The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism in Full

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” 

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to: 

1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. 

3. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews. 

4. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust). 

5. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. 

6. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. 

7. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. 

8. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. 

9. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. 

10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. 

11. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries). Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews. Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries. 

http://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf

Zionists admit to redefining antisemitism to suit themselves

Look at this in the Jewish News, which claims to be Britain's biggest Jewish Newspaper:

The Board of Deputies has said anti-Israel sentiment should be classed as anti-Semitism and called for a new European Union definition of Jew hatred to reflect it.

So opposition to an essentially racist state should now be considered antisemitic.  And yet zionists always denied this with regard to the discredited and ditched EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism.

But what's this further down the article:

The current Working Definition of Anti-Semitism was created by the EU’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) to guide law enforcement agencies, but has no legal basis.

 I've posted a comment pointing out their error:

The so-called EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism was not created by the EUMC but foisted on it by the American Jewish Committee. It was hosted on the EUMC website without comment for some time before being removed as part of a "clear out of "non-official" documents. The BBC made this clear to me in an email back in 2013. Here's a fuller quote: 

the so-called “working definition of anti-semitism” referred to in the finding and cited by the complainant was published on the website of the EU Monitoring Committee for Racism and Xenophobia in 2005. This body was replaced by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (the FRA) in 2007. A press officer at the FRA has explained that this was a discussion paper and was never adopted by the EU as a working definition, although it has been on the FRA website until recently when it was removed during a clear out of “non-official” documents. The link to the FRA site provided by the complainant in his appeal no longer works.

Of course you should run a correction.

Let's see if they run a correction.  I'm guessing they won't because zionists seem to set great store on the idea that the bogus document came from the EU itself.  Zionist university professor, Robert Fine made the false claim in his own European Sociological Association journal and another zionist academic, Ben Gidley (Bob from Brockley blog) knowingly made the same false claim in a report to the ludicrous bunch of chancers known as the All-Party Parliamentary Committee (or was it sub-committee) on "Antisemitism".

Anyway, at least the zios are now admitting to wanting to change the definition of what was anti-Jewish racism to protect Israel and its official racist ideology of Zionism and their supporters.

UPDATE: I checked at 19:20 to see if Jewish News had corrected their error and unfortunately my comment has disappeared.  I've reposted it. I thought they weren't supposed to work on the sabbath but maybe they deleted the comment before sundown.

On a roll: Lobby targets yet another anti-racist conference

Here we go.  Just when you think they can't stoop any lower the lobby manages to stoop lower.  Having got meetings cancelled in Southampton and Toulouse they now want to get a meeting called off because it treats antisemitism and islamophobia as equally nasty.  See the Jerusalem Post:

Jewish organizations worldwide expressed shock and dismay over the weekend following the announcement that the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency is planning on holding a conference that implies an equivalence between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

The first annual colloquium on fundamental rights in the EU, held by the racism watchdog organization and titled “Tolerance and respect: Preventing and combating anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim hatred in Europe,” is scheduled to be held in Brussels in early October.

It will focus on the rise of anti-Jewish sentiment and violence across the continent and the “growing evidence in many European countries, especially in the past two years, of very high rates of anti-Muslim incidents, including acts of verbal and physical violence,” according to the organizers.

Jewish community leaders in Europe and elsewhere told The Jerusalem Post that despite being largely supportive of the FRA’s work, they believed it inappropriate for it to juxtapose hate directed against Muslims with anti-Semitism as if both were one and the same.

“The challenge of combating anti-Semitism would be better served by a stand-alone colloquium fully focused on the problem,” said Eric Fusfield, the legislative affairs director of the B’nai B’rith International Center for Human Rights and Public Policy. [so why doesn't B’nai B’rith organise one?]

“Opponents of anti-Semitism have tried for years to promote greater understanding of anti-Semitism as a distinct phenomenon with unique dimensions sometimes requiring unique solutions,” he said.[I'm guessing he means they want the political persuasion of zionists to be included in the protected characteristics of Jews]

“It is true that some strategies for combating anti-Semitism may apply to other forms of intolerance as well, but the fact is that, for too long, the tendency of governments and international organizations to conflate anti-Semitism with other social illnesses has served as a means of avoiding the problem rather than addressing it head on, even as the crisis facing Jewish communities has intensified in Europe and elsewhere,” he added.

While it is “critical” to deal with discrimination against Muslims in Europe, the FRA “should have been more sensitive to the long and tragic history of anti-Semitism in Europe and kept these two issues separate, particularly in the context of the most recent anti-Jewish violence,” agreed Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham Foxman.[he's hinting that antisemitism is worse but there's more]

“These problems are totally different, the origin of both problems is very different, the only common point is that both are racism,” asserted Eli Ringer of Belgium’s FORUM der Joodse Organisaties.[heaven prevent intercommunal unity against racism!]

According to Ringer, even though the FRA is exhibiting good intentions by organizing the conference, he fears that “some might profit from such a colloquium to evade the issue of anti-Semitism.”

England’s Community Security Trust, an anti-Semitism watchdog, was likewise opposed to the format of the conference.

