Celebrating Israel's 60th anniversary this month has not been easy for me and many of my friends here who feel that Israel has taken a horribly wrong turn in the last 40 years. I am left with a feeling of desperation, and with a strong need to clarify the question what kind of criticism of Israel is constructive.

Let me begin with a basic belief of mine: any criticism of Israel that does not actually incite racism and antisemitism is legitimate. Many supporters of Israel automatically play the card of antisemitism to muzzle criticism. This is intellectually and morally wrong and it is dangerous. It empties the charge of antisemitism of serious content, and creates deep animosity not only towards Israel, but also towards Jews in general.

Brian, I have been following the debate in the UK and the activities of Independent Jewish Voices (IJV), and I was happy to see a growing group of Jews liberate themselves from the stranglehold of Jewish organisations who, however sincerely, believe that Israel is best served by uncritically defending Israeli actions, whatever their human cost and long-term political consequences.

My goal is to differentiate between two types of criticisms: the first type tries to foster debate, dialogue and has a political goal. I have disagreements with some of the things said by members of IJV, but I mostly feel that I can relate to them, that there is a way to enter dialogue (as with your advertisement marking Israel's 60th anniversary, published in the Jewish Chronicle).

The second form of criticism is basically a ventilation of outrage and disgust - which is in itself legitimate; but I think that it misrepresents itself as constructive political action, which it isn't.

The letter in the Guardian on April 30 entitled "We're not celebrating Israel's anniversary" is an example. The letter's style is an incantation; three of its five paragraphs end with the statement "We're not celebrating", which creates a tone of hate-speech. Was that the goal?

The text does not focus on Israel's current policies or those of the last 40 years, but on a very partial picture of the events of 1948. The impression is that the letter says "we're not celebrating the existence of a state whose monstrosity is engrained in its DNA from the outset".

Steven, you are one of the letter's signatories: Nobody, Jewish or not, is required to be a friend of Israel. Declaring a break with Israel and denying any connection or affiliation with it is legitimate, if saddening for many of us.

But what should I, an Israeli academic, who, together with many others, is deeply involved in criticising and opposing Israeli policies, do with a document like that? In what way is it supposed to support or inspire our daily fight against inhuman policies that are mostly driven by narrow-mindedness and naked fear?

Brian to Carlo and Steven:

It is heartening to know that IJV strikes a chord with an Israeli such as yourself: someone involved in the "daily fight against inhuman policies". However, you are fighting on the inside; we are situated on the outside. I wonder whether this leads to a different perspective on the subject you have raised: criticism of Israel.

IJV was launched with a declaration whose numerous signatories - all of us Jews in Britain - reflect a broad spectrum of views (and emotions) concerning Israel. Though we differ widely, we are committed to certain values, especially universal human rights and social justice. We believe that these values trump the values of group loyalty or ethnic self-interest. Such, essentially, is the common ground among the signatories, along with the determination to speak out.

The ad placed by the IJV steering goup is an expression of that determination. Certainly, we would like to think that our actions support and sustain you and your colleagues. So, I am delighted to hear that the ad struck you as "constructive". But what if it hadn't?

You seem to put forward an either/or view: either criticism of Israel is constructive or it is merely "a ventilation of outrage and disgust". I can understand that it might seem this way on the inside. But the view from here, on the outside, is different. Both you and I want the situation on the ground in Israel and Palestine to change. But the immediate context in which IJV is operating is here, the UK; and your either/or is too narrow for what we are seeking to do on our home turf.

I can, if you like, elaborate. For now, let me say that your criticism of the Guardian letter co-signed by Steven turns on the question of what the letter was intended to do. What was the purpose of publishing it? Perhaps Steven will clarify this in his response.

Steven to Carlo and Brian:

I respect the sincerity and commitment of those brave dissidents within Israel who support the struggle for peace with justice for all the peoples of that tormented and contested terrain, and who work with the Palestinians to achieve it. But one has to ask, 60 years after the establishment of the state of Israel - Europe's recompense to its Jewish population for the horrors of the Holocaust - and 40 years after the 1967 border was established, just what have the Israeli dissidents achieved?

