The uncontroversial speech of Malia Bouattia

This is Malia Bouattia's speech that the Zios are so het up about.  Actually I think it's very good.  It simply makes the very important point that BDS in the solidarity movement and armed resistance by Palestinians aren't mutually exclusive.  The Zios are being particularly hypocritical because they denounce BDS, armed struggle and even criticism of Israel, Zionism or Zionists all as being or causing antisemitism.

But anyway here's the upload with a hat-tip to Harry's Place who I got it from:

Something rotten about allegations of antisemitism in the Oxford University Labour Club

I first caught wind of these allegations of antisemitism within the Oxford University Labour Club from Harry's Place.  I immediately suspected that the allegations were false not simply because they appeared on Harry's Place but because they have come in the wake of the OULC deciding to support Israel Apartheid Week on campus, something which, of itself, is clearly not antisemitic.

Now look at the quote in the Harry's Place post:

“Whether it be members of the Executive throwing around the term ‘Zio’ (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan) with casual abandon, senior members of the club expressing their ‘solidarity’ with Hamas and explitictly [sic] defending their tactics of indiscriminately murdering civilians, or a former Co-Chair claiming that ‘most accusations of antisemitism are just the Zionists crying wolf’, a large proportion of both OULC and the student left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews. The decision of the club to endorse a movement with a history of targetting [sic] and harassing Jewish students and inviting antisemitic speakers to campuses, despite the concerns of Jewish students, illustrates how uneven and insincere much of the active membership is”.

It all looks very strawman. Let's break it down a bit:

 members of the Executive throwing around the term ‘Zio’ (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan) with casual abandon.

The term, "Zio" is simply short for Zionist and is not confined to sites run by the Klan.

 senior members of the club expressing their ‘solidarity’ with Hamas and explitictly [sic] defending their tactics of indiscriminately murdering civilians, 

Solidarity with armed resistance to Israel whatever form it takes is not, of itself, antisemitic.Of course if attacks are indiscriminate or target civilians then that is to be condemned but the failure or refusal to do so or even to support such attacks is not of itself antisemitic.

a former Co-Chair claiming that ‘most accusations of antisemitism are just the Zionists crying wolf’ 

Most allegations of antisemitism are false and many are themselves antisemitic.

a large proportion of both OULC and the student left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews.

This isn't just vacuous, it's antisemitic as it conflates Jews, Zionists and Israel.  That of course is without noting the absence of any links, names or anything that could qualify as evidence.

Now, given the flimsy and inarticulately expressed nature of the charges I would hope for this to be a repeat of the Zionists' biggest public humiliation involving false allegations of antisemitism.  I'm referring to the Fraser v University and College Union case which had the great and the good of the Zionist movement in the UK denounced by the tribunal as a bunch of "exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars".  But whereas this latest batch of allegations hasn't gone forensic it has got more legs than the FUCU case did.  Harry's Place has run the *story* as have The Telegraph (twice*) and The Guardian. Ironically one of the Telegraph pieces was written by one of the people described as an arrogant liar by the FUCU tribunal, Jeremy Newmark.  Now that might be a good omen for the cause of truth.  The problem right now is that it is all evidence free mud slinging and the sellouts at the Labour Party have decided to take the Zio's seriously but let's just see what happens.

*Woops. three times

Diplomatic triumph as Obama authorises Iranian nuclear strike against Israel

News just in from The Guardian.  Obama is thrilled with his diplomatic triumph whereby Iran is happy to launch a nuclear strike against Israel and Netanyahu is happy because he really does have something to be unhappy about.  It looks like win-win for Obama.

More detail from Hurry up Ha'aretz's diplomatic correspondent, Sarah Hannahs Braun in Tel Aviv.  "I am happier than I have ever been in all my years as Israel's Prime Minister" said Binyamin Netanyahu (or "Bibi").  "I really have something to be unhappy about and so I cannot contain my joy."

"Well, if you're happy I'm happy" Hannahs Braun told Bibi "though I am sure I would be equally happy no matter what you were happy about even if it was a completely opposite thing."

Amnesty International guest shamelessly links to racist website!

Ben White has a book launch, or relaunch tonight at Amnesty's place in London tonight.  It starts at 6:30 pm and the address is, Amnesty International UK, 17-25 New Inn Yard, London, EC2A 3EA.  That's a little too much information because there are no more tickets available.