According to Michael Whine, CST director of government and international affairs, many European countries seek to “equate anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred in the same breath and they are not the same. Muslims are suffering in Europe, and that is being monitored, but it’s certainly not coming from the Jews, whereas many of the attacks against Jews are coming from the Muslims.” [I don't wanna do the whataboutery thing here but what about when chief rabbis addres thousands of Jews at rallies supporting Israel latest Palestinian cull?  A joint conference on antisemitism and islamophobia could discuss whether such rallies are good for intercommunal relations or not. They might also discuss whether nasty generalisations against the Muslims are helpful too.]

“The growing problem of anti-Semitism in Europe comes from Muslims and the Left and anti-Israel agitators,” he added.

In its announcement of the conference, the FRA pointed to other roots for the rise in anti-Semitism, citing a recent Pew study indicating that “incitement and hostility rooted in theological and other discourse, far-right ideologies and Holocaust denial are growing in Europe.”

“There is a heightened interest [regarding anti-Semitism], obviously influenced by the recent events in Paris and Copenhagen and so on,” Ioannis Dimitrakopoulos, the head of the FRA’s Equality and Citizens’ Rights Department, told the Post, referring to a number of recent terrorist attacks against Jews by Muslim extremists.

Research by the FRA indicates that “there is a problem which we haven’t resolved yet [and] we have to do more about it,” he said.

Asked if he thought that there was any problem with juxtaposing anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in the context of the conference, Dimitrakopoulos replied negatively.

“I don’t think so, because first of all tackling anti-Semitism is part of a wider effort to tackle prejudice and intolerance, and somebody who suffers from a hate crime and hate speech can be Jewish, can be Muslim, can be lesbian or gay, can be Roma, can be a member of minorities that live within societies in Europe,” he said.

“I think that the approach to single out each one and see how we can tackle each one has not worked out, and it’s very important to see how we can build up a common approach to this,” he said, adding that “it is very important also to note the Jewish communities are largely behind this effort.”

“Nobody is denying that there are problems between the groups [Muslims and Jews] but one needs to look at it also from a common perspective,” Dimitrakopoulos asserted.

Not everyone in the Jewish community was fully opposed to the way in which the colloquium is to be organized.[now you wouldn't know that from the headline, sub-title and first half of the article]

“The Jewish people do not have a monopoly on persecution,” remarked Rabbi Marc Schneier, president of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, which sponsors Jewish- Muslim interfaith events on the continent.

“This is an opportunity for Jews and Muslims to recognize that we share both a common faith and a common fate.

Yet, the Fundamental Rights Commission of the EU must acknowledge that a contributing force to growing European anti-Semitism are elements of the Muslim community.”[it might also note that western and Jewish communal leadership support from Israel is a manifestation of and a cause of both islamophia and antisemitism]

Maurice Cohen, the chairman of the Jewish Representative Council of Ireland, was likewise rather sanguine about the conference.

“As Irish people, we are all too aware of how sectarian and religious intolerance has affected relations between Catholic and Protestant traditions in Ireland, and therefore we welcome any and all initiatives by the EU or anyone seeking to examine and highlight the futility and destructive nature of intolerance and xenophobia within societies,” he said.

“Time and perhaps the conclusions of the colloquium will tell how effective this initiative will have been and whether or not it was correct to examine both anti-Semitism together with anti-Muslim hatred,” he said.[wow there's an innovation the zionists might try, ie. see what the conference actually says and concludes and take it from there]

“As a small Jewish community in Ireland, we have experienced differing degrees of intolerance over the years. It should be pointed out, however, that this has been very infrequent and not anything like that experienced by Jewish communities on the continent,” he added.

“We have excellent relations with the Muslim community here in Ireland and they have informed us that they too experience varying forms of prejudice and intolerance against their community,” he concluded.

The FRA had previously drawn Jewish ire after it removed a working definition of anti-Semitism from its website in 2013.[aha, the good old working definition which zionists all over the net are now saying is simply a common sense consideration of context before loosing off about antisemitism.  It's nothing of the kind of course but some people will say anything to defend Israel and silence its critics]

So there we have it.  There are major Jewish organisations telling anyone who cares to listen that racism against Jews and Muslims cannot be dealt with at the same time because whilst no Jews can ever be accused of racism, the Muslims most definitely can.

Disgraced former MP Denis MacShane's Islamist Lobby Thesis

I've just seen from this Electronic Intifada post by Ben White that shamed former MP, Denis MacShameless has joined the zionist cacophony over the EU Fundamental Rights Agency's ditching of the so-called Working Definition of Antisemitism.  Here's MacShameless:

EU Fundamental Rights Agency drops anti-semitism definition from its website after pressure from Islamists and anti-semitism denial lobby
— Denis MacShane (@DenisMacShane) November 3, 2013

This is interesting because I remember the BBC Trust writing the following explanation to me:

the so-called “working definition of anti-semitism” referred to in the finding and cited by the complainant was published on the website of the EU Monitoring Committee for Racism and Xenophobia in 2005. This body was replaced by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (the FRA) in 2007. A press officer at the FRA has explained that this was a discussion paper and was never adopted by the EU as a working definition, although it has been on the FRA website until recently when it was removed during a clear out of “non-official” documents. The link to the FRA site provided by the complainant in his appeal no longer works.

