Free Speech on Israel

Letters to the College of Policing and Metropolitan Police Commissioner

23 May 2016

Rachel Tuffin
Director of Knowledge, Research and Education
College of Policing
Coventry CV8 3EN
Cc: Steve White, Chair, Police Federation
Dave Prentis, General Secretary, UNISON

Re: antisemitism as defined in the Hate Crime Operational Guidance

Dear Rachel Tuffin

We are writing to express our concerns about the College of Policing 2014 document, Hate Crime Operational Guidance. It conflates antisemitism with anti-Israel criticism or anti-Zionism, especially boycott activity, which is thereby regarded as a potential crime of race hate. We are concerned that policing activity may apply this definition. We copy our letter to the Police Federation of England and Wales, as well as to UNISON, which jointly helped to establish the College.

The official definition of antisemitism matters for policing and beyond. Some politicians have promoted your guidance document as an authoritative source. For example, on 30.03.2016 Eric Pickles quoted its definition of antisemitism, especially this criterion: ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.’ See below why this criterion is misguided.

At around the same time Michael Gove denounced the campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) as follows:

But worse than that – worse than libelling the state of Israel – the BDS campaign, by calling for the deliberate boycott of goods manufactured by Jewish people, by calling for the shunning of the Jewish state, and the rejection of Jewish commerce and Jewish thought, actually commits a crime worse than apartheid (quoted in Middle East Monitor, 04.04.2016).

Antisemitic motives are likewise implied by the Hate Crime guidance: ‘Such manifestations could also target the State of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity’ (p.37). Both those statements misrepresent the anti-Israel boycott campaign as targeting Jews; see again our explanation below.

Moreover, Bob Neil MP sent Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe a letter claiming that the website Innovative Minds encourages antisemitism and incites violence (Daily Mail, 08.04.2016), apparently on grounds that its text supports resistance to the Israeli Occupation.

Given the pervasive conflation of antisemitic and anti-Israel views, our letter explains why this is misguided, especially in your guidance document. For other key quotes, our text includes hyperlinks. Our letter concludes with specific requests to you.

False equation: ‘anti-Israel = antisemitic’

The College of Policing guidance wrongly characterises anti-Zionism as a ‘new antisemitism’. The latter includes any statements ‘denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour’, according to the guidance (p.37). In reality, a significant part of world Jewry has always seen the Zionist project as racist and as jeopardising Jews’ security in the countries where they live.  As regards that threat, antisemites have commonly regarded Jews as a separate nation who belong in Palestine (or later in Israel), thus complementing Zionist views. Continue reading “Hate Crimes guidance criticized for conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism”

Further update, 1  June: Speakers Trust have now restored the video to their website.

In an interview with Middle East Eye, Speakers Trust CEO Julie Holness has denied that Jack Petchey Speak Out Challenge regional finalist Leanne Mohamad was disqualified, and said her earlier comments on the controversy had been “misconstrued”. She explained that the teenager was one of 22 regional winners whom judges decided did not merit a place in the next round of the competition. She also reiterated the Trust’s defence that the decision to ‘temporarily’ take down the video of Leanne’s speech – and delete all reference to her win on the website – was to protect the 15 year old from abuse.

Holness’s letter to anti-Palestinian blogger Edgar Davidson (pasted below) and the Trust’s panicked actions betray an ignorance of the Palestinian experience of dispossession and censorship through Israel’s attempts to erase and deny the history of Palestinians in their homeland. It is this experience that informed Leanne’s impassioned speech as well as her subsequent distress at the disappearance of her award-winning speech:

Why is it called a “Speak Out Challenge” when I am then silenced?

— Leanne Mohamad♡ (@LeanneMohamad) 29 May 2016

Leaving aside the fact that it is just as easy to disable comments as it is to remove a YouTube video, let’s revisit Holness’s exchange with bigot and Nakba-denier, Davidson. I have repeatedly asked the Trust by email to explain this exchange: their responses do not address the content of their CEO’s letter, however. Nor do they in their latest statement.