The situation of the Palestinians in Gaza and on the West Bank grows daily more desperate. As you know, Ronnie Kasrils, the South African ANC minister (himself Jewish) has described it as in some ways far worse than apartheid. And in Israel proper, Arabs are second-class citizens in a pervasively racist society.

This situation is an affront to humanity as a whole, not a private business for Jews or Israelis. Hence the growing citizens' movements in Europe and North America in support of the Palestinian calls for BDS - boycott, disinvestment and sanctions. See the website of PACBI, the Palestinian campaign for the academic and cultural boycott of Israel.

So while it is encouraging that increasing numbers of Jews outside Israel are breaking free from the tribal loyalties into which many (including me) were born - hence IJV and similar developments, such as the signatories to the Guardian letter that Carlo refers to - this is not the central issue.

Israel is sustained by the US as its hugely powerful sponsor, and by its integration into the nexus of European organisations from Eurovision to Framework and EU trade agreements. European governments sit on their hands whilst UN resolutions and Europe's own human rights legislation are trampled on. Under these circumstances the task of those of us in Europe seeking, as part of civil society, to aid the peace and justice struggle, must above all focus on how to put pressure on our own institutions to sever such links with what must be regarded as a pariah state.

The alarm within Israel - and the hate mail generated by the well-organised Israel lobby outside - at the various boycott and divestment activities that have gathered force over the last few years, offers the best evidence of how we must proceed. Of course this does not preclude discussions with Israelis like you, Carlo - indeed for many of us there have been more such discussions since the moratorium and boycott calls were launched than ever before. But even more important, it seems to many of us, is the support these calls give to the beleaguered members of Palestinian civil society, which otherwise remains silenced in this dialogue between Jews.

Carlo to Brian and Steven:

Brian, you say that I don't take into account what you try to achieve on your home turf. My question is: what indeed are you trying to achieve? If it's not a dialogue, a forceful criticism that tries to stake out a position but also tries to get real results, I don't quite understand. I'm sure you want to do more than just be politically correct and express outrage in the name of the victims, because then there would be many targets that are much more pertinent starting with Darfur and ending with Myanmar. I would much appreciate your clarification on this matter.

Brian, you are involved in this as a Jew (after all you are active in IJV)? To quote Hannah Arendt, sometimes speaking as a Jew is unavoidable, and I would like to understand your view from this complex inside/outside better. That doesn't mean that I demand "tribal loyalties" as Steven calls them, because I believe one should be true to one's deepest beliefs, intelligent argument and morality, and not to one's tribe.

Steven. I cannot accept your compliment for being a "brave dissident", because it entails a bad distortion of the facts. The term "dissident" is to be used for people who risk their freedom and their lives to voice resistance against a repressive regime. I write my opinions freely in Israel's leading newspaper; I talk about them on radio and TV, because there is trenchant debate in Israel about everything. Just a few days ago Palestinians from East Jerusalem legitimately demonstrated in West Jerusalem commemorating the Nakba - so much for your representing Israel as the moral lowpoint of the world.

I don't condone the attempts to silence critics of Israel, but frankly, I don't understand your agitation because of some hate mail. You get that anywhere in the world, never mind whether as a Democrat in the US from Rush Limbaugh or as a leftist in France from Le Pen's supporters. I don't think I'm a hero if some of the readers of my op-ed pieces write that I should be flayed; I just don't make a fuss about it.

When it comes to BDS, and the type of outrage that you're venting, I really don't see any value in this. The hand-wringing moralism of the European left hasn't produced many results; in the end what saved Kosovo was American intervention, like it or not. What brought Israel to the Madrid conference was smart politics, not name-calling.