So is the discredited former MP saying that the FRA spokesperson is lying?  I think we should be told but I'm guessing we won't be.  I know what I'll do, I'll ask MacShameless for his evidence.  Don't bother watching this space because, unless he's drunk, he won't answer.

Wiesenthal Centre hunts for the dodgy definition

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre (SWC) has just discovered that the bogus definition of antisemitism produced by its kindred spirits at the American Jewish Committee has gone missing from the European Union's Fundamental Rights Agency's website.

In a letter to European Union Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Catherine Ashton of Upholland (pictured), the Simon Wiesenthal Centre’s Director for International Relations, Dr. Shimon Samuels, expressed shock, “To read on ‘Electronic Intifada’ website that the European Union’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) – now renamed the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) – 2004 ‘Working Definition of Anti-Semitism’ has been removed from the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) website.”

Zionists are right to be concerned about the ditching of their misdefinition of antisemitism because it is clearly aimed at insulating the State of Israel from criticism, in particular anti-zionist criticism.  Here's a reminder of its examples of how antisemitism manifests itself with regard to The State of Israel after taking "overall context" into account:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, for example by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (for example claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.

• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

The EUMC Definition goes on to state that criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

Now, I don't know when the bogus definition was removed from the FRA's website but I discovered by way of a complaint I made to the BBC Trust which had misrepresented the working definition as being the EU's.  The BBC Trust wrote to me saying that they had amended a decision they had published so as to not be saying that the working definition was the EU's but that a complainant had said that it was.  The SWC has morphed the amendment into a reversal of the decision:

The letter noted, “The BBC Trust, in addressing a complaint, had upheld the definition, in characterizing as anti-Semitic, a broadcaster’s critique of comments on Israel made by a Member of the UK Parliament. The Trust has now, apparently, reversed its ruling following the Definition’s removal

Now that is plain wrong.  The complaint the BBC Trust dealt with was upheld.  The report was simply amended, that's all.

They do manage to get a quote from the BBC Trust's letter to me right:

A press officer at the FRA has explained that this was a discussion paper and was never adopted by the EU as a working definition, although it has been on the FRA website until recently when it was removed during a clear-out of non-official documents. The link to the FRA site provided by the complainant in his appeal no longer works.

Then it starts getting a bit weird:

 Samuels argued that:

—  the EUMC carried the name 'European Union' in its title and all its published decisions are therefore official documents of the EU
— the FRA, as the successor to the EUMC, carries responsibility for the documents of its predecessor as part of its DNA”

The bogus definition of antisemitism was said by the press officer to be a discussion paper.  The SWC even reports this correctly.  So how did it morph in the same report from a "discussion paper" to a "decision"?

And weirder still:

The Centre therefore called on EU Baroness Ashton to:
— launch an investigation into the disappearance of the Working Definition and the coincidental change in the FRA website address
— return this important document to the current FRA website
— ensure that the appropriate EU bodies endorse the Working Definition in its entirety

Now it might well be of interest to know who was responsible for the removal of the dodgy definition but surely it would be of more interest to know how and why it got onto the website in the first place since it was described as a "discussion document" but with no facility for discussion nor report of any discussions.

But then we see a clue as to its provenance:

Samuels recalled the “… hard work in negotiating the document and the delay in its publication. Nevertheless, its acceptance and dissemination represented an achievement for the EU in the struggle against anti-Semitism. Indeed, its removal is even more disconcerting just as the FRA is about to issue a further study of the worrying rise in anti-Jewish attacks across Europe.”

So who conducted these negotiations?  What were their negotiating positions? I was going to link to a web page that showed clearly the genealogy of the bogus definition, in particular the insertion of the "overall context" proviso which may well have been the result of negotiations to make sure the bogus definition wasn't too obviously aimed at protecting Israel but access is now "forbidden".  No surprise there...

I first saw the SWC complaint on Tony Greenstein's blog.

EU's Fundamental Rights Agency Disappears Bogus Working Definition of Antisemitism

For a long time the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) hosted on its website a zionist drafted so-called working definition of antisemitism.  It's successor organisation, the EU's Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), continued hosting the dodgy definition leading to much confusion about its status with the EU in spite of objections that the working definition appeared to be designed to prevent serious criticism of The State of Israel.

Well now see this extract from a BBC Trust email reply to me when I pointed out an error of theirs in referring to the working definition as the "EU's":

the so-called “working definition of anti-semitism” referred to in the finding and cited by the complainant was published on the website of the EU Monitoring Committee for Racism and Xenophobia in 2005. This body was replaced by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (the FRA) in 2007. A press officer at the FRA has explained that this was a discussion paper and was never adopted by the EU as a working definition, although it has been on the FRA website until recently when it was removed during a clear out of “non-official” documents. The link to the FRA site provided by the complainant in his appeal no longer works.