Holness’s “misconstrued” comments consisted of her stating that the judging panel had shared his “concerns” that Leanne’s speech was inflammatory propaganda. The tone of her letter is respectful and apologetic. Davidson understandably took it as proof that Speakers Trust shared his view of the Palestinian narrative, and duly published her letter online. The story was then picked up by the pro-Israel Jewish Chronicle that erroneously reported Davidson had influenced the judging panel. In his letter to Speakers Trust, Davidson threatened to report the charity for supporting “vicious blood libels against Israel,” and denied all instances of Israeli violence towards Palestinians:

For the record there are no verified instances of Palestinian children being ‘murdered’ by Israel, although many dozens have died as a result of Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups launching unprovoked rocket attacks against Israeli civilians (often from schools and hospitals) and then using their own children as human shields when Israel has responded. In fact, Amnesty International (an organisation that has traditionally been hostile to Israel) reported just this week that most of the child casualties of the 2014 conflict (that was started by Hamas) were actually killed by Hamas rockets falling short of their ‘target’. [*See note below]

In response to these victim-blaming claims that amount to a denial of ethnic cleansing and serial atrocities, Holness clearly expressed agreement and regret, and suggested Leanne had not been chosen because of similar “concerns”, thus appeasing her chief abuser:

Response from Julie Holness, CEO to Edgar Davidson

Thank you very much for your email, which my colleague Rebecca Griffiths has this morning forwarded to me. We take your concerns very seriously.

Every year thousands of young people are trained in the art of public speaking. They are encouraged to speak out on something they feel passionately about and of course they bring with them their history and culture and beliefs.

There are, however, two fundamental rules that are made explicit during the training:
– the speech must have a positive and uplifting message – in fact this is one of the core terms of the agreement with the Jack Petchey Foundation.
– a speaker should never inflame or offend the audience or insult others and this, by definition, means that propaganda is ruled out absolutely from the outset.

It is, however, the school that votes through its most talented speaker in an Assembly final and an independent panel of judges from the local community who select their regional winner. Speeches at this level will have been further developed and even rewritten, with the training guidelines but without our input on content. Judges do not mark a speaker down because they disagree with a point of view but they are clearly briefed on the those guidelines. Unfortunately, with over 18,000 young people trained annually, a speech that does not observe these ground rules may very rarely get through on passion and delivery.

Last Saturday a Speakers Trust and Jack Petchey Foundation judging panel decided unanimously against sending Leanne Mohamad through to the next stage and she will not be speaking at the Grand Final. These were precisely our concerns.  Continue reading “Update: Speakers Trust betrays ignorance of the Palestinian experience”

In considering the alleged problem of systemic institutional antisemitism in the Labour Party there are a number of points to consider