Do you want to be effective? Here is a strategy - one that requires more than ventilating outrage, but cool analysis. About 70% of Israeli voters support an agreement along the lines of the People's Voice Initiative sponsored by Ami Ayalon and Sari Nusseibeh (the proportion among Palestinians is about identical). Only about 15% of Israelis at this point have an ideological stake in occupying the territories. The reason this doesn't produce results is simple: Israelis are scared to death, even if your outrage makes it difficult to see this. That's the reason they keep voting for those who promise them an illusory security. The question is how to empower the 70% majority's desire for peace.

I do think that the international community is needed for this. Both Israel and the Palestinians are paralysed for internal reasons. Breaking through this deadlock requires political creativity. Instead of BDS, the following is needed: an initiative that would combine EU forces with peacekeepers of Arab countries to create a de-militarised zone that would guarantee Israel's security and finally end the occupation. But for this, Steven, you will have to engage in real-life politics, not in hand-wringing and name calling, and you'll have to get Europe to be willing to play a more active role, which is sorely needed.

Brian to Carlo and Steven:

Two central issues have surfaced in this correspondence. One concerns the effectiveness of political action. The other is the question of identity. The one issue leads swiftly to the other and, I suspect, into areas where we diverge. But on this we are at one: the primary purpose of political intervention is not to vent one's feelings but to promote peace and justice on the ground. So, Carlo, I think we have moved on from the "either/or" of your initial letter.

None of us is saying that criticism of Israel should be merely cathartic; we all aim to be constructive. But what is constructive? On this score we differ - perhaps because we do not share the same political analysis.

This applies, Steven, to you and me. Let me emphasise that I am speaking for myself and not for IJV, whose signatories share a set of principles but do not all subscribe to the same analysis nor take the same view about the BDS campaign. You call for European institutions to sever links with Israel which, you say, "must be regarded as a pariah state".

I can think of nothing more likely to reinforce a hardline attitude among Israelis and those Jews who identify closely with the state of Israel. The very term "pariah state" evokes a past in which Jews were a "pariah people" of Europe - the very thing that gave rise to political Zionism and which still haunts the memories of many Jews today. Don't misunderstand me: it is a term in the political lexicon and you are entitled to apply it to Israel if you see fit. But when, at the same time, your picture of Israel effectively paints out the Jewish historical experience that led to its creation, then a term like "pariah" sets off alarm bells in the minds of many Jews - who feel excluded all over again. It does not require an Israel lobby to orchestrate this reaction, which is as spontaneous as it is deep-rooted.

I agree wholeheartedly with you and your co-signers in the recent Guardian letter that "it is now time to acknowledge the narrative of the other". But it cuts both ways. Any political analysis based on erasing either narrative (or shrinking it to a brief sentence as your Guardian letter does with the Jewish story) can only lead to miscalculations about what is and what is not constructive.

As you say, Steven, the situation in Israel-Palestine is not "a private business for Jews or Israelis". Nonetheless, there is private business to transact; for Israelis and Jews need to think their identities apart. Which brings me, Carlo, to your remark that I am "involved in this as a Jew". You are right. But what does this mean? Steven, you refer to "the tribal loyalties into which many [Jews] were born". But I was born into something much larger - more generous and humane - than tribal loyalties. It's called Judaism (or Jewishness). Speaking out about Israel is not a way of "breaking free" (in your phrase) of this identity; it is a way of reclaiming it.

And so, Carlo, a question for you: Citing Hannah Arendt, you say that "sometimes speaking as a Jew is unavoidable". What exactly did you have in mind in the context of this exchange? In the light of your reply, I shall return in my final letter to the "inside/outside" distinction that you have asked me to clarify.

Steven to Carlo and Brian:

Because what is missing in this, as in so many exchanges, is the voice of "the other", demonised as terrorist or dismissed as demonstrator even if spoken of at all, I invited an academic colleague from Gaza, Haidar Eid, to comment. Attending the funeral of a cousin who had died of brain cancer, no longer permitted treatment in Israeli hospitals since the blockade (one of many such according to the Israeli Physicians for Human Rights), he spoke of how shortages of fuel meant that his students could no attend class (only three out of 80 made it). "Those who can walk long distances try their luck. But yesterday we had a heatwave and many of those who tried to walk fainted due to dehydration ... most already suffer from malnutrition ... (In) al-Shifa hospital almost all surgical operations have been suspended due to regular power cuts ... " These are the day-to-day realities of Palestinian life.