It would be interesting to know what was discussed about this "discussion paper" because a mere glance exposes it as a hasbara document but it is good news to know that the FRA has finally ditched it as being a ""non-official" document".

BBC Trust promotes then demotes (almost) the Working Definition of Antisemitism

I noticed this a long time ago on the Engage website.  Someone made a complaint to the BBC Trust about something about the Lib Dem MP, David Ward.  It doesn't really matter what it was but it became a part of the drip-drip way in which zionists are trying to have their bogus so-called Working Definition of Antisemitism gaining general acceptance.

Here's a part of the BBC Trust's ruling as per the Engage post:

The Committee noted also the European Union’s working definition of anti-Semitism, which states that “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel” was a manifestation of anti-Semitism. [emphasis added]

Well I wasn't having that so I wrote to the BBC Trust as follows:

Dear Sir/Madam

I have just read the above complaint and the complaint and the decision contain an error of fact relating to what they both refer to as "the EU's working definition of anti-Semitism".

The European Union does not have a working or any other definition of antisemitism.  The Editorial Standards Committee appears to have assumed that the "working definition of ant-Semitism" is the EU's simply because the complainant said it is.

The problem here is that the so-called "working definition" has other elements that are at best controversial and appear to be designed to insulate The State of Israel from criticism.

I have no objection to the rest of the content of the decision but it accords to the "working definition" a formal status which it does not have.

In light of the above I think you should correct the decision and rely on standard definitions of racism in general rather than this special definition of antisemitism in particular.

I should also be grateful if you could direct me to the source the Committee used to peruse the "working definition of anti-Semitism" if indeed it was not simply the complainant's own assertion.

Many thanks,

Yours faithfully

Mark Elf

 Eventually I got a reply and here's an extract:

In light of your comments and our subsequent enquiries into this matter we propose to amend the published decision to make it clearer that the Committee noted an assertion put forward by the complainant.

By way of background, the so-called “working definition of anti-semitism” referred to in the finding and cited by the complainant was published on the website of the EU Monitoring Committee for Racism and Xenophobia in 2005. This body was replaced by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (the FRA) in 2007. A press officer at the FRA has explained that this was a discussion paper and was never adopted by the EU as a working definition, although it has been on the FRA website until recently when it was removed during a clear out of “non-official” documents. The link to the FRA site provided by the complainant in his appeal no longer works.

....

We propose to make the following amendment to the finding (changes shown in red):

The Committee noted also the complainant’s argument that the European Union’s working definition of anti-Semitism, which states that “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel” was a manifestation of anti-Semitism.

We will add the following footnote to this amendment:

The Committee further notes, however, that the definition relied upon by the complainant, which was previously available on the website of the EU Monitoring Committee for Racism and Xenophobia, has recently been removed by its successor, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights.

So the BBC Trust appears to have relied on the mere assertion of the complainant that the EU had a working definition of antisemitism which it didn't.  Not only that, it's amendment to the original ruling doesn't really clarify the position.  It does not make clear to the general public that the EU doesn't have a working definition of antisemitism, simply that it doesn't host it on its website anymore.

I did press them to further clarify the position on the website but they refused.  Ah well, little acorns....

Denis MacShameless: Working Definition of Chutzpah!

Disgraced former Member of the UK Parliament, Denis MacShane was a witness for Ronnie Fraser in the FUCU case.  He was still an MP at the time.  Here's what the Employment Tribunal judgment says of his (and John Mann MP's) evidence:

We did not derive assistance from the two Members of Parliament who appeared before us. Both gave glib evidence, appearing supremely confident of the rightness of their positions. For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand).....Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking.

This was published on 22 March and since then I have been looking out for members of the motley crew around Ronnie Fraser to pop their heads above the parapet to explain away their shame.

Now MacShameless has a self-serving piece in Ha'aretz misrepresenting almost every aspect of the judgment:

I sought to make sense of the recent ruling on Ronnie Fraser, the college lecturer who sought to persuade an English legal tribunal that the ban decreed by his union against contact with fellow Jews in Israeli colleges and universities was anti-Semitic in its politics.

That's just from the intro but it gives you a taste of what's to come.  The judgment is remarkably straightforward and the language is perfectly accessible.  To imply that one has to struggle to make sense of it is itself a lie.

And here's  another taste since it takes him so long to get to the point:

To read in full the banal, contemptuous dismissal of Ronnie Fraser's efforts to show that a one-sided ban on contacts with Jewish academics in Israel, decreed by the U.K.’s University and College Union (of lecturers), was an assault on his existence as a Jew, was a miserable experience.

That might explain why he hasn't linked to the judgment itself.

Of course, trying to use an employment tribunal as a means to take on institutional anti-Semitism was always a risk......[an "epic folly" even]

To Ronnie Fraser's brave legal team I expressed my concern that employment law judges were not people who were intellectually equipped to deal with the UCU's action against Jews in the U.K. and in Israel. But they believed that the law exists to protect the individual against a powerful, wealthy organization like a trade union.