What I want to focus on is Ben's article in Middle East Monitor about how Israel's embassy has tried to stop the book launch taking place.

Here's Ben:

Israel's diplomatic staff in London directly contacted the human rights organisation to demand the cancellation of the event. Amnesty UK naturally refused, pointing out that their building is a space where a diverse range of activists can meet, engage and debate issues relating to social justice and the promotion of human rights.

But it wasn't just Amnesty who the Israeli Embassy pressured - they also contacted David Hearst, who has kindly agreed to chair the event. Hearst, now Editor of Middle East Eye, told me about the "dramatic" change in tone in the embassy's communications with him:

One minute [embassy official] Yiftah Curiel was professing that he would love to get some coffee or lunch with me to talk about the new website, and plying me with exclusive invitations to the Ambassador's House for a discussion with the author Ari Shavit. The next he was shocked and horrified to learn that I had agreed to chair the launch of the second edition of your book.

Now here's where it gets a little murky and I worry that Ben may have inadvertently provided ammunition to his detractors:

In correspondence to Hearst, Curiel produced a number of claims about me clearly culled from laughable propaganda sites. Hearst replied, he told me, by pointing out that "the allegation of anti-Semitism should not be used casually to smear people whose views you disagreed with." Pathetically, Curiel withdrew the invitation to the Ambassador's house.

See that "laughable propaganda sites"?  Well Ben actually linked to the real life Harry's Place site.  Don't worry, I've replaced it with a cache link.  This linking to racist sites, no matter how laughable, is an easy mistake to make when you're making a point but a man with Ben White's anti-racist credentials really should be more careful.

FUCUPs Feedback?

Well no real news from the Fraser v UCU post mortem except this comment to Hasbara Central aka Harry's Place:

amie

• −

I was at a post Fraser v UCU symposium on antisemitism last week. There was much debate whether antisemitism was best countered as a form of racism in line with UK legislation or, because the anti racism narrative has gone in a particular direction, it should best be treated as a sui generis type of predjudice and discrimination. That aside, a trade unionist well known here who campaigns for Israel and Jewish trade union links with Palestinians, opined that things were much worse these days as back in his day, it was considered shameful to be antisemitic but today it has lost its stigma and the accusee would shrug "so what".

There was a chorus of vigorous disagreement, including from me. We said the stigma was now so great that everyone would vehemently deny the accusation (Galloway would probably sue you) and it was this very denial, this lack of acknowledgement of its variegate manifestations, that was the problem.

So what to do? Do they falsely accuse Israel's opponents, critics and victims of the old antisemitism, ie racism against Jews or do they run with a new antisemitism as in simply being an opponent, critic or victim of the racist war criminals of the State of Israel?

Execrable? Moi?

Wonderful exchange at Harry's Place which of course I have to capture here because they delete their comments after a week, which means that in the medium run, they win the argument on their own site only but anyway, here's the exchange:

Harvela • 2 days ago

DA
Off topic , but I just came across this on the ever execrable
Mark Elf and Efficiency Website JSF

http://jewssansfrontieres.blog...

Are you not the least bit ashamed of the turgid BTL exchanges you participated in ?
Do you come here to gain a sense of normality so as to distance yourself from those incoherent ramblings . 

 

•

Reply

•

Share ›

• 
  
  

  Discredited Andrew  Harvela • a day ago

  • −

  
  

  "Are you not the least bit ashamed of the turgid BTL exchanges you participated in ?"

  A little bit here, but not there. Here it's mostly a curiosity about what madness they'll come up with next, there it's more serious and sober. It's like switching channels from Big Brother to Newsnight. The former is more entertaining and lighter on the brain. I suppose you could call the latter "turgid", but I prefer not to be a reverse snob.

  
  
  

   

  •

  Reply

  •

  Share ›

  
  

  
  

I could worry about "turgid" but I'm sure he only meant Newsnight not Jews sans frontieres or me. Actually I had to look up both "execrable" and "turgid".

Honing Those Four Hasbara Steps

I've mentioned this Discredited Andrew chap before.  He lurks at Harry's Place and devastates them all with casual observations that usually amount to pointing out that the premises of a given post are basically wrong or without substance.  Readers might have noticed a lengthy and detailed article by Joseph Massad on al Jazeera recently.