It is this collective punishment and degrading of an occupied people, the ignoring of basic human rights, international law and UN resolutions which is why we speak of Israel as a pariah state. The point, Brian, is not to criticise Israel; that time is long past. Israel is highly experienced in ignoring criticism or denying the facts on which it is based.

To invoke Holocaust memories in defence of one of the most heavily armed and militarised nuclear states in the world, supported as it is by the imperial might of the US, is a rhetorical device past its sell-by date. And to suggest that to advocate non-violent action by civil society as a way of pressuring the Israeli state towards change will merely make the state more intransigent is not an argument used against those calling for boycott of China over Tibet, or of South Africa during the apartheid years. It is merely a counsel for the sort of inaction which has suited Israeli expansionism well over many decades.

Which brings me to Carlo's response to my first letter. To dismiss it as mere "politically-correct outrage", a "hand-wringing moralism", does not become you, but comes close to the hyperbolic language used so frequently against those who criticise Israel. But to expose Israeli racism and oppression is not to condone repressive Arab regimes, nor terrorist attacks on civilians, nor to suggest that Israel is the "moral low point of the world".

My reference to hate mail was to indicate the ways in which the organised Israel lobby in Europe and the US reacts with violent threats against any such criticism - and your response makes my point for me. You claim that Israel is tolerant of its dissidents yet, according to Ha'aretz, Haifa University charged 10 of its students, and put them before a university tribunal, after they held a commemorative event in February 2008, marking the killing, in October 2000, of 13 innocent Palestinian citizens of Israel by the Israeli police, in the early days of the al-Aqsa intifada. The commemoration was held by Jewish and non-Jewish students alike, and consisted of reading the names of the victims. For this terrible crime, the 10 students are now suspended, and will face the university tribunal. Haifa University has instigated draconian rules about any form of political expression by students, and disallows free expression of views.

You ask do I want to be effective? Yes, which is why, as a European citizen I support the boycott as one form of political creativity helping to bring about change when little else seems to do so. It is not for us to suggest the forms of solution towards which such change must aim - but a good start would be for Israel to respect international law and UN resolutions, cease stealing Palestinian land, and accept that there can be no true peace without justice - for all the peoples of the land, including those dispossessed in the Nakba.

Carlo to Brian and Steven:

I will try to put our disagreement in a nutshell, Steven. Brian is right to the point in arguing that you are wiping out the Jewish-Israeli narrative that doesn't fit your worldview under the guise of respecting the voice of "the other". The moral and intellectual problem of your position reminds me of those in the European left who, like Sartre, vociferously condemned the west, while blissfully ignoring Stalin's crimes against humanity. There is a stronger party and an underdog, and this makes life easy: it's clear who the good and the bad guys are, and then you can indulge in one-sided, unfettered moralistic judgment (of course similar phenomena exist on the right).

You do not want to acknowledge tragedy; you want the story to be one-dimensional; but it isn't. Democracies that fight against terrorism face horrible choices, and they often fail, as Israel certainly does all too often; as Italy and Germany did during the left wing terror of the 1970s; as your home country did at times in the struggle with the IRA and in the Iraq war; and of course the US has done for years from Guant�namo to waterboarding.

You claim to represent the conscience of humanity. If this is who you represent, singling out Israel the way you do, makes neither historical, moral nor intellectual sense - and I haven't heard you propose a boycott of the US. It is also completely ineffective; Israel has been isolated by the international community and partially boycotted in the past, and this only hardened its positions. But the one-dimensionality of your world view does not allow for an approach that is both more humane and effective.