Now that is interesting.  Not the ludicrous notion that a zionist lawyer cares about the powerless against the powerful.  The bit where he claims he warned Fraser's legal team of a possible disaster.  I know he can deny that that is what he is saying, but that is certainly what he is implying.

The ugliness of the tribunal findings beggars belief. The European Union's definition of anti-Semitism is dismissed. The work of the House of Commons Committee of Inquiry into anti-Semitism that I chaired – which forced a change in government policy to acknowledge anti-Semitic attacks - is rubbished. The efforts of Fraser to use the law are openly insulted. The view of an important public Commission of Inquiry into the 1993 racist murder of a black youth, Stephen Lawrence, which stated that the police are obliged to investigate crimes that the victim of discrimination or attacks believes to be motivated by racial or religious hatred, is thrown away.

The European Union doesn't have a definition of antisemitism to dismiss.  He is of course referring to the what's commonly known as the EUMC working definition and it wasn't dismissed, it was discussed:

52....As we have mentioned (and will more fully explain in due course), the Claimant bases his case in part on the rejection by the Respondents’ Congress (in 2011) of the ‘Working Definition’ of anti-Semitism produced by what was then the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (referred to above and below as the EUMC). He was content with that definition. Others disagreed, regarding it as exposing critics of Israel to the unfair accusation of anti-Semitic conduct. They pointed to the fact that the definition might be read as branding attacks on Zionism as anti-Semitic and precluding criticism of Israel save where ‘similar’ to that levelled against any other country

The working definition is also touched on, though not in name, in paragraph 47 referring to an earlier case:

Unlike the instant case, the racial basis for the charges was not said to be Jewishness but Israeli nationality. The Sheriff dismissed the charges, holding that the prosecution must be content with a charge of breach of the peace (to which there was no apparent answer). On the subject of freedom of expression, he remarked (para 46):

And if persons on a public march designed to protest against and publicise alleged crimes committed by a State and its army are afraid to name that State for fear of being charged with racially aggravated behaviour, it would render worthless their Article 10(1) rights. Presumably their placards would have to read, “Genocide in an unspecified part of the Middle East”; “Boycott an unspecified State in the Middle East”, etc.

The judgment didn't simply rubbish the rubbishy All Party Parliamentary Inquiry Into Anti-Semitism, it exposed it as utterly bogus, especially in its treatment of the UCU:

157 Complaint (2) is also devoid of any merit. The Respondents defended themselves courteously but robustly against treatment by the Parliamentary Committee the fairness of which was, to put it at its very lowest, open to question.

Regarding the Stephen Lawrence Report, zionists have been misrepresenting one feature of it which is that victims of an offence are entitled to be taken seriously if they believe the offence against them to have been motivated by racism.  Zionists have been trying to make out since publication of what is more commonly known as the MacPherson Report that this means that representatives of minority groups are entitled arbitrarily to define what they believe to be racism against their community, period.  It's ludicrous and it trivialises a real issue for black and other minority communities in their dealings with various institutions.  But what did the judgment say again about MacShane and MacPherson?

For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand)

You can say that again! Oh, I did say that again.

Of course there will be some Jewish legal experts in London who insist the case should not have been fought.

Hindsight's a wonderful thing. My guess is that MacShane read the withering criticisms of Adam Wagner and Jonathan Goldberg QC.  Also, he comes close to contradicting his earlier warning to the "Fraser's brave legal team". Thinking about that again, when he warned the legal team, he cannot simply have meant that this could go either way because any adversarial case could, in theory, go either way.  Ach, why even consider it? We've only MacShane's word for what he did or didn't say anyway.

Ok, that wraps it up I suppose.  Let's just see how MacShane is signed off:

Denis MacShane (@DenisMacShane ) is Britain’s former Minister for Europe and author of ‘Globalising Hatred: the New Antisemitism’ (Weidenfeld, 2008).

No mention of his being an Ex-MP.  Do they know he is an Ex-MP?  Do they know why he is an Ex-MP?  Dishonesty is the answer to that.

The Future or Maybe the Past of a Rotten Definition of Antisemitism

This article was first written and posted by my co-blogger, Gabriel Ash, back on 26 July 2009.  It's wonderfully prophetic except the attempt to work a bogus definition into the law may have suffered a fatal setback.  Now read on......

---

I have written at length about the excessively broad way in which the term 'antisemitism' is used, for example here. And a lot more on the subject and the much idiocy surrounding it can be found here on JSF through the tag cloud or the search function to the right. But this takes the cake. Hat tip to the post below for leading me to it.

From the REPORT OF THE ALL-PARTY PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY INTO ANTISEMITISM of 2006:

We take into account the view expressed in the Macpherson report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry that a racist act is defined by its victim. It is not acceptable for an individual to say ‘I am not a racist’ if his or her words or acts are perceived to be racist. We conclude that it is the Jewish community itself that is best qualified to determine what does and does not constitute antisemitism.

