We received this article from an authoritative Zionist source who wished to remain anonymous.
S/he had “been concerned about recent events for many weeks now, and have penned an article for you which I think your readers may find interesting. It links to a long-forgotten legal case and is timely, in part because it concerns UCU (the union currently holding its annual Congress in Liverpool and currently being attacked for its latest Israel motions), in part because it concerns the current head of the Jewish Labour Movement, Jeremy Newmark, and the head of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Anti-Semitism, John Mann MP. Importantly, it links them with a past (failed) attempt to equate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. My argument in this article is that the Chakrabarti review simply gives them the latest opportunity to do just that.”
———————————————————
The direction of travel has long been clear, as has the goal: to equate criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, making the former as unacceptable as the latter. In Britain, those pursuing this insidious agenda have had more success in 2016 than in all years previous. The culmination is forthcoming. Shami Chakrabarti’s inquiry is imminently to draw a line. Where she draws it will determine how far ‘the equators’ have come, or (one hopes) how far short of their goal they have fallen.
Events are not random. This has been a long time in the making. Given that most of the offending comments by Labour members were made years ago, the chronology of this recent scandal is a work of art, with the odd and added bonus (Livingstone) thrown in for good measure. The party, to its credit, has conducted itself well, suspending and investigating where it needs to, reviewing where appropriate. But the comments of a few were the latest identified opportunity to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and they were by far the best, as has thus far been proved.
Some characters in this drama hold, or have held, the most senior positions in the British Jewish community and claim, or have claimed, to represent that community. In fact, they only represent the worst aspects of it, but play on the fears of most: the fear of Jew hatred. That fear is tailored to the opportunity, in this case the idea that Britain’s largest political party is infested with it. ‘Simplify and exaggerate’ – it’s a very simple formula.
As those charged with protecting Britain’s Jewish community will tell you, context is crucial. But for those hell-bent on equating anti-Zionism and anti-Israel sentiment with the world’s oldest hatred, ‘context’ simply means a battleground, with those battles often fought in court.
The father of Britain’s most recent drive towards officialising the ‘new anti-Semitism’ (anti-Zionism) is Anthony Julius, a lawyer who founded one of the City’s most respected firms. He has thoughtfully but incorrectly argued that criticising Israel or its ideological underpinning equates to hating Jews. With mixed results, Julius has acted against those fighting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign in the world of trade and finance, and those fighting discrimination or harassment cases in the world of employment.
The latter saw him represent (pro bono) Ronnie Fraser from 2008-13, in a case against an academic union (UCU) estimated to have cost £500,000. This case warrants renewed attention now, since it features the same arguments as Shami Chakrabarti will hear, and even some of the same characters who will no doubt be advising her.
Fraser took the University and College Union to an employment tribunal alleging that UCU’s criticism of Israel was ‘institutional anti-Semitism’. This, Julius argued, constituted his harassment as a Jew, and the case perfectly illustrates the purposeful blurring of lines between Judaism and Jewish identity (in this case, protected characteristics), and of Zionism and/or a similarly ideological belief in/attachment to Israel (an unprotected characteristic). Just as will Chakrabarti’s ‘expert witnesses’ argue, Julius said Fraser’s strong attachment to Israel was “a non-contingent aspect of his Jewish identity… that is, of his race and/or religion or belief”. He added that Jews’ attachment to Israel was “an aspect of their self-understanding as Jews”.
The judge dismissed this argument, and his ruling is well worth reading. In it, he summarises the debate, saying: “At one extreme, criticism [of Israel] could be seen as intrinsically anti-Semitic simply because Israel is the Jewish State. The polar opposite view is that the actions and policies of a state are by their nature political, and accordingly criticism of acts by or at the behest of the Israeli government and institutions cannot be anti-Semitic. Between lie many intermediate positions.”
Those intermediate positions he spells out. “For some sympathetic to Israel, what is seen as disproportionate or excessive attention to the Israel/Palestine conflict may constitute or evidence anti-Semitism, conscious or unconscious. For others, the determining factor is the tone or content of the language used, in particular where what are seen as anti-Semitic tropes are employed. Many sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, while not excluding the possibility that some criticism of Israel may be actuated by anti-Jewish prejudice, complain that the charge of anti-Semitism is largely raised as a device to distract attention from injustices (as they see them) perpetrated in the name of Israel.”
(It was interesting to note the evidence of Mike Whine, then a senior spokesman for the Community Security Trust, the body charged with protecting the Jewish community from anti-Semitism. Whine appeared at the Fraser tribunal as a witness, before he became the UK Member of the Strasbourg-based European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI). At the Fraser hearing, he “did not consider that comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa were inherently anti-Semitic”. A potential source of advice for Chakrabarti, one wonders…)
The judge, alert to the agenda, notes that there is no agreement as to what anti-Semitism actually is. He refers to the ‘Working Definition’ of anti-Semitism produced [it was never adopted] by (what was then the) European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, which includes as anti-Semitic the accusation that Israel (aka the Jewish State) is a racist endeavour and the comparison of Israel’s actions to those of the Nazis. He further notes the argument that “the definition might be read as branding attacks on Zionism as anti-Semitic and precluding criticism of Israel save where ‘similar’ to that levelled against any other country”.
UCU were among the organisations which thought that the ‘Working Definition of anti-Semitism “confused criticism of Israeli government policy and actions with genuine anti-Semitism and was being used to silence debate about Israel and Palestine on university and college campuses”.
