Robert Finally gets to the point

There's a book review on the Engage website, written by Zionist sociology lecturer, Robert Fine, about a book called The Definition of Anti-Semitism by a Kenneth Marcus.  Now I'm guessing that a book on antisemitism praised by Robert Fine must conflate antisemitism and anti-Zionism.  And look at this:

Marcus endorses the view that if in the past the most dangerous antisemites wanted to make the world Judenrein, free of Jews, perhaps today the most dangerous antisemites want to make the world Judenstaatrein, free of a Jewish state.

There you go.  It took him several paragraphs to get to the point he was bound to make but he gets there towards the end.

As it happens, Fine is wrong here.  Judenstaat doesn't actually mean Jewish State, it means Jews' State, ie, a state specially for the world's Jews as in The State of Israel.  I always suspect that when Zionists call Israel, a Jewish state they are making out it just happens to have a Jewish majority but the difference between Jewish State and Jews' State is significant.

Clearly a state that is for the world's Jews is discriminatory at best and may even have to tinker with the "demographics" like by ethnically cleansing some people (non-Jews) and giving privileged access to others (Jews). Opposition to such a state is anti-racist, not antisemitic, but for Fine and this Marcus chap, it is the most dangerous form of antisemitism. Why?  Well, I didn't get that far.  I just wanted to point out that here is a prominent academic having yet another go at conflating the perfectly legitimate demand for the abolition of Jewish supremacist statehood with racism against Jews.

I'm starting to get nervous about what horrors the racist war criminals of the illegitimate Zionist entity are planning to inflict on the Palestinians sometime soon.  It's usually at times like those that the Zios crank up the false allegations of antisemitism.  Or maybe it's just that intellectually dishonest chancers like Fine have devoted so much of their time and energy and staked so much of their professional reputations on this bogus conflation they don't know how to do anything else.

Israel advocate sums up Zionist disarray over cancelled Southampton Uni conference

Since Israel advocacy site, Engage, registered the first signs of Zionist disarray over the University of Southampton academic conference, International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism by posting two comments in one post arguing against demanding the conference be cancelled, the conference has been cancelled.

Obviously the disarray among Zionists was already apparent when many of them believed that the conference wouldn't actually be cancelled.  Ignoring Zionist demands and proceeding with the conference would have been a huge embarrassment for all who argued for cancellation.  Zionists arguing against cancellation would at least have been on the winning side.  But it was not to be and now there are Zionists contacting the university urging them to reverse their decision.  Again, see Engage, here and here.

But the post which sums up most eloquently the cleft stick in which the Zionists find themselves is one by Engage founder and BICOM advisory editor, David Hirsh.  Titled, Thoughts on the Southampton Conference, it's here in full with notes by me:

The fact that the Southampton conference is organised by somebody who has actively come to the defence of an open antisemite is not the point. [Actually if Zionists hadn't been so over-enthusiastic about cancelling the conference because of its subject, they might well have scored points by highlighting the thoroughly repugnant views expressed by one of the four conference organisers] The fact that it de-legitimizes Israel and only Israel is not the point. [This shows Dr Hirsh and indeed many Zionists' awareness that there is no case for Israel. In spite of the fact that Zionists were to be in attendance putting a case for Israel, Hirsh et al have assumed that the conference has jumped to what seems to be their own conclusion] The point is that the narrative of unique Israeli evil and criminality educates antiracists into an antisemitic worldview.[Again Hirsh seems to be making, indeed spinning, an assumption about the conclusion.  Does he know that there would be no comparative work presented to the conference?  And why resort to the word, "evil"?  Calm down, Doctor]

The fact that this antisemitic worldview is not recognised as such by most ‘decent’ people is one of the things that makes it especially dangerous; another is that it operates partly on an emotional and unconscious level and so is less vulnerable to rational debate than might be hoped. [I think he means, correctly, that Israel cannot pass objective tests deploying consistent standards and reasonableness] The antizionists love it when people of ‘opposite’ views engage them in debate because it legitimizes their questions, it positions them as the radical side of a discussion; to posit debate as an alternative to ‘banning’ is not proving an effective way of responding. The antizionists love to debate, they suck strength out of it.[This is downright crazy language without getting into the sheer presumptuousness of asserting what "antizionists love". And shouldn't anti-Zionist have a hyphen?  Not if you want to make out that antizionism is a freestanding ideology arising independently of Zionism itself which I think is the idea] Everybody sympathises with those who are defeated in debate by the ‘clever Jews’. [Win-win.  There are clever and not so clever Jews on all sides of most debates]

Ban the conference, especially on the spurious grounds of ‘security’, and it will be held elsewhere, the participants will declare their own courage and oppression, and people will be attracted to the conference which the power of the ‘Israel Lobby’ cancelled by fiat.[So no-one would have attended the conference at the original time and place?]

Don’t ban the conference and the daily work of normalizing the feeling that the Jews are behind everything bad in the world progresses as usual; [a reminder of the conference title which is International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism, not how Jews are behind everything bad in the world] ,  it happens in pseudo-academic pseudo-egaltiarian language and seduces many directly, but it also sets the framework of what is considered respectable and legitimate.[actually discussing where a state sits with regard to international law was already considered respectable and legitimate.]

The toxic notions pushed by this conference seem, at the moment, to be impermeable both to debate and to coercion. This is a measure of the scale of the problem.[Ban the conference and Israel loses, allow it to proceed even with Israel advocates participating and Israel still loses]

 By highlighting the lose-lose situation that Zionists find themselves in, Hirsh has not identified the "scale of the problem" but the nature of the problem: there is no case for Israel.

