Ed Miliband announced sanctions against Israeli settlements in the House of Commons. By the next morning, Britain was debating how often he goes to synagogue.

Sir Ephraim Mirvis, Britain’s chief rabbi, called the measures a dark day for British Jews and warned that they could embolden those who wish Jews harm. On BBC Radio 4, Justin Webb asked Miliband what he would say to British Jews going to synagogue for Rosh Hashanah, feeling less safe. Then came a question that could have been put only to a Jewish foreign secretary: “Are you going?”

Miliband said that he does not attend synagogue. Webb implied that this was the point: perhaps the Chief Rabbi’s warning meant less to a minister outside congregational life.

The concern behind the question was legitimate. British Jews may bear the consequences of policy towards Israel for which they have no responsibility, especially visibly Jewish people and congregations already worried about security. But that is a question for any foreign secretary. “Are you going?” changed the subject. It moved the argument from Miliband’s judgment to the kind of Jew he is.

Miliband had put Jewish identity at the center of his case himself. He spoke as a proud British Jew, recalled his family’s experience of Nazi persecution, and described his attachment to Israel. Biography may explain that attachment. It confers no greater authority on his Israel policy than absence from synagogue removes. Webb’s question was the mirror image of Miliband’s opening: one offered Jewishness as a credential, the other asked to inspect it.

It did Mirvis no favors either. His warning was political, not pastoral. Would action against Israeli settlements encourage those who already hold British Jews responsible for Israel’s conduct? Miliband answered a related but distinct question: anyone who blames British Jews for an Israeli government’s actions, he said, is engaging in antisemitism.

Both propositions........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)