A nasty campaign by Zionists against Massad has been going for years now so anything he says is going to attract the ire of HP but here's a taste of Massad's article headed, The Last of the Semites:

Jewish opponents of Zionism understood the movement since its early age as one that shared the precepts of anti-Semitism in its diagnosis of what gentile Europeans called the "Jewish Question". What galled anti-Zionist Jews the most, however, was that Zionism also shared the "solution" to the Jewish Question that anti-Semites had always advocated, namely the expulsion of Jews from Europe.

Well, if you ever read HP there's no need to quote their responses.  So far I've noticed two posts on the article, the first by Sarah Annes Brown and the second by a Paul M. You can gather what both are saying from Andrew's comments beneath the second one:

Discredited Andrew • 2 days ago

So Zionist responses to Massad's article take three forms:

1) Feign outrage at some of the excesses but ignore the meat of the argument. (The Sarah AB approach.)

2) Argue that although Massad appears to be saying X (because he is acutally saying X) he is "subtly" saying "essentially" Y and saying Y is a jolly bad thing indeed. (The Elder of Ziyon/Sarka approach)

3) Attempt to dismiss it as absurd and thus irrelevant while the Ziosphere produce article after article on it. (The Paul M approach.)

Given that it's pretty flawed article, just imagine the total panic if he'd cleaned it up a bit round the edges!

Actually I agree there were flaws to the article.  Massad is discussing/asserting the confluences and antagonisms between various ideologies influencing Jews in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and further discussing where they have led us to today.  He does not however discuss the material conditions or class interests that gave rise to these various ideologies.  But getting into what an HP target actually said is a serious digression from what HP and its followers say he said.

Here's Andrew again:

Discredited Andrew  Josh S • 2 days ago

And the fourth response!

4) It's Jew hatred!

Took a while though, must be the Fraser UCU case slowly sinking in.

Yay!! Did you see that?  Bonus points for rubbing their noses in the FUCU case.

Obviously, some of Andrew's comments are responses to other comments that you don't need to read to know what they said, like this:

Discredited Andrew [replying to] Petra Marquardt-Bigman •a day ago

From Stormfront:

"I would like to point out that if the U. Columbia prof behind this article is trying to make NS look bad for having a role in Zionism"

Indeed they're pretty dumb at Stormfront, but one of them's twigged that it's an anti-Nazi piece.

Wow. Andrew doesn't mind diving into the sewers so we don't have to.  First HP then Stormfront.

There was a comment by Andrew under the Sarah Annes Brown post that earns him even more bonus points:

SarahAB Mod  Discredited Andrew • 5 hours ago

• −

Although I think you flatten the facts here, it seems undeniable that many Palestinians were uprooted from the homes where their families had lived for generations. The fact they didn't have their own state either before hand doesn't change that. Of course lots of comparable things have happened which people forget about.

1  

•

Reply

•

Share ›

• 

  
  

  Discredited Andrew  SarahAB • 4 hours ago

  
  

  True enough... Everything sucks.

  http://jewssansfrontieres.blog...

Wonderful and definitely better than me. I would have wasted time challenging her on what she meant by "flattening".  Of course, the bonus points arise for linking to Jews sans frontieres.

If you want to see the whole threads you have to hurry.  It's a curious paradox about Israel advocates that their only sign of decency is their dishonesty.  It shows that they are ashamed of themselves and well they should be.  That being the case, HP deletes its comments after a week.  Probably just as well.

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.

Crumbs from the UCU Tribunal table

There is just about nothing in the ruling in the Fraser v University and College Union case for zionists to draw comfort from.  But there was some criticism of the UCU's handling of a complaint about the appearance of Bongani Masuku at a conference on BDS and the fact that the complaint was handled by a BDS supporter, Tom Hickey.

Dr David Hirsh of BICOM and Engage and Sarah Annes Brown, of Harry's Place have both written about this, after a fashion, on the Engage website.

Here's Dr Hirsh in his "preliminary response" to the Tribunal:

The Tribunal also mentioned that it had been inappropriate to allow Tom Hickey to sit in judgment over formal claims of antisemitism.  Why?  It says (para 181) that the reason is that he is a “well-known pro-Palestinian activist”.  How insulting is it to “pro-Palestinian activists” to suggest that they are unqualified to judge what is antisemitic and what is not?  Being pro-Palestine should be one thing, being antisemitic should be quite another.  The Tribunal found itself unable to understand the distinction.  The reason why Hickey was an inappropriate judge, as the Tribunal was told, was because he was not good at making the distinction between antisemitism and criticism of Israel, not because he was ‘pro-Palestinian’.