Fathom This! Addressing the Hasbara Shortage

See this banner ad:



"Fathom fills a real gap"!? I didn't know there was a hasbara shortage. Obviously I was wrong...again.

Enrage Online?

We just picked up another follower on Twitter. They're called @Enrage_Online and they self-describe thus:

A non-Zionist, anti-racist force within the labour movement, we oppose
the oppression of Palestinians nearly as much
as we oppose doing anything about it.

And here's their first tweet:

We strongly denounce the antisemitic costs decision of the Employment Tribunal in the #FUCU case...wait, they granted the recusal
— Enrage (@enrage_online) November 11, 2013

Seeing that was a nice start to my working day.

Hirsh on Hitler

I noticed a bizarre post on Engage recently which was a write up of a speech Engage's Dr David Hirsh gave to 6th formers at the Jews' Free School.  The talk was titled The Left and Israel and the stand out bit was this:

The Nazis are usually thought of as right wing.  But in some ways, they were also similar to the left.  They were radical, they wanted profound change.  They didn't like nationalism, they had a global programme for changing the whole world.  They were hostile to British and American imperialism and democracy.  They put their big political ambitions before the ‘pursuit of happiness’.  Hitler claimed to be the universalist and he said it was the Jews who wrecked society for everybody by following only  their own selfish interests.

I missed a trick here and thought this simply compared to Hirsh's likening of Joseph Massad to David Duke but Discredited Andrew in the Hasbara Four-Step post noticed something worse:

This is nuttier and more disturbing though, he's actually partially rehabilitating Nazism in order to make the comparison. There should be a special reward for going that bit further and saying something unnecessarily mad. Bad hasbara awards 2013?

I suppose to try to determine what Hirsh actually means by "nationalism", as in "The Nazis.....didn't like nationalism", would be an exercise in futility.  He claims himself to not be a zionist but I'm not aware of his ever offering a definition of zionism beyond "Israeli nationalism".

Fair Play for £50 k?

This is a curious aspect of the FUCU tribunal case.  It's about whether or not there was funding from the Board of Deputies of British Jews' Fair Play Campaign Group to the academic Israel advocacy site/group, Engage.

Here's a media release by BRICUP (British Committee for the Universities of Palestine).  Here's the same piece on the Jews for Justice for Palestinians website:

Fraser is the founder and director of the pressure group Academic Friends of Israel and a member of the Board of Deputies (BoD) of British Jews. The hearing revealed the extent to which pro-Israel lobby groups had attempted to interfere with UCU’s policies and decision-making. In his evidence Fraser admitted that “the Friends of the various Israeli University groups” had donated £70,000 tothe Fair Play Campaign Group, set up by the BoD andthe Jewish Leadership Council to coordinate activity against boycotts of Israel. Fraser further alleged that the Fair Play Campaign Group in turn had given £50,000 to Engage, an organisation campaigning against academic boycott.

At the end of the media release there was a note:

“Fraser further alleged that the Fair Play Campaign Group in turn had given £50,000 to Engage” – it should be noted that some of Fraser’s witnesses contradicted him on this point. 

I was curious about it and so tweeted the following:

What happened to the Board of Deputies £50,000 for fighting #BDS? UCU jfjfp.com/?p=41306
— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) April 7, 2013

This led, ultimately, to the following exchange response from the Chief Exec of the Board of Deputies:

@jewssf @richardarmbach @engageonline Denied, because it didn't happen!
— Jon Benjamin (@JonBenja) April 8, 2013

Now that could have been that but for a comment by a Jim Denham on his Shiraz Socialist cross-post of David Hirsh's denunciation of the Employment Tribunal for being antisemitic. Jim's comment is a rant against a post on the FUCU case by Scottish Palestine Solidarity. Go read the SPSC take for yourself but Jim Denham's comment includes this curious statement:

That the Fair Play Campaign Group funds Engage is now established fact. But not for the purpose stated by the SPSC.

Now I have two queries outstanding.  One to Jim Denham as follows:

could you point to the evidence “That the Fair Play Campaign Group funds Engage is now established fact”?

And the other to Jon Benjamin of the Board of Deputies:

@jonbenja Do you mean it was a different amount or @engageonline received no funding from the BoD Fair Play fund at all? @richardarmbach
— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) April 9, 2013

Let's see if anyone gets back to me.

UCU Tribunal: Zionists try three approaches - All bogus

Well I'm sure that there'll be more zionist takes on the Fraser v UCU Employment Tribunal disaster that befell them but three approaches seem to have emerged since publication of the damning report.

First out of the traps, I believe, was David Hirsh on Facebook, claiming that the Tribunal itself was antisemitic.  Looking at the comments on that page and on his more recent Engage piece, that argument does have some traction among zionists.  Lesley Klaff, apparently a leading "lawfare" advocate, also claims the Tribunal was antisemitic.

I have already posted on Sarah Annes Brown's attempt to pass the disaster off as some kind of technical issue.  She's also recently tried to make out that the Tribunal "judged [Palestine solidarity activists]  unfit to recognise racism".  I'm not sure if she was joking or lying but it is always hard to tell with her.

Paul Usiskin of some zionist "left" group in the UK posted another "we wuz robbed" piece in The Daily Beast's Open Zion slot.  Some wag on twitter calls Open Zion, Openly Zionist.  If you read Paul Usiskin's piece you'll see why.

