Britain began to take a more robust stance against Israel’s international critics, with the foreign secretary lashing the “preposterous” and “absurd” focus of the UN Human Rights Council on the Jewish state, and labeling it “disproportionate and damaging to the cause of peace.”
But many Jews appear to harbor a distrust of Johnson. In 2016, he toyed with, and then abandoned, a bid for the Tory leadership in the wake of the Brexit referendum. Polls at the time showed only one in five Jews favored the former London mayor, half the number who opted for the eventual winner, Theresa May.
Those results reflected both Johnson’s prominence in the campaign to leave the EU and Jewish unease about Brexit. While the country as a whole voted by 52-48 percent for Brexit, Jews backed remaining by a margin of 59-31 percent.
It is Johnson’s unpredictability rather than the likelihood that he would drive Britain to the far right that is likely to most worry many in the Jewish community
Johnson’s role as head of the Vote Leave campaign, with its focus on immigration and appeal to older, more conservative Britons, demonstrates why the former foreign secretary has earned a reputation as a political chameleon. In a few short months, his image was transformed from that of a colorful cosmopolitan advancing a socially liberal agenda as mayor of London, to the hero of hardline Brexiteers. (Johnson maintains that Brexit is a liberal project opening up Britain to the world beyond the EU, and he remains a strong supporter of immigration).
Johnson’s subsequent actions have done little to assuage liberal Britons. Last year, he came under heavy attack from Jewish community leaders after he described Muslim women wearing burkas as looking “absolutely ridiculous” and like “letter boxes” and “bank robbers.” The Jewish Leadership Council said Johnson’s words were “utterly disgraceful,” while a leading rabbi accused him of “racism with a smile.” The Jewish Chronicle compared the former foreign secretary to a “bar-room bigot.”
Johnson’s meeting last summer with Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s former chief strategist and leading proponent of the “alt-right,” also drew sharp criticism.
However, it is Johnson’s unpredictability rather than the likelihood that he would drive Britain to the far right that is likely to most worry many in the Jewish community. This trait was, for instance, evident in 2014 when — in sharp contrast to then prime minister David Cameron — Johnson suddenly attacked Israel during the 2014 Gaza war, also known as Operation Protective Edge, saying Israel’s actions were “disproportionate and tragic.”
Furthermore, Johnson’s reputation as an election-winner has not been tested since his role in the referendum. Polls now suggest that only 28% of voters believe that he would make a good prime minister.
As The Times columnist Rachel Sylvester wrote this week: “He is still seen as an election winner by some Conservatives because he was twice elected as London mayor, but since the EU referendum he has gone from being a Heineken politician, who can reach the parts others cannot, to a Marmite candidate who is loathed at least as much as he is loved.”
The unpopular Johnson’s election might thus open the door to a Corbyn premiership. Alternatively, the prospect of a choice between Corbyn and Johnson at a general election might reinvigorate efforts to establish some form of center party that might upend the political landscape.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
Did you read the first article? It begins: “The Mayor of London was live on LBC when he heard that Foreign Office Minister Sayeeda Warsi had resigned over the government’s position over Gaza. Asked about Israel’s actions in Gaza, Mr Johnson said: “I think it is disproportionate, I think it is ugly, I think it is tragic and I don’t think it will do Israel any good in the long run.” It’s dated August 5, 2014, and updated in 2016 (not sure what that means.)
@ Sebastien Zorn: Yes, Sebastien, that will be an important test.
I believe that Boris was already Foreign Minister, not still Mayor of London when he made the statement critical of Israel’s 2014 operation.
I belive that not only the civil servants at the Foreign Office, but also whoever was Prime Minister at the time (David Cameron, I think), and perhaps other Cabinet people, who was critical of Israel. In 2014 Johnson was a recent appointee to the cabinet, and it would not have been advisable for him to go against what he desribed as “everyone” in the British government about this issue. He was clear about his. Note also that he said that he was “towing the line” and “not in competition with anyone to see who could condemn Israel the most,”
and he thought that some individuals had “gone to far” in their criticism of Israel.