Sarah Annes Brown picks up on the idea that

a pro-Palestinian activist was not the best person to adjudicate in a case of antisemitism.

And that

Some pro-Palestinian activists might bridle at being judged unfit to recognise racism. 

Actually I don't think most Palestine solidarity supporters even call themselves "pro-Palestinian" since being pro a whole people most of whom you can't possibly know seems a bit silly.  It reminds me of Hannah Arendt's response to Gershom Sholem's question about if she loves the Jewish people.

Anyway, let's have a look at what the Tribunal actually said about Tom Hickey.  He gets 8 mentions in the report:

100 Dr Robinson was informed that the institutional anti-Semitism allegation would be referred for consideration by the “appropriate bodies of the Union”.  When he chased the matter up, he was finally advised, on 8 August 2008, that the outstanding complaint would be considered by Mr Tom Hickey and Mr Waddup. Dr Robinson was not impressed. Mr Hickey, a member of the NEC, was also a well-known activist and campaigner on behalf of the Palestinian cause. He had proposed Motion 30 at the Congress of 2007 (see our findings under complaint (1) above). And, to state the obvious, Mr Waddup was the official responsible for the administration of the List. Dr Robinson did not feel confidence that the investigation, if in the hands of those two individuals, would be conducted impartially....

128 The second pleaded event took place on Friday 4 December 2009 at a meeting at which Mr Masuku was a speaker. Mr Jonathan Hoffman, Co-Vice Chair of the Zionist Federation, attempted to challenge Mr Masuku over the SAHRC ‘Finding’. The meeting was organised by BRICUP (British Committee for the Universities of Palestine). It was not a UCU meeting. Mr Tom Hickey (to whom we have already referred) was, as we understand it, the chairman. There was no suggestion that he was acting for, or in the name of the Respondents. The Claimant was not present. Mr Hoffman’s intervention resulted in loud booing and Mr Hickey made it clear that further contributions on the subject which he had attempted to raise would not be welcome.......

129 The third matter relied on by the Claimant arose at a one-day conference held at Brighton on 18 January 2010 entitled, “The Legacy of Hope: Anti-Semitism, the Holocaust and Resistance, Yesterday and Today”. The event marked National Holocaust Day. The conference was chaired by Ms Hunt and speakers included pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian voices. Among them was Dr Hirsh (already mentioned). He departed from the subject which he had agreed to address, and spoke instead about what he perceived as anti-Semitism within the Respondents and their predecessors, making specific allegations against a number of individuals (members and non-members) who were not present to respond and had no warning of what was going to be said about them. He alleged that the union was not concerned about anti-Semitism and was “the most complacent public institution in Britain” in that regard. Mr Hickey responded to Mr Hirsh’s remarks. He denounced them as unwarranted and false.....

181 We hope that something of benefit can be salvaged from the wreckage of this litigation for the benefit of the Respondents and all their members, including the Claimant and those who share his views. The matters explored in relation to complaint (5) illustrate the need for decision-makers to be willing to react quickly to events in order to avoid the risk of attracting legitimate criticism. It was also regrettable that Dr Robinson’s complaint was referred to Mr Hickey, a well-known pro-Palestinian activist, and that it was never resolved. If an internal rule dictated the reference to Mr Hickey, it should be amended. Procedural rules should be the servants of organisations, not their masters. The obvious aim should be to devise a means of hearing and resolving complaints in which all interested parties, particularly the complainant, can feel confident. Dr Robinson was denied that comfort........

What is clear is that the Tribunal wasn't making a point about fitness to adjudicate on antisemitism nor on the fitness for anything based on support for the Palestinian cause.  The Tribunal was making the fair comment that it wasn't fair to refer a complaint about the behaviour of supporters of one side of an argument to a prominent supporter of that argument.  It was a straight case of conflict of interest and the UCU did fall down on the job there.

However, the Tribunal did not fall down on the job.

Zionists are also making much of the fact that the Tribunal refused to attempt a definition of antisemtism:

52.....We cannot escape the gloomy thought that a definition acceptable to all interested parties may never be achieved and count ourselves fortunate that it does not fall to us to attempt to devise one. 