But now there has been another entrant into the contest.  David Newman, writing in the Jerusalem Post, didn't even mention the technicalities involved.  I've seen his stuff before and he does seem to value his integrity more highly than your average zionist.  He does flirt with the idea of the UCU being antisemitic:

But equally, not every case of anti-Israel sentiment can be attributed to anti-semitism, and we have to be very careful not to throw the anti-semitism argument back in the face of every organization and every individual who are critical of Israeli government policy. When we do so, we cheapen anti-semitism and make it all the more difficult to garner support for the fight against real, hard core, anti-semitism when it occurs – and occur it does, all too often – even at universities.

The forthcoming 4th International Conference of the Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism, to be held in Jerusalem at the end of May and jointly organized by the Ministries for Public Diplomacy and for Diaspora Affairs, along with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has a chance to seriously examine this topic. However, based on past conferences and looking at the all too familiar line up of professional anti-semitism fighters, this conference will not offer any significant new insights. The conference will be used, yet again, as an excuse for crying on each others' shoulder, and bashing the entire world for being anti-semitic. There will be no attempt to differentiate between legitimate criticism of Israel (even amongst its friends) and anti-semitism, and it will provide little in the way of any serious introspection as to how the world should be dealing with the issue of anti-semitism, beyond the context of criticism of Israel.

So what was wrong with the Tribunal?

There is one sentence in the ruling which raises serious questions concerning the intelligence or understanding of the tribunal members. They write: "a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel cannot amount to a protected characteristic. It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness..." (para 150). The use of the term "Zionist project" is highly prejudiced from the outset. It is a term which is used by those who are highly critical of Zionism as an ideology of national liberation. It is a value loaded term which would indicate the political positions of those who use it. Equally, the idea that some form of Zionist attachment – be it of the far left pro-peace camp, or the right wing pro-settlement proponents, be it a secular Zionism or one deeply rooted in religion - is not an intrinsic part of Jewish identity and behavior for well over 95 percent of the global Jewish population, would indicate a prior prejudice, or simple ignorance, on their part.

So there's the third tack.  Failing to take into account that, according to the writer, most Jews support a state based on colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing and segregationist laws and that therefore, zionism should be considered an intrinsic aspect of the Jewish identity, indeed, under UK and other law, a "protected characteristic".  So we end where we began.  If zionism is taken to be intrinsic to the Jewish identity, then opposition to zionism could be judged to be precisely the same thing as antisemitism.

It's this third approach that is the most insidious and dangerous. It ties in with the so-called EUMC working definition of antisemitism and I suspect it is the reason that no one has so far mentioned this case in the mainstream media.  And none of the zionist big guns have said anything about it.  Even Anthony Julius has gone to ground.  I suspect that gradually hasbara journalists will mention, as if in passing, the failure of British justice in this case, maybe whilst dealing with a genuine case of harassment or of antisemitism or of some other form of racism.  But if zionists are going to mis-define antisemitism they will have to mis-define Jews.  That would be damaging for a time to both Jews and to Palestinians and their supporters.

Zionist reactions to the UCU Tribunal ruling

Well the reaction of zionists to the recent Employment Tribunal ruling has been mostly silent.  The case was formally called Fraser vs The University and College Union. The judgment is as follows:

(1)        The Claimant's complaints of unlawful harassment are not well-founded.

(2)        Save in so far as they are based on acts or omissions which occurred on or after 26 May 2011, the Claimant's complaints of unlawful harassment are in any event outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

(3)        Accordingly, the proceedings are dismissed.

Ok, got that? See number 1.  The complaints are not well-founded.  That is, the substance is not well-founded.  It is not a legal point, it is a factual point.  Number 2 is a legal point.  It relates to the fact that the Complainant and his lawyer and their witnesses took too long to concoct the complaint.  That you might call technical/procedural but it doesn't matter because the substantive point is that "The Claimant's complaints of unlawful harassment are not well-founded."  So even if they had have got their act together in time they still wouldn't have fallen at the hurdle of the case having to have some merit. This one had none.

The former anti-zionist, Ben Cohen, in Commentary Magazine, doesn't seem to have quite taken that on board:

Why did the Fraser case collapse in such spectacular fashion? In part, the problems were technical and procedural; several passages in the verdict argued that the UCU’s officers were not themselves responsible for the specific instances of anti-Semitism Fraser’s complaints highlighted, while another lazily bemoaned the “gargantuan scale” of the case, asserting that it was wrong of Julius and Fraser to abuse the “limited resources” of the “hard-pressed public service” that is a British employment tribunal. The verdict also contained extraordinary personal attacks on the integrity of Fraser’s witnesses, among them Jewish communal leader Jeremy Newmark and Labor Party parliamentarian John Mann, and even insinuated that the plain-speaking Fraser was unwittingly being used as a vassal by the articulate and florid Julius!

Far from focusing on "technical and procedural" issues, the report is remarkably easy to read as it focuses mainly on the substantive, that is factual issues.  As for, "lazily"  referencing the ""gargantuan scale" of the case", the judges were anything but lazy.  They read through everything, discussed everything and even listened to recordings of union proceedings.  The reference to the "gargantuan scale" of the proceedings was one of the reports many humourous asides.