This paragraph is a fine example of spinning valid ideas and torturing them until they confess to unwarranted conclusions that serve sinister interests. The cited Macpherson report of 1999 examined institutional racism in the context of police investigations and policing in communities of color. The report, quite contrary to the poor reading above, did not identify racism as whatever the victim imagines. It cited plenty of hard objective evidence. For example:

One universal area of complaint was to do with the use of police powers of 'stop and search'. Statistics for 1997/98 showed that "black people were, on average, five times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than white people. The use of these powers for Asians and other ethnic groups varied widely." Black people are also "more likely to be arrested than white or other ethnic groups". The Inquiry concluded that ' It is pointless for the police service to try to justify the disparity in these figures purely or mainly in terms of the other factors which are identified. The majority of police officers who testified before us accepted that an element of the disparity was the result of discrimination. (A Summary of The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (Cm 4262-I))

Only in this established factual context of disempowered communities policed in a manner that is obviously and indisputably discriminatory, the inquiry recommended that the police define as 'racist incident...any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person'. The report did not therefore define racism as whatever an alleged victim of racism believes. On the contrary, the report provided an objective definition of institutional racism that our antisemitism obsessed friends chose to ignore. However, faced with evidence of widespread, objective racism and clear evidence that police officers were unaware of their own prejudices, the report recommended that the perception of the victims be taken seriously (because hard evidence suggested that it was not) and an investigation of racism be conducted based on the claim of the victim rather than the perception of the officer. It does not follow that the perception of the victim alone should be sufficient for actually labeling behavior as racist. Classifying an incident as a prima facie 'racist incident' does not establish racism just as classifying a police investigation as a 'murder case' does not establish that a murder actually occurred.

The Macpherson report recommendation cited above is sound. It analyzes racism in the context of marginalized communities. In this context, the view and perception of members of those communities are systematically discounted. It is obvious that people who are subject to abuse have better understanding of that abuse than others; their opinion ought to count. That it doesn't is itself an aspect of racism and also an obstacle to overcoming it. Forcing authorities to take these perceptions seriously is therefore one tool in fighting racism. We should have a strong presumption that people whose perceptions of their own conditions are systematically discounted are victims of racism, and therefore, we should have a presumption in favor of the likely validity of these perceptions. However, it is not the perception that validates itself, but the objective evidence, including the evidence that the perspective of the victim is systematically discounted that creates the strong presumption in favor of it. Thus, the reason we need to pay more attention to what people of color think about racism is not the mere fact that people of color claim they are victims of racism but because there is solid evidence that they are and that ignoring their experience and perception is a salient aspect of it.

The easiest way to dispatch the ridiculous "racism is whatever feels to me like racism" interpretation of the Macpherson report is to generalize it. There are plenty of high earning tax payers who consider high taxes discriminatory. In their perception, they are victims. Are rich taxpayers in the best position to decide what constitute unfair taxation? They are plenty of men who think having to ascertain that a woman really wants to have sex with them is an unfair burden put on their frail male shoulders. In their mind, they are victims. Should men be the judges of what is a fair or unfair burden regarding sexual consent? There are plenty of self-described "nordic" people in the U.S. who feel federal policies such as Affirmative Action are unfair and discriminate against them. Are white supremacists "in the best position" to define what constitutes racism against white people? Closer to home, in our beloved Israel, there are plenty of Jews who believe that it is discriminatory against them that Arabs don't serve in the army and don't pay taxes on houses built without (unobtainable) permits. Should we really conclude that in Israel there is systematic institutional racism against Jews? These examples can be generalized in the following way: having one's expectation of privilege unmet is often experienced by the subject as discrimination. The superficial similarity of affect between the experience of suffering an abuse of a right and that of suffering a non validation of an unearned privilege does not of course warrant equal treatment for both; those whose rights have been trampled need to be defended whereas those whose unearned privilege has not been fully validated need to be educated.

In the case of the British Jewish community and antisemitism, there is no evidence that Jews are socially and politically marginalized in any way. There is no evidence of systemic discrimination by any state authority, and no evidence that the perceptions of Jews are systematically ignored by authorities. If at all, there is more evidence that the opinions of "the Jewish community" (a suspect concept to begin with) are taken way too seriously by public authorities. What other community can marshal so msny public inquiries and hearings on the basis of so little actual harm to its members? Sure, since antisemitism is directed at Jews, Jews have a more intimate experience of antisemitism than non-Jews. Their opinion thus warrants special consideration. But all the evidence suggests that the opinion of Jews is already given all the consideration that is warranted and then some. The appropriate level of special consideration should not include the discretion to define antisemitism in an unreasonable way for an illegitimate purpose.

That brings us to the next paragraph of that pathetic document. After telling us that the professional representatives of the Jewish community should be left to define antisemitism in whatever unreasonable way they wish, the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry proceeds to prove exactly why this level of discretion is unwarranted by providing a clearly unreasonable definition of antisemitism.

Broadly, it is our view that any remark, insult or act the purpose or effect of which is to violate a Jewish person’s dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him is antisemitic.

