The Reaction of British Jewry to Suez, 1956 / by Raphael Langham

Let us now leave Westminster and move to what was happening in the major Jewish institutions. In the interests of time I shall limit myself to the Board of Deputies and the Anglo Jewish Association.
The AJA were first off the mark. On 31 October their President had a meeting with the Under Secretary of State, Foreign Office. Clearly he didn't receive any re-assurance, or anything that he could make public. His statement merely said, and here I quote 'these are anxious days for us, but we must await the outcome of the British/French intervention'.
Two weeks later on 13 November the Council of the AJA discussed the crisis but concentrated on the burgeoning issue of the role of Jewish MP's and the Labour MP's who had voted against the government's intervention. They unanimously agreed a motion that no Jewish organisation in this country should expect Jewish MP's to put their Jewish origins before their duty to their constituents, their party and the country. A snook in the eye for those very vocal members of the Board of Deputies who wanted to censure their President.
This brings us to the Board of Deputies. I have been unable to find in the Board archives or in any of the Jewish press any reference to statements made by Board officers or executives in the early days of the war, with one exception. There was a newspaper report that Maurice Roston the secretary of the Defence Committee of the Board he had said 'there could hardly have been a greater disservice to Israel and World Jewry than the action taken by Britain and France. Later he explained these words had been taken out of context and were not his views but reflected views expressed by many Israelis.
It is clear though that a lot was going on, but it would seem more to do with many members of the Board privately and publicly stating their objection to the way the Labour Jewish MP's and in particular the Board's President, Barnet Janner, had voted.
On 15 November there was a joint meeting of the Executive and the Eretz Yisrael committees of the Board. This was convened to consider a motion of censure against the President for his voting in support of the Labour Party censure motion. Curiously the President was in the chair. He stated that after consultation with the Chief Rabbi and other leading personalities in the community he had come to the conclusion it would not be in the best interests of the community to discuss publicly the question of his compatibility as President and as an MP. In other words, let's brush the matter under the table. The meeting decided otherwise. They decided to face up to the issue and tabled their own motion expressing full confidence in the President.
On Sunday 18 November the Board met and when the censure matter was reached the President handed over the chair to the Vice-President. There followed what clearly must have been a very lively and acrimonious debate, but unfortunately the minutes list only those who spoke but not what was said. The Jewish press reports though shed some light on this, but not a lot. Those against the President, and by inference supporting the government's policy, claimed that the British intervention was of help to Israel and quoted in support a remark by Moshe Dayan that the intervention had reduced Israeli casualties. The other side claimed that this remark had been taken out of context and Moshe Dayan had also stated that Israel would have completed her action on schedule without the Anglo-French intervention. Furthermore the British action might well in the long term be to Israel's disadvantage.
Barnett Janner was permitted to make a personal statement. His main points were that the issues of Israel and the actions of the British government were distinct