It's not just Ben Cohen trying to make out that this was something something technical rather than an utter humiliation for Israel lobbyists and hobbyists in the UK.  Sarah Annes Brown of Harry's Place tweeted thus:

@steve4319 Obviously I don't agree with the ruling - that is, I might accept various aspects of it, particularly technical ones, but not
— Sarah Brown (@SarahAB_UK) March 26, 2013

She went on to cite what the Tribunal report suggested was the only one of ten claims to have any substance at all, the Masuku affair, and then conflated that with the UCU's repudiation of the EUMC working definition of antisemitism:

@flying_rodent @thethirdestate It's in the light of the Masuku incident that the repudiation seemed so particularly deplorable.
— Sarah Brown (@SarahAB_UK) March 29, 2013

So, let's have a look at how the report deals with the Masuku affair:

Complaint (5): The Bongani Masuku affair including his invitation, the fall-out from that invitation, his conduct and the aftermath of his visit

110 As mentioned above, at the 2009 Congress a motion (Motion 29) was passed which required the Respondents to host an autumn international inter-union conference of BDS supporters. An invitation only conference was arranged for 5 December 2009. The Claimant was not among the invitees. In October 2009 invitations were sent out to various organisations including COSATU (see para 71). They were not sent to individuals; organisations were invited to identify proposed representatives whom they wished to send. On 2 November COSATU advised the Respondents that they wished to send Mr Bongani Masuku, their International Relations Secretary, and another named individual. The Respondents then issued personal invitations to both. By 24 November it had been agreed that Mr Masuku would be one of the speakers at the conference and would address the subject of BDS with reference to apartheid era South Africa and current political realities in Israel. 

111 On 30 November 2009 the Claimant sent an e-mail to Mr Waddup enquiring about plans for the conference. Mr Waddup replied on 2 December and confirmed that the event was proceeding as had been reported in the Morning Star (from where the Claimant had picked up the story, and which had named Mr Masuku as one of the billed speakers). 

112 At just after 3.00 pm on 3 December 2009 the Claimant sent an e-mail to Ms Hunt, copied to Mr Waddup, alleging that Mr Masuku had made inflammatory statements against the South African Jewish community which were under consideration by the South African Human Rights Commission ('SAHRC'). He described Mr Masuku as a racist and asked Ms Hunt to clarify whether he was scheduled to attend and, if so, urging her to withdraw his invitation. 

113 Mr Waddup attempted to find out more. He found some evidence on the Engage website and at least one other website with similar sympathies, tending to support the Claimant's allegation. He was unable to ascertain from the SAHRC any information other than that the case of Mr Masuku was awaiting adjudication. Mr Waddup advised Ms Hunt that she should not respond to the Claimant's message. 

114 In fact, on 3 December 2009, SAHRC issued a 'Finding' to Mr Masuku, upholding a complaint by the South African Jewish Board of Deputies that statements made by him in February and March the same year amounted to hate speech. He was offered the option of settling the matter amicably by tendering an apology to the complainants within 14 days and notified that failing that, the matter would be referred to the relevant 'Equality Court' for final adjudication without further notice. 

115 At just after midnight on the morning of 4 December 2009 the Claimant sent a further e-mail to Ms Hunt, this time stating that the SAHRC had "unequivocally" found that statements made by Mr Masuku amounted to hate speech. He attached links to the Engage website and another with similar sympathies. 

116 COSATU issued a press statement strongly challenging the SAHRC 'Finding'. It also promised an appeal. The Respondents received a copy on 5 December, before the conference began. 

117 The conference proceeded. Mr Masuku spoke. The event was unremarkable and it was not suggested that anything improper was said or done. 

118 In the event, Mr Masuku's appeal failed: it was rejected on procedural grounds, having been presented out of time. 

119 As we have mentioned (para 71), the subject of Mr Masuku was raised at the 2010 Congress, when a motion referring to his allegedly anti-Semitic utterances and proposing that Congress dissociate itself from his "repugnant views" was put to the vote but lost.

See how the report dealt with that in paragraph 170:

The fact that Mr Masuku was alleged to have made anti-Semitic comments was certainly the context in which the question of possible revocation of Mr Masuku's invitation arose, but those alleged remarks were neither the reason, nor a reason, for the decision not to revoke the invitation. Nor was the Claimant's race or religion. We are quite satisfied that a guest of the union accused in like circumstances at the eleventh hour of hate speech allegedly directed at some other racial or religious group (or any other protected category) would have been treated exactly as Mr Masuku was. The union would have decided against the drastic measure of withdrawing the invitation at the last minute on the strength of an (apparently) strongly challenged allegation.

Now let's have a look at the bit of the report which deals with the repudiation by the UCU of the EUMC working definition of antisemitism:

Complaint (9): The rejection of the EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semitism 

134 We have already referred to Motion 70 passed at the 2011 Congress (see our findings under complaint (1) above). The motion was democratically passed in accordance with the Respondents' rules. Jewish members spoke for and against the motion.

Let's just see how this was dealt with by the Tribunal:

166   In respect of complaint (9) the Claimant again fails to make out any arguable complaint of 'unwanted' conduct against the Respondents. There was a debate, constitutionally managed by them, which culminated in the vote to reject the EUMC Working Definition. It was open to Congress to consider that motion. Its legality was not in question. The vote was valid and the outcome was the product of the union's democratic processes. The 'unwanted' conduct was that of the members who proposed and supported the motion and Congress as a whole which passed it. As we have already explained, no claim lies against the Respondents in respect of these actions. Nor was the Respondents' conduct 'related to' the Claimant's protected characteristics [my emphasis]. Nor did their conduct produce the prescribed effect upon him. Nor would it have been reasonable for it to do so. And even if the Claimant could base his complaint on the decision of Congress to pass the motion and even if that decision produced the prescribed effect on him, it would not be reasonable for it to have done so. Our comments on context and human rights in relation to complaint (1) are repeated, mutatis mutandis.

