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.” Continue reading “Why Newmark and Mann’s past (failed) attempt to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism is relevant now”