Abraham Lincoln was once asked , when he was a member of the Illinois legislature, why he voted against his conscience so often in order to support the position of his colleagues in his political party. Lincoln replied that he voted against his conscience 90 per cent of the time, so that he would be able to vote his conscience the remaining 10 per cent of the time, on the issues that really mattered to him. Probably Johnson, when he was first appointed Foreign minister, was thinking along these lines. In order to be allowed to support Brexit (which Cameron opposed) he had to go along with the PM and others in the government on matters that were of less importance to him.
But now that he is Prime Minister, and has much more power, Johnson is more likely to act in accordance with his conscience. Lincoln always made the decisions he believed were the morally right ones ones once he was President, and no longer had to answer to the party machine. At that point, he was the head of his party. Johnson has now achieved his goal of heading both the government and his political party. He has already begun to throw his weight around. Let’s see if he has the guts to support Israel now. He given many signals over the years that that is what he wants to do.
The real test will come when we see who he appoints as UN ambassador and how the UK votes on the next anti-Israel resolution. Anybody taking bets nothing will change?
If he was just being told what to say by government civil servants, would he have opposed Brexit?
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
How was he, as mayor of London, her boss, when she had been Foreign Office minister?
And, why would he have had to even respond to such a question, when he was not even a minister but just mayor of a city? He clearly volunteered an answer and then, defensively hedged by saying that he was just saying what everybody else was saying.
All this tells us is that he is, at best, an opportunist. I think it is an over-generalization to say all politicians are equally untrustworthy. Despite, the serious problems with his peace plan, Trump is not forcing it on Israel, the way his predecessors have. He was not my first choice, because of this hedging about finding a solution both sides could agree to. Huckabee was my first choice and Cruz my second. But, I think Trump is honest and he honestly supports Israel.
Trump has no record of condemning Israel or siding with Israel’s enemies. None, at all.
Johnson does.
Obama said he was pro-Israel, remember? It’s a meaningless statement, by itself.
@ Sebastien Zorn: Sebastien, the way British politics works, ministers are often expected in their public statements to echo what is the consensus view in the department of government they head. Often it is the civil servants in these departments who actually set the government’s policy on issues that are within the area of responsibility of that department, while the ministers are expected to echo their views in public.
If you examine Boris’s statement carefully, he points out that he is “only echoing what everyone is saying.” He implies that some people in the government are “going overboard” in their criticisms of Israel. And while he expresses regret that the Baroness resigned, usually when a British official resigns, its at the request of her superior in the department (in this case, Boris).
I think it is more significant that Boris once described himself as “a passionate Zionist,” and praised the IDF for its military “daring” and inventiveness. While every British politician has denounced Israel from time to time, in order to maintain Britain’s relationships with the Muslim states in which British companies, including British Petroleum and Shell, are deeply invested, not every British politician has called himself a “passionate Zionist.”
As to not trusting Boris, that is a wise attitude to adopt towards any politician. They all bow to the winds of convenience from time to time. Still, on balance Boris has been friendlier to Israel than most British politicians. He has also been more critical of Islam than most British politicians.
Well, it seems he did. Here’s an article somebody posted in an FB group about that. Not only that, but he expressed regret that a Muslim Baroness who had called for prosecuting UK citizens who join the IDF resigned. Here are the two articles.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/special-shows/ask-boris/boris-israel-action-is-disproportionate-ugly-tragi/?fbclid=IwAR3t-v0DnwzeI-E6Iw3w6aiWZXGYIlr82LlptA3WS01HpBs8IPP5-b1hhMw
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-citizens-fight-israeli-army-idf-mahal-prosecuted-baroness-sayeeda-warsi-foreign-fighters-british-a7659766.html
I hope for the best, but I really don’t trust this guy.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
But, if he really did attack Israel in 2014, as the article says, that is cause for concern. So, are some of the other comments the article cites. Does he support the Two State Solution? Does he say, quoting Churchill, “…“every step that you take must, therefore, be for the moral and material benefit of all Palestinians.” “I think today we have to admit that the present situation does not entirely accord with that Churchillian vision — not yet…” ???
A very biased and unfair attack on Johnson, reflecting TOI’s liberal bias.