Writing a good definition can often be hard, but there is a level of sloppiness that one does not expect from paid public servants with a degree in Law or two. According to the aforementioned definition, if I call Alan Dershowitz a douchebag (as I am happy to do), that is antisemitic because he is Jewish. Of course, it would be very different if I were to call Dershowitz a stinking crooked-nosed money-lending International Jew (to be clear, I don't; douchebag is fine, really). But the definition does not make this elementary distinction. This cannot be a mere oversight, as the report goes on to claim that the provided definition is based on an established legal model, and

...reflects the definition of harassment under the Race Relations Act 1976.

Let us examine this claim: The relevant paragraph from that act reads (3A):

1. A person subjects another to harassment in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision referred to in section 1(1B)where, on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins, he engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of-

• (a)  violating that other person’s dignity, or
• (b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him. (UK Government)

Our drafters are somewhat cavalier with the truth. Their definition indeed "reflects the definition of harassment...." like a broken, scratched and foggy mirror. First, the whole matter of actual harassment, that is the question of relations of power and discrimination, which is the very core of the Race Relations Act, has been eliminated altogether. Then, so was the crucial phrase "on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins." Namely the drafters chose to broaden the definition of antisemitism by taking the legal definition of harassment from the Race Relations Act of 1976 and extending it to acts, insults, and even remarks that occur outside of any context in which harassment or discrimination can take place, and by extending it to such instances in which the "victimized" person merely happens to be Jewish even if the incident is not motivated by it in any way.

Sloppy? It stretches credulity. The drafters knowingly dropped specific language in order to define antisemitism as any instance of saying something nasty about a person who happens to be Jewish, regardless of whether this involves any discrimination or denial of rights or even any connection to the recipient's Jewishness.  The Race Relations Act and the Macpherson Report are both mentioned in order to create a false semblance of similarity to issues of racism facing communities of people of color. But these texts had to be gutted and mauled precisely because the agenda of the campaign against antisemitism is not to defend Jews from discrimination but to defend the unearned privilege that is accorded to (some) Jews in the West as a result of the role Israel plays within the global structures of imperialism. These sloppy definitions and their proliferation in official documents are both an example of the operation of this privilege and a strategy of expanding it by delegitimizing public challenges to some of the ideological beliefs favored by the representatives of Western Jewish communities, most notably the defense of Israeli apartheid.

Why go at length debunking a relatively unimportant paragraph in a three year old report? Note the MO. The All Parliamentary Inquiry did not actually use its own ridiculous definition in its own report. It knew better. For example, in paragraph 59, the report says "The Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations...accept that when a Jew is attacked or a Jewish building is vandalised, this should not automatically be classed as an act of antisemitism." Nevertheless, the definition is there for a reason. This year, we find it quoted as if it were an authority of antisemitism by the recent EISCA report. (The same happened to the no less sloppy definition of the EUMC.) In this manner what started life as a trivial piece of bad writing slowly becomes received wisdom. Soon enough, someone will suggest writing this language into the law, citing all these previous citations as evidence of authorial weight and public consensus.

---

UPDATE from Levi9909: Maybe not after they read the judgment in the case of Fraser v University of College Union:

Complaint (2): The Respondents’ response to the report of the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism

77 The Inquiry was commissioned by Mr John Mann MP, Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism, and a witness before us. A cross-party committee of MPs (‘the Committee’) chaired by the Rt Hon Dr Denis MacShane, also a witness before us, was appointed and began work in 2005. It reported in September 2006.

148....We did not derive assistance from the two Members of Parliament who appeared before us. Both gave glib evidence, appearing supremely confident of the rightness of their positions. For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand). Mr Mann could manage without even that assistance. He told us that the leaders of the Respondents were at fault for the way in which they conducted debates but did not enlighten us as to what they were doing wrong or what they should be doing differently. He did not claim ever to have witnessed any Congress or other UCU meeting. And when it came to antiSemitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is …” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us.

 Now Denis MacShane is no longer an MP but he and John Mann MP were the charlatans who pulled this All Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism together.  Hopefully it will go the way of MacShane and the Fraser case.

Calling Israel an apartheid state not antisemitic but probably too polite

Here's another interesting thing that came out of the Fraser v UCU Employment Tribunal Judgment.  The tribunal clearly rejected, maybe ten times, the idea that support for the Palestinian cause or BDS amounted to racism against Jews but they avoided ruling on what constitutes antisemitism.

Here's what they said about that little difficulty:

For some sympathetic to Israel, what is seen as disproportionate or excessive attention to the Israel/Palestine conflict may constitute or evidence anti-Semitism, conscious or unconscious. For others, the determining factor is the tone or content of the language used, in particular where what are seen as anti-Semitic tropes are employed. Many sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, while not excluding the possibility that some criticism of Israel may be actuated by anti-Jewish prejudice, complain that the charge of anti-Semitism is largely raised as a device to distract attention from injustices (as they see them) perpetrated in the name of Israel.  Among the vast field of witnesses on the Claimant’s side, there was an interesting spread of opinions on where the line is, or should be, drawn. So, to take one of many examples, Mr Whine of the Community Security Trust, an organisation which provides security, training and advice for British Jews, did not consider that comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa were inherently antiSemitic, whereas the Claimant did. 

See that last bit?