1. The Labour Party exists in a society that that is disfigured by all manner of discriminatory beliefs and behaviours. Consequently it cannot be asserted that the Party is free of antisemtism any more than: homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, sexism, disableism etc. This does not suggest that antisemitism is a particular problem In the Party above and beyond other areas of concern. In society generally islamophobia is legitimised through the ‘War on Terrorism’ in a way that antisemitism is not condoned. The Party, though its acquiescence to the Prevent and counter-terrorism agendas is institutionally part of this problem.
2. Antisemitism has to be seen in the context of racism. The EUMC draft working (but not ratified) definition of antisemitism places it in the context of Israel and it is this inadequate definition that has been employed by many of those currently raising concerns.
3. It is being alleged that anti-Zionist comments are of themselves antisemitic. This is a category confusion. Jews are a religious group and attacks on them as Jews is an attack on their personhood. Zionism is a political ideology and as such is not immune from criticism, even fierce criticism, like any other political ideology.  It has only been a mainstream ideology among Jews since the holocaust and so is not inherent to Judaism but is historically and politically contingent. There are many non-Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews of whom I am one.
4. The Jewish Labour Movement is claiming a special status in this matter. They are obviously welcome to contribute like anyone else but not to be given the particular role that they claim and Janet Royall’s report sought to give them. The JLM is the UK affiliate of the Israel Labour Party, a Party that throughout its terms of office since 1967 has promoted the illegal settlement programme. Isaac Herzog, the current leader of the ILP – in its current guise of the Zionist Union – has been seeking to join Netanyahu’s ruling coalition. Although this attempt has been unsuccessful it indicates how much shared responsibility the ILP has for the continuing assault on Palestinian rights by successive Israeli Governments.  The JLM is also affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation which has been identified by the United Nations as a major conduit of funds to the illegal settlements. 
5. As an avowedly Zionist organisation, it is not open for non- and anti-Zionist Jews to join it and thus they are denied a formal voice in the current discussions.  Because of it partisan stance on Zionism and its advocacy role in pursuing current allegations it is not a suitable impartial provider of training for Labour Party branches and organisations. Their unsuitability is further illustrated by their response to the Party dismissing the charges against Jackie Walker. Rather than accepting that they had made claims that were determined to be unfounded they instead attacked those making the judgement of antisemitism because they had failed to endorse the JLM’s views.
6. In seeking a definition of antisemitism one does not need to go beyond Oxford University scholar Brian Klug’s succinct one. “Antisemitism  is  a  form  of  hostility  to  Jews  as  ‘Jews’,  where  Jews  are  perceived  as  something  other  than  what  they  are.” For a body to be regarded as institutionally antisemitic its practices must incorporate such misperceptions and must be visible through a consistent pattern of action. This could be by such behaviour as only approaching Jewish members for donations by assuming that the stereo type of the rich Jew is correct or by acting as though all Jews have more loyalty to Israel than to their own country.
7. It may be true that on isolated occasions members of the Labour Party make deliberately antisemitic statements, either directly or smuggled in under a deformed anti-Zionism. Such cases are easy to recognise they refer to too familiar stereotypes and fabrications and must be dealt with severely like any other racist abuse.
8. Slightly more often, but still uncommonly, individuals are confused by Israel’s and its supporters’ conflation of Israel with all Jews; and consequentially hold Jews as a collective and as individuals responsible for Israel’s crimes. Such misapprehensions are precisely that, misapprehensions not expressions of a vile antisemitism. They must be dealt with through education. Such an educative process will be aided by clarity by the Party of its opposition to state crimes by Israel, as with crimes by other states, and, in making such denunciations, distinguishing between Jews and Zionists and Israel.
9. The pressure to use a simplistic reading of MacPherson’s principles is misleading. Macpherson was writing in the specific context of the Metropolitan Police at the end of the last century where he uncovered a systemic refusal of the police to acknowledge even blatant examples of racist behaviour and violence and investigate them. He therefore enjoined the police to acknowledge the perceptions of victims and investigate accordingly. It was a guide to police behaviour in investigating not to judges in adjudicating on the outcomes of those investigations. There is pressure from the JLM and its allies for perception to stand in the place of adjudication and for perception to be sufficient to determine the existence of antisemitic behaviour.
10. The rule changes proposed by the JLM seek to encode this false interpretation of MacPherson into the Labour Party rule book but they go even further. One of their changes would seek to limit Chapter 2 Clause 1 (8) “The NCC shall not have regard to the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions” to read “The NCC shall not have regard to the mere holding or expression of beliefs and opinions except in instances involving antisemitism, Islamophobia or racism” .They thus want to introduce thought crime into the Labour Party rules. This is clearly unacceptable on any number of grounds and illustrates the ill thought out and capricious nature on the assault on the free expression of thoughts and opinions on a matter as controversial as Palestine/Israel.
11. Perversely the JLM could be seen as being more antisemitic than many of those it denounces because of its insistence that there is only one sort of ‘real Jew’: the sort of Jew that agrees with them in supporting a Zionist view of the world. Such a view reduces the diversity of Jews in Britain, who are heterogeneous – holding a wide variety of views on Palestine and Israel as they do on all other issues, to a single stereotype. Such stereotypes lie at the base of antisemitism just as other stereotypes afford other forms of racism.