It's very strange that Sarah links the Masuku affair of 2010 to the repudiation of the EUMC working definition a year later.  They clearly have nothing to do with each other.  Is she saying that if the union adopted the working definition they wouldn't have invited Masuku?  If that's the case, she should know that if they adopted the working definition they couldn't publicly criticise Israel at all, which is the point of the working definition.

But let's look at this "protected characteristics" thing:

Protected characteristics 

150 It seems to us that a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment cannot amount to a protected characteristic. It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness and, even if it was, it could not be substituted for the pleaded characteristics, which are race and religion or belief. Accordingly, if and in so far as the Claimant seeks to base his claim on what might be termed a sub-characteristic (we are bound to say that we remain uncertain as to Mr Julius's position on this point), we find that it is not open to him to do so. A separate matter, which we will address in relation to the individual claims, is whether the treatment complained of, or any of it, was 'related to' his Jewish race or his Jewish religion or belief.

Good stuff.  Jews aren't necessarily zionists and even if they were why should that characteristic be protected?  Which leads us into the reaction of the man himself, Ronnie Fraser, which was issued via Scholars for Peace in the Middle East which I think roughly translated means academics who want Iran bombed and Palestinians ethnically cleansed, but that's just me.  Here's poor Ron:

I am naturally disappointed by the decision of the Employment Tribunal to dismiss my claim of harassment against the University and College Union (UCU).  I am however very grateful that the hearing provided us with the opportunity to raise and discuss in great detail the issues of discrimination and antisemitism which are so important to Anglo Jewry.

I believe that the many witnesses we called were able to provide evidence to the tribunal of an intolerable atmosphere over a number of years and that the UCU did nothing to stop these institutionally anti-Semitic acts taking place.

Having read the judgment there are two points which greatly concern me. The first is "a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel cannot amount to a protected  characteristic. It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness..." (para 150). For the court to say that as Jews we do not have an attachment to Israel is disappointing considering we have been yearning for Israel for 2000 years and it has been in our prayers all that time. The second point highlighted the need for Anglo-Jewry to urgently adopt and publicise its own definition of antisemitsm. 

As a member of the Board of Deputies I intend to campaign for us as a community to accept a definition of Jewishness which includes a connection with Israel and the adoption of a definition of anti-Semitism.

I would like to thank my wife, my family, my witnesses, and all those who supported my action both from within the Jewish community and elsewhere for their incredible support and understanding over the last two years.

I would also like to thank my solicitor Anthony Julius and all the staff of Mishcon De Reya for all their magnificent work and support.

Note:  The Employment Tribunal  judgment can be found here; http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2013/fraser-uni-college-union

Now Ben Cohen and Sarah Annes Brown were probably smarter pretending there were technical issues involved in the case. Ronnie Fraser is here suggesting that support for colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing and segregationist laws are part and parcel of Jewishness or the Jewish identity.  The problem there of course is that in order to protect this supposed characteristic of Jews one has to support or tolerate the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. This means that to be anti-racist you would have to be antisemitic or in order not to be antisemitic you would have to be a racist, in this instance, a zionist.

Other zionists have also attacked the substance of the report, of course, without going into any specific detail.  Dr Hirsh of Israel advocates, Engage and BICOM (Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre), on his facebook page has accused the Tribunal itself of being antisemitic:

Ronnie said that the key mode of intimidation in the UCU was this constant allegation of bad faith - the allegation that Jews who say they feel antisemitism are actually lying for Israel.

The Tribunal says that the Jews who say they feel antisemitism are actually lying for Israel.

That which Ronnie experiences as antisemitism is what the Tribunal finds to be precisely the right and courageous way to treat him.

That's a strange spin given that Ronnie Fraser was one of the few witnesses for the zionist side who the Tribunal described as sincere:

147 The Claimant impressed us as a sincere witness. 

 In fairness, they did qualify this:

Although his sincerity is not in question, his political experience showed at a number of points. He veered away from awkward questions. We were also struck by the contrast between his simple, down-to-earth style and the magnificent prose in which his written case was couched. We do not believe that it would ever occur to him to think that as a member of the Respondents he inhabits an environment of "thickening toxicity". 

 But nowhere do they suggest that he is claiming antisemitism because he is lying for Israel.  Why does Dr Hirsh believe that to be the case?

Other zionist responses were nuttier still.

Jewish former anti-zionist, David Toube, had this to say on Dr Hirsh's facebook page:

David Toube You can't win political battles by litigation. If judges think that Jews are sneaky and whining and powerful, there's no law you can pass to change that.

Ok, Toube is another one who can find antisemitism in a smoked salmon beigel but look what he says next:

Demographically Jews are a small minority. They're beset by an intense fascination, which sometimes manifests as philia and sometimes as hatred. They keep their heads down, because they correctly realise that this is a wise thing to do, and historically always has been. There is no prospect at all of the sort of frightening militancy from Jews that has achieved both respect and mistrust, when deployed by other groups. 