Now I think it should have been easy enough for them to say that antisemitism is racism against Jews but of course there are many people who are trying to redefine the word to protect Jewish racism.  The Tribunal did, however, rule on what constitutes racism against Jews, or rather what does not.  Racism is all about offending against "protected characteristics" shared by members of a given community, usually an identity defined largely by descent.

Now let's remind ourselves of what the Tribunal said about the "protected characteristics" of Jews:

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.

 It all seems so clear. So in the case of Tom Hickey, the Tribunal did not say, as the zionists are saying, that his support for the Palestinian cause rendered him unfit to decide on matters regarding antisemitism.  It was his support for one side of an argument which made him inappropriate to decide on a complaint from the other side.  And if we define antisemitism as racism against Jews, the Tribunal certainly did rule on what does not constitute antisemitism.  Perhaps the self-styled anti-racist campaign against antisemitism should work out the definition by deduction.

From the antisemitism card to the technicality card Sarah AB does Pavlov's Dog

Harry's Place keeps disappearing lately but it's up at the moment and Sarah Annes Brown was up very early this morning to misrepresent the report of the Unemployment Tribunal in the case of Fraser vs University and College Union (UCU).

Despite being deeply interested in the result of Ronnie’s Fraser’s case, I expected the ruling itself to be rather dry, with the result hinging on precedents set by case law.  While fully sharing the concerns which motivated the many other witnesses, and Ronnie himself, to pursue this case, I realized that the tribunal would have to judge it according to various quite technical criteria.

To some degree, of course, this has been the case – one very simple count against Ronnie Fraser was that several of the incidents he referred to were deemed out of time. There is also a long discussion of issues such as ‘vicarious liability’, as part of a determination as to whether UCU could be held responsible for the effects on members of actions carried out, not just by paid employees, but by, for example, the NEC.  My response to the (hugely disappointing) result would have been rather different if the ruling had limited itself to such matters.

However the later parts of the ruling went beyond these technical issues, and were less dry – and less dispassionate.  

What a bizarre way of saying that they were totally wiped out by the Tribunal.

Here's the actual judgment again just to show that it was the substantive arguments which lost the case and the technical issues came, literally, second:

(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.

Now I was up very late last night predicting that she would play the technicality card. She'd already trailed it on twitter and what else could she do? Even I am surprised at her brazenness though.

Here's what I said in my previous post:

It's not just Ben Cohen trying to make out that this was 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 also trailed (and I predicted) the Masuku affair as some kind of deal breaker proving that the UCU is antisemitic:

@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

I responded to that one here:

@sarahab_uk @flying_rodent @thethirdestate Masuku invite + EUMC repudiation nothing to do with eachother. see paras 166 + 170 #UCU #BDS
— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) March 29, 2013

Curiously she didn't try that bogus linkage in her post.  But, helpfully, she did go into some detail about what it was that got Masuku on the wrong end of hate speech procedings:

“…as we struggle to liberate Palestine from the racists, fascists and Zionists who belong to the era of their Friend Hitler! We must not apologise, every Zionist must be made to drink the bitter medicine they are feeding our brothers and sisters in Palestine. We must target them, expose them and do all that is needed to subject them to perpetual suffering until they withdraw from the land of others and stop their savage attacks on human dignity…”.

“If the offices of the Zionist Federation and that loud-mouthed Rabbi and his SABJD were in town we would have marched there. All we wanted, as we still want to target are all who represent evil and suffering, whether its companies, individuals, offices, etc. We are working on identifying them now. It’s a pity if they are in residential areas, which unfortunately will not deter us. No one must enjoy peace while supporting and promoting the suffering of others, so goes our believe and we shall enforce it to its fullest.”

It's clear that Masuku is targeting zionists here, not Jews as Jews, though he was found (or claimed) to have said in an email, "Jews are arrogant" but that was after the events complained of.

This hate speech charge may well have failed in the UK but let's just remind ourselves of what the Tribunal said about zionists seeking legal redress for offending against zionism:

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.

The plain fact is that Ronnie Fraser and Anthony Julius's case against the UCU, like Sarah AB's post at Harry's Place, was totally bogus.  The technical side like the Masuku affair is a mere figleaf for an attempt at silencing criticism of the last of the colonial settler states, the State of Israel.