Mike Cushman
May 2016

[Please read follow-up post here]

UPDATE, 1 June: Following the outcry over the weekend, the page and video have been restored.

Speakers Trust have released a statement in which they claim they “temporarily suspended” the video of Leanne’s speech to protect her from abuse. This does not change the fact that they have appeased the abusive Edgar Davidson, reassuring him they had decided not to send Leanne through to the grand final of the public speaking competition, on the grounds she violated the fundamental rule to never “inflame or offend the audience or insult others.” (see the CEO’s letter to Davidson below that contradicts their statement)

If you visit Jack Petchey’s “Speak Out” Challenge website, you will find no trace of the British-Palestinian competition winner.

The competition organisers, registered charity Speakers Trust have

• taken down the video of her speech on the Nakba,
• deleted the page announcing the awarding to her of first place in the Redbridge regional finals,
• removed the image of the proud 15 year old holding her trophy.

Watch her speech here.

 

Israel has sought to erase the history of Palestinians in their homeland, deny the evidence and commemoration of the 1947-9 Nakba that led to the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians and the destruction of hundreds of villages.

Below is the defamatory letter that virulent anti-Palestinian racist and Nakba-denier, Edgar Davidson sent to Speakers Trust, in response to which he received a very courteous reply reassuring him that “We take your concerns very seriously,” and confirming the charity had decided to censor Leanne’s speech:

Dear Ms Griffiths,

I have been a long term supporter of the Jack Petchey Foundation [personal details were added here].  What I was not aware of was that the Charity was now in the business of supporting vicious blood libels against the State of Israel. Continue reading “Erased: Speakers Trust rewrites history by removing all trace of Leanne Mohamad’s win”

[Please read follow-up post here]

UPDATED: The Jewish Chronicle erroneously reported that “Following complaints by blogger Edgar Davidson to the Speakers Trust” the decision was taken not to put her through to the grand finals. They had already taken the decision to censor her (more details below).

(Via Artists for Palestine UK)

A British Palestinian school girl, Leanne Mohamad of Wanstead High School, won the “Speak Out” challenge after giving this impressive performance to enthusiastic applause. But a day later, Speakers Trust decided Leanne will no longer be sent through to the grand final of the public speaking competition. It seems that giving a personal account of the Nakba and a plea for an end to discrimination against Palestinians is not acceptable in the UK in 2016.

Competition organisers Speakers Trust have removed the video from their website, Speak Out Challenge, and their YouTube channel. Copy below.

The Speak Out challenge is described thus: “In each one-day workshop, students take part in games and exercises to encourage them to think on their feet in a fun, interactive and safe environment. The day culminates in a ‘Speak Out’ speech contest where students can speak on any topic they feel strongly about ­– using only their voices, their words and their passion. Notes are not allowed; they must use the techniques from the training.”

The Free Speech on Israel network objects to any undue influence that was imposed on Speakers Trust; 15 year old Leanne Mohamad should have been allowed to go through to the final, on condition that she amended her fatality figures to conform to the historical record.

The Jewish Chronicle accurately reported that a letter from the Speakers Trust CEO was sent to Davidson in response to his own explicitly racist letter, confirming that: “There are two fundamental rules that are made explicit during the training: the speech must have a positive and uplifting message – in fact this is one of the core terms of the agreement with the Jack Petchey Foundation [and] a speaker should never inflame or offend the audience or insult others and this, by definition, means that propaganda is ruled out absolutely from the outset… Speakers Trust and Jack Petchey Foundation judging panel decided unanimously against sending Leanne Mohamad through to the next stage and she will not be speaking at the Grand Final. These were precisely our concerns.”