So what then?  And this is where Jonathan Hoffman joins the fray:

• Jonathan Hoffman "You can't win political battles by litigation" You simply don't get it. It's about racism not 'politics'. you're making the same error as the tribunal.

  26 March at 16:35
• David Toube Argue all you want about it - the point isn't what two Jews happen to think about definitions or strategy. It is irrelevant. This is NOT something that Jews can do anything about. You could have unanimity, dissent - this isn't about Jews Views. It is about Views on Jews.

  26 March at 16:36
• 
  

  Jonathan Hoffman So Jews are powerless. Good job Herzl, Weizmann and Ben Gurion didn't agree.

  26 March at 16:53 · 1
• 
  

  David Toube Like Herzl, Weizmann and Ben Gurion, I recommend that Jews who want to stand and fight against antisemitism, emigrate to Israel. Those who want to get by elsewhere, should - and usually do - keep their heads down.

So is Toube heading for the South Hebron Hills or is he keeping his head down? He calls himself Lucy Lips these days on Harry's Place and, as far as I know he still lives in London so I suppose he must be keeping his head down.  How many corporate lawyers can a small state like Israel need? We've even got too many in London.

I'm sure more zionists will rear their heads on this in the coming days and weeks.  They have two ways to go.  The "unmeritorious" claim failed on a technicality or the Tribunal was antisemitic.  Of course neither are true but this is the zionist movement we're talking about and there's still no such thing as an honest zionist.

Meanwhile, where is Anthony Julius?  And where is the mainstream media on this? So far no word from The Guardian. What's all that about?

Tribunal finds zionists guilty - Round up the usual suspects!

So, the Tribunal has finally spoken in the case of Ronnie Fraser versus the Universities and Colleges Union (UCU).

The case has involved various high profile zionists and was handled for the zionists by Anthony Julius who has form for smearing Israel's critics.

The opening shot of this "lawfare" campaign was a letter from Julius to the General Secretary of the UCU, Sally Hunt.  Here's Dr David Hirsh on Engage:

Anthony Julius, says that UCU has breached ss. 26 and 57 (3) of the Equality Act 2010:

That is to say, the UCU has “harassed” him by “engaging in unwanted conduct” relating to his Jewish identity (a “relevant protected characteristic”), the “purpose and/or effect” of which has been, and continues to be, to “violate his dignity” and/or create “an intimidating, hostile, degrading humiliating” and/or “offensive environment” for him.

The letter alleges a course of action by the union which amounts to institutional antisemitism and it gives examples: annual boycott resolutions against only Israel; the conduct of these debates; the moderating of the activist list and the penalising of anti-boycott activists; the failure to engage with people who raised concerns; the failure to address resignations; the refusal to meet the OSCE’s special represenative on antisemitism; the hosting of Bongani Masuku; the repudiation of the EUMC working definition of antisemitism.

The quote above is from a post titled, Tipping Point for UCU, which gives some indication of how important this case has been for zionists in the UK.  In fairness Hirsh can be a bit of a loose cannon but he wasn't the only supporter of Fraser in this case.

With hindsight it's surprising how confident Hirsh was in a zionist victory. Again from the same post:

What will UCU do?  There are two factions inside the decision making structures of the union.  There are the hard core antizionists and then there are the grownups.

The antizionists will storm with anger that UCU is being sued.....

The grownups in the union, including the trustees, and including the lawyers who will advise the leadership, will want to settle this court action and to make it go away.  They will be worried about the immense cost to the union of defending its antisemtic record in front of a tribunal, both in terms of money and also in terms of humiliating publicity.....

But what are Ronnie’s terms?  The reinstatement of the EUMC definition; an apology from the union for its record of institutional antisemitism; a new code of conduct concerning Jewish members; an ongoing campaign of education within the union about the relationship between antisemitism and antizionism.

It would appear that Ronnie is ready to go to a tribunal.  He must know that it will be difficult for the leadership of the union to agree to these terms.   Evidently he wants his day in court and he wants to prove his case.

The antizionists will also believe they can win in court.  And they will believe that they can blame the Zionists for the huge cost of defending their antisemitic record....They will think that it is enough to parade a couple of dozen Jewish antizionist academics before the tribunal who will say that the union has an unblemished record on the question of antisemitism.

The grownups will not believe that they can successfully defend UCU’s record on antisemitism before a tribunal and they will know that there is a good chance that UCU will be found by an antiracist tribunal to have breached our own hard-won equality legislation.......

The leadership of the union is now between a rock and a hard place.

But of course it wasn't the "anti-zionists" who paraded lots of witnesses before the court. Au contraire, it was the zionists.  Here's The Times of Israel:

Over 30 witnesses for the claimant include the Booker Prize winning novelist Howard Jacobson — who has submitted a witness statement but will not be cross-examined [I'm not surprised] — as well as Jewish community officials and numerous academics, both Jewish and non-Jewish. The seven witnesses for the respondent are all UCU officials.

One of the non-Jewish academics for the zionist plaintiff was Harry's Place's (cache: Harry's Place is down) Sarah Annes Brown.  Her role was to talk up the EUMC working definition of antisemitism:

The rejection of the EUMC working definition of antisemitism was another appalling episode, and the whole topic of the UCU’s failure to take the issue seriously emerged strongly in the cross-examination of John Mann:

On Monday, John Mann MP told the tribunal that the union had refused to accept the report of the 2006 All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism. Cross-examined by the UCU’s lawyer Antony White QC, Mr Mann said he had been “gobsmacked” when union representatives, including Ms Hunt, had refused to discuss antisemitism during a meeting in Parliament in 2006.