As a witness, Julius called John Mann MP, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Anti-Semitism and a likely key witness in Chakrabarti’s inquiry, who the judge said was “somewhat hostile” under questioning. Mann’s earlier report had stated that “it is never acceptable to mask hurtful racial generalisations by claiming the right to legitimate political discourse”. As if Mann’s philosophical position were still unclear, the judge describes Mann as “characterising any boycott of Israel or Israeli institutions as itself anti-Semitic”. When asked about anti-Semitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, Mann announced: “It’s clear to me where the line is…” The judge notes that he “unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us”. Perhaps he’ll have more luck when Chakrabarti asks.
UCU’s lawyer, meanwhile, is reported to have “acknowledged that some groups might make criticism of Israel an excuse for anti-Semitic activity” but contended that criticism of the Israeli government was not in itself anti-Semitic and argued that “defenders of Israel had used the charge of anti-Semitism as a tactic to smother democratic debate and legitimate censure,” citing research by Israeli journalists published in The Guardian in June 2006 to that effect.
That newspaper rears its head elsewhere in the Fraser case, as the judge points to cartoons published in it and The Sunday Times in November 2012 and January 2013 respectively. The former suggested that Israel enjoyed disproportionate influence in world politics, the latter denounced Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. “Some attacked the cartoons as anti-Semitic, others replied that the critics were merely trying to silence legitimate political comment,” the judge said. Old arguments, succinctly put.
At this point, the ruling gets interesting, with the entrance of Jeremy Newmark, then chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) and now director of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), the organisation charged with “training” Labour’s leadership on the meaning of anti-Semitism. He will no doubt feature as a witness to the Chakrabarti inquiry, as he did in the Ronnie Fraser case. Unfortunately for Mr Newmark, whose legitimacy is now paramount, the Fraser tribunal called him out for lying, the judge noting his “preposterous claim” which was “rejected as untrue”. Furthermore, he says Newmark’s remark that the union was ‘no longer a fit arena for free speech’ was “not only extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing”.
In his conclusions, the judge treads the familiar ground of the MacPherson Report. This establishes offence as being in the eye of the beholder i.e. an action is offensive/ harassing/anti-Semitic if it is perceived as such by the ‘victim.’ It is the opposite of objective and would lead to cries of ‘Jew hatred’ whenever someone said something remotely bad about Israel. Adopting it as the key indicator for anti-Semitism would be like reprising the old orthodoxy that the earth is flat, and treating as mad, bad or socially unacceptable anyone who thought otherwise. For the ‘equators,’ all their birthdays would have come at once.
Thankfully, the judge in the Fraser case was not prepared to make anti-Semitism so subjective, and spoke instead about “freedom of expression”. This, he said, “must be understood to extend to information and ideas generally, including those which offend, shock or disturb society at large or specific sections of it”. What did he think of the harassment case against Fraser? In a phrase that lives long in the memory, he describes it as “manifestly unmeritorious”.
However, he also said this. “We are troubled by the implications of the claim. Underlying it we sense a worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression, principles which the courts and tribunals are, and must be, vigilant to protect.”
He was right to worry, and will not be the last to do so. Even Lord Jonathan Sacks, the former Chief Rabbi, voiced concern as recently as this week, saying: “We have seen on university campuses in Britain and America the abandonment of academic freedom in the name of the right not to be offended by being confronted by views with which I disagree. This is le trahison des clercs (the intellectual betrayal) of our time, and it is very dangerous indeed.”
Reasoned criticism of Israel’s actions should fall well within the bounds and protection of ‘free speech. It is not anti-Semitic to examine Israel’s behaviour, its ideological basis or even the way in which the state came about. No state is beyond criticism or scrutiny, least of all one claiming to be a democracy and beacon of light in a region of darkness. There are legitimate, legal forms of protest, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign being easily the most effective. That is why Israel’s leaders have declared it to be an existential threat, and why its activities could soon come within the ever-expanding definition of anti-Semitism, if the ‘equators’ get their way.
No-one envies Shami Chakrabarti and the job she now has. But nobody should be in any way fooled that it is not vitally important, or that her findings will not echo far beyond Labour HQ. It is right that Jews be protected from anti-Semitism, and anti-Semites be kicked out, but it is not right that criticism of Israel be silenced by being linked to a hatred based purely on race, religion or ethnicity. Chakrabarti’s ‘line in the sand,’ over which thou shalt not cross, must be clear and it must give room for criticism, comparison and offence.
Before she draws it, she would do well to re-read Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights & Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4 November 1950. Concerning ‘freedom of expression,’ it says: “This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”
Perhaps she could deliver her judgement on 4 November this year.
Interesting but the so-called working definition of antisemitism wasn’t produced by the then EUMC. It was produced by the American Jewish Committee, a major Israel Lobby group. Apart from that, very interesting. I only noticed two Zionists arguing against the FUCU case at the time and I only saw them after the case was over. One was a Jewish judge, Goldberg, in the JC. He called the case “an epic folly” and argued that accusing Israel’s opponents of antisemitism is similar to accusing Tottenham Hotspur’s opponents of the same. The other was Adam Wagner. He lamented the fact that the case had led to the Jewish community being denounced as “exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars”. Wagner seems to have fallen more into line since the FUCU case but then the Zionists are more determined than ever given Corbyn’s leadership of Labour has raised the profile of Palestine solidarity activism.