Brian; I largely subscribe to the points you raised vis-a-vis Steven, and I want to address your question about the Jewish dialogue. I grew up in Europe, and am deeply connected to the tradition of critical thought of European Jewry. Hannah Arendt has been exemplary for me: she wrote several times, that her Jewishness for her was a fact of nature; and yet she felt the same loyalty to the enlightenment ideal of Selbstdenken, trying stubbornly to think through complex questions on her own.

She was highly critical towards certain Israeli actions, like the way the Eichmann trial was used politically (and she paid dearly for this), and nevertheless wrote that for her personally the destruction of Israel would be the greatest catastrophe she could think of. I connect to her because, while I recoil from any form of nationalism, my Jewish identity is essential to me. This is the type of voice that I represent and try to strengthen in Israeli discourse.

I do not demand of any Jew to have any feelings towards Israel, but most Jews feel involved and implicated by a community of fate. We need to deal with this complex network of feelings of closeness, loyalties and the sadness about much that has gone wrong in Israel - together with the pride about Israel's achievements.

My sense is that we connect in the pain and anger against Israel's violations of ideals that are both universal and Jewish in the last decades, and I see great importance in the dialogue between Jews here in Israel and in the diaspora.

Steven; this does not mean that I think this conflict can or should be solved as a purely Jewish affair, and I constantly work with Palestinian and other Arab colleagues in attempts to find creative solutions. But there is a strong need for Jews around the world to think and feel our way through this complex maze; not because some tribal law demands this, but because of the nature of human identity. I feel that The Guardian's hosting this debate is a way for us to be both Jews and citizens of the world, and to escape the inner ghetto by arguing and debating without feeling that "one shouldn't do this in front of the gentiles".

The Middle East is in dire need for international help and intervention - and Europe could do much in terms of trying to bridge between the narratives of both sides. Wiping out either of the two points of view is morally and intellectually repugnant, and will not be of any help in ending the tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Brian to Carlo and Steven:

I appreciate, Steven, your drawing attention to the voice of "the other". But the problem is not that the Palestinian voice is missing from our exchange. The problem is that those for whom this voice is "other" do not normally hear it - even when it is audible. In part, this is due to indifference or callousness. But there are many Israelis, as well as Jews outside Israel, decent people with fellow-feeling, who acknowledge and condemn oppression - except when the oppressed are Palestinians and the oppressor is "the Jewish state".

Why this blind spot? You can describe "the day-to-day realities of Palestinian life" until you're blue in the face and it won't alter their view fundamentally. These are people - possibly the majority - who are neither ignorant nor heartless. They are fearful. And they are cynical. And their cynicism and their fear are born of bitter experience, if not theirs then their parents' or grandparents'.

Hannah Arendt, in the opening section of her essay, The Jew as Pariah, mentions how "the promise of equality" that the European Enlightenment held out for Jews turned out to be "treacherous". This treachery has bred the cynicism; and its brutality has created a deep reservoir of fear in many Jews. Hence the blind spot.

So, if, sounding like the voice of the enlightenment itself, you declaim against Israel, call it a "pariah state", seek its isolation, and skate over the treachery that led so many Jews to embrace Israel as their hope: you feed their cynicism and their fear. This is not to speak "in defence" of Israel, nor to invoke the Holocaust to justify Israel's conduct towards the Palestinians - something that is as abhorrent to me as Holocaust denial. It's only to say that you cannot expect to get through to this - large and possibly decisive - audience that way. It's no way to be effective.

Then what is effective? I sense - and share - your frustration, Steven, when you refer to the "inaction which has suited Israeli expansionism well". But action of the wrong sort can also suit the expansionists. And whatever - deeply disturbing - similarities there are between Apartheid and the regime in the Occupied Territories, Israel is not South Africa; nor, for that matter, is it China ruling Tibet. Analogies run out; and in the end each situation must be analysed on its own terms and political action taken accordingly. One thing that civil society in the UK can do is to put pressure on Israel indirectly - via pressure on our own government. This was in our mind when we launched IJV. If there are institutions, like the Board of Deputies, urging the Foreign Office, in the name of British Jewry, to support the Israeli government, we can be an alternative "pressure group", proving - by our very existence - that Jews in the UK do not speak with one voice.