My own cross-examination was fairly brief, but nerve-wracking nonetheless. I was questioned about the potential conflict between free speech and the EUMC working definition of antisemitism, and about whether or not the UCU’s recent leaflet on antisemitism was adequate.  (I thought not.)

She trailed her HP post at another zionist blog, Bob from Brockley. Not a witness himself but he did complain of:

the long-harassment of one Ronnie Fraser in UCU, a trade union.

 And served notice that:

I intend to write about this, but only after the Tribunal concludes, but here in the meantime is some commentary: from Ben Cohen in Commentary, from Marcus Dysch, from the Times of Israel.

Bob from Brockley claims to be Jewish and is a member of the UCU.  In his own name he has written about why people shouldn't leave the UCU over its Palestine solidarity stance. The thing I don't understand is how come he claims the UCU is harassing Ronnie Fraser and not himself?  The same could be said of course for David Hirsh.  It's almost as if the zionists were chancing it from the beginning using poor old Ronnie Fraser as a stalking horse.

So, any other suspects involved in this?  Ah yes, the MPs.  Sarah Annes Brown already mentioned the MP, John Mann, and his ludicrous All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism.  The other one was then MP now ex MP, Denis MacShane.  Here's what the UCU's own report had to say:

John Mann MP and former MP Denis MacShane were collectively described as giving 'glib evidence, while testimony of another key witness for the claimant was described as 'extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing'.

 So much for the MPs and their All-Party Committee.  I hope other MPs take note that false allegations of antisemitism don't fare so well in a forensic environment.

Any more?  Oh of course, there's the man himself, Ronnie Fraser, the main man behind Academic Friends of Israel.  Well he certainly had his day in court.  Here's the Jewish Chronicle:

A Jewish academic repeatedly broke down in tears as he told an employment tribunal that he had suffered a decade of harassment while opposing a boycott of Israel.

Maths lecturer Ronnie Fraser, whose parents escaped Nazi Germany, said he felt a special responsibility to challenge the University and College Union after it rejected a widely-accepted definition of antisemitism.

The grandfather-of-nine wept as he took the oath at London’s Central Employment Tribunal on Wednesday. He said he had felt threatened by the union’s anti-Israel policies and a catalogue of events that had left him “hurt, upset and insulted”.

“This case is not about Israel-Palestine. It’s not about me. It’s about fellow Jews. We have been forced out. We have been humiliated. It has been horrendous and relentless against us,” he said.

Later the tribunal was briefly halted when Mr Fraser again wept while explaining how he believed his grandparents had been killed at Auschwitz.

“They died as a result of antisemitism and this is my way of saying ‘never again’. I don’t want my four children and grandchildren having to suffer what they did,” he said.

Curiously, Academic Friends of Israel has yet to report on what has been a disaster for the zionist movement in the UK.

Now I'm sure there's no shortage of prominent zionists willing to make themselves look ridiculous in the cause of fighting against Palestine solidarity and free speech on Palestine but there aren't many online admissions to what has been a miserable defeat for zionism in the UK.  At the time of writing there's nothing on Engage and Harry's Place is down, the Jewish Chronicle has nothing at the mo' but Dr Hirsh has very helpfully expressed his feelings on Facebook:

Judgment in the Fraser case is one long judicial rehearsal of the Livingstone Formulation:

"178 ... We greatly regret that the case was ever brought. At heart, it represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means... "

"179 We are also troubled by the implications of the claim. Underlying it we sense a worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance an freedom of expression..."

So the tribunal says that the witnesses who gave evidence of antisemitism were really and falsely concerned only with a political end - this was "impermissible" - they were really trying to de-legitimize criticism of Israel - those who raised antisemitism were sacrificing pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression by attempting to mobilize a bad faith allegation of antisemitism with which to silence legitimate criticism of Israel.

The tribunal has employed the Livingstone Formulation.

The "Livingstone Formulation" is what some hasbaristas claim when someone accuses them of alleging antisemitism in bad faith.

The judgement can be found here but it is an epic PDF and takes forever to load. I'll be able to update this when I've read the whole thing.

Now this landmark victory is important in principle and of course it is funny to see so many zionists having their noses rubbed in it but there is a serious side to this lawfare by zionists.  Here's Asa Winstanley in Electronic Intifada quoting Sue Blackwell:

The suit is part of a “lawfare” strategy that anti-Palestinian groups are resorting to, having effectively lost the debate around Israel boycott measures in the unions several years ago.

Sue Blackwell, a University and College Union activist and former national executive member who has been vocal in the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign, said Fraser would lose because “there is not a shred of evidence” to support his claims. Even so, “he will have caused UCU a huge headache in terms of money and resources,” she said.

Let's make sure the zionists can't make these hopeless cases into a win win situation. But to attempt a recovery the dark side may want to ditch some of the usual suspects before they try anything like this again.

Academics for Israel Part 2 - Robert Fine and the EUMC working definition

This is part II in what I am trying to make a weekly series on Israel advocates in academia.  I intend to post a link to the previous Academics for Israel post at the bottom of the latest one, but I might forget. 

I think the series is an interesting thing to do in itself because here we have people whose career commitment is to the "disinterested pursuit of truth" (or something like that) who often appear to have to bend the truth, ignore it or flagrantly misrepresent it in order to support a worldview based on prejudice rather than reality.  But also, it is quite rare for critical comments to be accepted by Israel advocacy blogs so this is a chance to make sure that comments are not wasted.

