Ben Yitzchok 15th July 2010

Where better to start then with Ben Yitzchok (BY). Former Mayor of the London Borough of Hackney and lifelong politician, 'askan' and general commentator in respect of all matters pertaining to the orthodox community and/or Stamford Hill, Joe Lobenstein has long had a platform in the Jewish Tribune under his 'Ben Yitzchok' pen-name.

I don't feel too bad 'exposing' the author of the 'Here & There' column here - he more or less identifies himself on a weekly basis - anyone who was determined enough could easily work out who he is. Sometime I agree with BY, sometimes I don't. Sometimes though, his inability to see the bigger picture is astounding - this week being a case in point.

There are few things BY likes more then discussing Jewish political or communal organisations. Whether its the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations (UOHC) (in which he holds a senior position) or the Board of Deputies (BoD) or United Synagogue(US), nothing gets more column inches in Here & There then BY's musings on the goings on at these organisations. This week's column was no exception with 3 out of 4 of his paragraphs mentioning one or more of the aformentioned Jewish political bodies.

BY goes to tremendous length in his second paragraph (as he often does), in explaining why the UOHC left the BoD. In the context of commenting on a new book about the history of the BoD, he makes various other points to correct what he sees as historical inacuracies and finishes with a few smug comments about the BoD no longer having a monopoly in respect of being representative of the entire Anglo Jewish community. The UOHC, BY believes, has the rights to the representation of the Charedi public now that its no longer part of the BoD.

The fourth and final topic that BY mentioned was related to Tisha B'Av. Without reprinting the whole article, the crux of BY's point was that the reason the story of Kamze and Bar Kamze led to the destruction of the Temple was because peace between the parties couldn't have been agreed at the outset. BY lectures that this lesson is a clear and appropriate now as it was at the time of the Churban Habayis.

Indeed it is BY - so why is it that you take such satisfaction in trumpeting the separation of the UOHC from the BoD? Wouldn't the Jewish community be doing far better in respect of its public representations if it was a united front rather then fragmented splinters each looking out for their own self interests? No doubt you will argue that the split was 'l'shem shomayim' and no alternative was possible.

I doubt it, to be honest. I may be too young to remember the politics at the time - but I'm sure that if you took your own message to heart and united the Jewish community under one organisation for the purposes of representing the community publicly, that the world would be a slightly better place.... Politics for politics sake is how this looks to GuyWithAView.