 

Via Tribune

Written By: Amanda Sebestyen
May 28, 2016

The inquiry which Jeremy Corbyn has set up under Shami Chakarabarti to investigate charges of anti-Semitism will be hearing eloquent Jewish voices saying unexpected things. The first member suspended from the party on these charges is the son of a rabbi, and the latest (at the time of writing) is of mixed Jewish and African-Caribbean descent.

It has taken some time for the missing voices to be heard. During these weeks of raging media accusations of anti-Semitism rife within Labour, British Jews who reject the claims of Israel to speak in their name have been meeting to organise and respond. They have a website now, “Free Speech on Israel”, declaring “as Labour and trade union activists, we assert the right to campaign in solidarity with all oppressed people, including Palestinians. Campaigning to end the injustices inflicted by Israel on the Palestinian people is in the very best traditions of the British labour movement.”

Their statement concludes by calling on “the Labour Party establishment to listen to the many Jews who are outraged by the lie that Jews are not safe in the Labour Party; cease victimising those who work for justice for Palestine; adhere to fair practice and transparency when investigating charges against members; call to order Labour Party members who bring the party into disrepute by spreading calumnies about widespread anti-Semitism in the party.”

The Jewish Socialist Group, founded in the 1970s and thriving despite years of abuse from self-appointed community leaders, wrote in its own statement: “Those who conflate criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism, whether they are supporters or opponents of Israeli policy, are actually helping the anti-Semites. As anti-racist and anti-fascist Jews who are also campaigning for peace with justice between Israelis and Palestinians, we entirely reject these cynical agendas. The Conservative Party demonstrated their contempt for Lord Dubs, a Jewish refugee from Nazism, when they voted down en masse an amendment a few days ago to allow 3,000 child refugees into Britain while Labour, led by Jeremy Corbyn, gave total support to Lord Dubs and his amendment.”

Independent Jewish Voices – at whose launch in 2007 I found myself sitting next to a member of the Board of Deputies who spoke frankly of the corroding effect of the Occupation of Palestinian territories after 1967, and hoped to make changes in the way the Board reacted to criticism – said this: “The battle against anti-Semitism is undermined whenever opposition to Israeli government policies is automatically branded as anti-Semitic. The more public opinion turns against Israel’s indefensible actions, the more our opponents will resort to name calling in an attempt to discredit us. As Jewish critics of Israel’s policies, we urge people of conscience not to succumb to this campaign of intimidation and to continue the struggle for equal rights and freedom for all people.’

So what is happening? The Chief Rabbi has openly told Jews to vote Tory, following such luminaries as Danny Cohen (former head of BBC TV and chief dumber-down of Newsnight) who plaintively asked in The Times: “How can Jews vote for Corbyn?”

Jews for Justice for Palestinians is now 14 years old with 1900 signatories. One of these, Michele Hanson wrote in her Guardian column: “Labour is not ‘rife’ with anti-Semitism or packed with ‘dirty old [Stalinist] men’. It has always been, and still is, anti-racist. And so is Jeremy Corbyn, my MP. And so am I, but I do not like a lot of what the Israeli government is doing, particularly the continuing illegal occupation of Palestine. If I can’t say that without being told off for being anti-Semitic, then the world has gone mad.”

Open Democracy’s online magazine has been a welcome refuge from much of the printed media, with a comprehensive scrutiny of all the anti-Semitism charges by British-Israeli researcher Jamie Stern-Weiner. He has also just elicited a coruscating interview with Norman Finkelstein, that child of Holocaust survivors hounded from one American campus after another for battling with Zionist orthodoxies.

“Compare the American scene. Our Corbyn is Bernie Sanders. In all the primaries in the US, Bernie has been sweeping the Arab and Muslim vote. It’s been a wondrous moment: the first Jewish presidential candidate in American history has forged a principled alliance with Arabs and Muslims. Meanwhile, what are the Blairite-Israel lobby creeps up to in the UK? They’re fanning the embers of hate and creating new discord between Jews and Muslims.” Continue reading “Missing voices have been heard”