Having said that, Robert Fine is not actually a blogger himself or I am sure he would have a Normblog profile and he doesn't.

Robert Fine is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick.  He has a long standing relationship with the Engage site and like all zionist academics lately he is willing to jump through hoops for the EUMC working definition of antisemitism which has been formulated to make criticism of the State of Israel nigh on impossible. He often comes across as a nice chap but the smears he is willing to hurl at critics of Israel are as unpleasant and disingenuous as any emanating from the zionist camp.

Here he is on the Engage website "On doing the sociology of antisemitism".  The piece first appeared in the newsletter of the European Sociological Association.  It is largely a self-indulgent resumé of his academic career but I noticed his mention of the EUMC working definition of antisemitism and the way he misrepresented it. I stopped reading after that and left a comment that never made it past the moderator.

Anyway, here he is on the EUMC working definition:

The working definition on antisemitism put forward by the European Union Monitoring Commission is one attempt to deal with this issue.  According to this definition the following cases of ‘criticism’ of Israel may, depending on context, be examples of antisemitism: the nazification of Israel (e.g. when it is said that Jews treat Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews), the pathologisation of Jews (e.g. when it is said that as a result of the Holocaust Jews have become indifferent to the suffering of other peoples), the use of old antisemitic tropes (e.g. when it is said that Zionists engage in a world conspiracy to protect Israel or that Israeli forces steal the body parts of Arabs), or more simply the erasure of any distinction between state and civil society (e.g. when it is said that all Jews in Israel are responsible for the policies pursued by the government).

We may or may not agree on particular cases, but what is clear is that some forms of ‘criticism’ lean toward antisemitism more than others.  The systematic treatment of Israel as culpable by standards that are not applied equally to other states is another case in point. 

There were already two comments when I posted mine.  Here's the first from SarahAB from Harry's Place:

Sarah AB Says:
December 21, 2012 at 1:10 pm

An excellent post. Just one example of the way in which antisemitism is sometimes shown to be ‘replaced’ by Islamophobia is that UCU Holocaust wall chart.

I critiqued her own promotion of the working definition here. Most of her comment refers to something in the article that I didn't even read but her description of the piece as "excellent" says it all about both him and her. I would guess that she could and would have described the piece as excellent even if she hadn't read it.

Anyway, knowing that Engage tends to restrict comments to its own zionist faithful I didn't want to get in too deep but here goes:

levi9909 Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. [It has now been deleted altogether]
December 22, 2012 at 1:29 pm

Robert Fine’s section on the EUMC working definition is misleading and contentious.

He claims that the working definition was “put forward by the European Union Monitoring Commission”. It was actually put to them not by them. It was put to them by the American Jewish Committee who tacked on the “context” proviso as an afterthought because without it the working definition was an obvious case of preventing criticism of Israel by the bad faith allegation of antisemitism. This site shows the genealogy of this AJC document.

He rewords the “examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel” to validate the “context” proviso and yet the working definition itself lists examples which are unambiguously antisemitic regardless of context together with examples which are not so. For example, which context makes the denial of the right of Jews to self-determination and statehood antisemitic? And which context makes “holding the Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel” not antisemitic? Clearly, a state specially for Jews is a racist endeavour as surely as holding all Jews responsible for it is antisemitic.

The working definition is itself antisemitic in that it essentialises Jews as zionists, ie, people who support the idea that Jews are a case for self-determination and statehood.

You simply cannot establish a principle whereby Jews qualify for self-determination and statehood which is consistent with the right of nations to self-determination. Just consider the case of, say, France and the French state and people. The French are the people of France. The French state is their state. You can be French if you are Jewish and French if you are not Jewish. The Jews are not the people of a specific country. Israel is the state of the Jewish people, You cannot be Jewish if you are not Jewish. Ergo, a Jewish state is inherently discriminatory, ie, racist.

Robert Fine also seems to have ignored the fact that the working definition asserts that Israel is a “democratic nation” and seeks to forbid specialist campaigning against Israel even by its victims. And yet Israel is unique in that it defines itself as the state of an entire ethno-religious non-territorial identity group most of whom don’t live there and it has displaced most of the people who come from there. It also receives more aid from abroad than any other country. Demands made of Israel tend to focus on where it differs from other states, not where it is similar. I know of no other “democratic nation” whose state exist on the basis of a recent, current and on-going campaign of colonial settlement and ethnic cleansing facilitated by an array of discriminatory laws and underpinned by a self-definition as the state for an ethno-religious community.

I find it profoundly disturbing that there are so many academics putting so much energy into defending such a bogus document as the EUMC working definition.

Fine has been an advisory editor of Engage before it dispensed with the need for such advisers or editors so I don't know if he saw my comment and I don't know of any forum where the piece has appeared where I could be sure he would read it.

Robert Fine is one of many academics for Israel who are willing to cast logic and truth aside for the sake of zionism and studiously avoid any situation where they might have to answer for themselves. He is a member of the board of the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism (JSA), whose page on the JSA website reads like a who's who of islamophobia.  They are the people who organised the conference which witnessed the contrived walkout and non-walkout by various UK zionists which I wrote about just recently.

I'm not suggesting that Fine is an islamophobe but for one with such a cultivated sense of outrage over antisemitism he is none too sensitive about the islamophobic company he keeps.