This brings me to your question, Carlo, about the "inside/outside" distinction. When we launched IJV we were aiming to change the unhealthy climate of debate about Israel and Zionism among Jews in Britain. We also wanted to legitimise alternative Jewish voices and challenge the old conventional concept of "the Jewish community". Thus, while our declaration focuses on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we have a broad domestic agenda: we are seeking to change things here, in our country, not just affect yours.

There is a deeper issue here - and now I speak purely in my own voice and not for IJV. You speak of "a community of fate" that ties "most Jews" to Israel. I certainly recognise a "community of history": it is something I have emphasised in this correspondence. But, as I said in my second letter, Jews and Israelis need to "think their identities apart".

You mention "pride" in Israel's achievements. I feel neither pride nor shame about the state's doings, for Israel is not my country and I am not its citizen. If it is to have a future, Israel must shed the burden of Jewish fears and hopes that led to its creation. It must see itself as belonging to the Israeli - not the Jewish - people. In other words, it is time to move on, to cut the cord that ties Jewish and Israeli identities together. Insisting Israel be its own state and not ours: this might be the most constructive thing that we - Jews on "the outside" - can do.

Steven to Brian and Carlo:

Thanks, Brian, for reminding Carlo that Israel is not your (or my) country. The three of us are of European descent, but the majority of the Jewish Israeli population is not, and does not share this Ashkenazi history, with its haunting memories of the Holocaust. Carlo claims that I do not want to acknowledge this history, but only that of the Palestinians. So to be clear, I am the child of an extended family many of whose members died in the camps. I have clear memories of the survivors arriving with brand marks on their arms. My earliest political memories are of combating the resurgent antisemitic Mosleyites in postwar London.

But my - or your, Carlo - historical memories cannot be used as an excuse for the conduct of the Israeli state. Such memories are not part of the personal or family experience for most Israelis. The "community of history" which you and Brian claim is not one which pays adequate attention to the diverse nature of Jewish histories. So you can't explain the present situation, as both of you offer to do, in terms of the specificities of European Jewish history and hence European Jewish psychology.

If Israelis, despite being armed to the teeth, are frightened, as Brian says, it is because, like you Carlo, they do not seem to see that Israeli state terrorism breeds a violent response, and that the only way to free themselves of fear is to accept the legitimacy of Palestinian demands for justice. Imposing European Ashkenazi history on Jews from elsewhere in the Middle East - or even from Brooklyn, builds a pseudo-identity serving to legitimise terrible things to be done to others.

It is as if you, Carlo, haven't read - or understood, anything in my previous two messages, but just revert to a tired defence of Israel's problems as a democracy (however partial) in "fighting terrorism", and once again claiming Israeli - and Jewish - exceptionalism. But name-calling about my seeking to act as the "conscience of humanity" is just empty rhetoric; I would make no such claim, and the charge of one-dimensionality is better addressed to yourself. I don't "single out" Israel, and along with many millions, I oppose the US and UK illegal war in Iraq. Boycott is but one of many forms of social and political action, a tactic, not an end in itself, as Nelson Mandela once observed. Of course Brian is right, analogies with South African apartheid are only analogies, however powerful. But that boycott is a powerful tactic in Israel's case, whereas it would not be in opposing US policy, is indicated by the angry response by Israeli academia and government.

Unlike either of you, I do not think that Jews outside Israel have a special status in "solving" the problems of the Middle East. However, by dissociating themselves from Israeli actions and policy, as IJV have done, and by insisting that such actions are "not in my name", they can help weaken Israeli and Zionist claims to speak for "all Jews", and form an effective counter to the powerful Israel lobby both in Europe and the US.

So I end by echoing -and extending - Brian's words. To survive, he says, Israel must cut the cord that ties Jewish and Israeli identities together. I would add that the cord that binds Israel to Europe also needs cutting, and Israelis must find their place, not as settlers in Euro-America's last colonial outpost, but as good neighbours in a culturally rich and diverse Middle East.