Mr Whine of the Community Security Trust, an organisation which provides security, training and advice for British Jews, did not consider that comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa were inherently antiSemitic, whereas the Claimant did. 

And yet when a bunch of BICOM speakers engaged in a debate at Birmingham University participants weren't even allowed to ask if Israel is an apartheid state let alone answer in the affirmative.

At the time, Ben White explained why the A-word was banned:

Further crucial context is the adoption by the Birmingham student union in 2010 of the notoriously politicised and discredited ‘EUMC working definition of antisemitism’. This 2005 document, left to gather dust by the EUMC’s successor body the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), has been ably critiqued by Richard Kuper here, here, and here, and also by Antony Lerman here.

But now someone from the self-appointed defenders of the UK Jewish community against antisemitism have said that calling Israel an apartheid state isn't antisemitic.  So what was the problem?  In fairness, apartheid in South Africa meant white minority rule over the black majority whereas Jews are currently a majority in Israel.  Of course that majority is owed to ethnic cleansing which had been on-going for several decades now.

I don't suppose the CST's Michael Whine was being polite to Israel.  I think he may have taken stock of those zionist witnesses around him and decided they were so obviously lacking in integrity he didn't want to sacrifice his own reputation.

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.

Proud to be ashamed to be associated with islamophobes or ashamed to be proud?

There's something very strange about what the Jewish Chronicle is calling "Walk-outs over ‘Islamophobia’ at antisemitism symposium":

A seminar meant to highlight problems in dealing with antisemitism ran into trouble when audience members walked out — alleging Islamophobia on the part of some speakers.

At the forefront were leaders of the Community Security Trust, who challenged remarks made by the Egyptian writer Bat Ye’or, and Dr Manfred Gerstenfeld, a founding member of the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism, which sponsored the seminar, held at London’s Wiener Library.

Bat Ye’or told the audience: “The source of antisemitism is the organisation of the Islamic corporation.”

But when Dave Rich, the CST’s deputy communications director, expressed concern that such a comment could be construed as Islamophobic, she responded: “Islam is denying the root of Judaism and Christianity with a profound belief in Jihad.”

David Hirsh, editor of anti-racist website Engage, left the room during Dr Gerstenfeld’s lecture.

He explained: “I was appalled by Gerstenfeld’s characterisation of Muslim culture as inferior. Nearly all the speakers on the day, including me, stressed that antisemitism must be understood and opposed within an anti-racist framework.

And yet the walker outers can't have been surprised from what they heard.  Antony Lerman blogged about the sheer dodginess of the symposium by way of a brief survey of some of those in attendance:

the symposium kicks off with a panel on ‘Defining the new antisemitism’, chaired by Kenneth Marcus. The panellists are Bat Ye’or, Richard Landes and Winston Pickett.

Marcus heads the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which was founded in late 2011 and took over where YIISA left off when it was closed down. YIISA’s director, Charles Small is on the advisory board, the honorary chairman of which is Professor Irwin Cotler, former Canadian justice minister, who has probably done more than anyone else to promote the idea of the ‘new antisemitism’. Other like-minded board members, who were also YIISA supporters, include Professor Dina Porat, Professor Ruth Wisse and Professor Alvin H. Rosenfeld.

The three panellists will find much to agree on. For decades Bat Ye’or has been banging the drum about the ‘Muslim hordes’ who were about to take over Europe. Rather generously referred to as a ‘self-taught Jewish intellectual’, she now believes that Europe is dead, and in its stead ‘Eurabia’ has risen. Richard Landes, director and co-founder of the Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University, told the Herzliya IDC conference in 2007:

European democratic civilization can fall before the Islamic challenge. Do not say that this will never happen in Europe and that Islam will not be able to take control of Europe.

If Europe continues its current path, the fall will be sooner.

Winston Pickett was the director of the now non-functioning EISCA. He lavishes unreserved praise on Professor Robert Wistrich for his huge tome, Antisemitism From Antiquity to the Global Jihad, a book that, as its title suggests, sets out to justify the notion of the ‘new antisemitism’.

He also notes the funding sources for the event:

 The individuals funding the event are Daniel Pipes, Mitch Knisbacher and Jeff and Evy Diamond. Pipes, the president of the right-wing Middle East Forum (MEF), is widely described as an ‘Islamophobe’. In 2009 his MEF established a legal defence fund for the far-right, populist, Islamophobic Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Pipes reportedly claimed that President Obama is a former Muslim who ‘practised Islam’. Knisbach, who is the founder and owner of 800response (America’s leading provider of shared-use 800-number services), is active in the right-wing Israel lobby AIPAC and funds Tazpit News Agency, a service set up primarily to popularize a positive view of settlement activity in the West Bank. Jeff Diamond, who heads the Jeff Diamond Law Firm, which has six offices in New Mexico and Texas, was installed in January as chair of the New Mexico Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Board of Directors.

And here's the bit I just don't get.  Mark Gardner, David Hirsh and Dave Rich must have known about the other speakers because they were listed in the information blurb for the event.  How offended can they really have been when they only heard what they must have expected to hear? Are they proud to be ashamed to be associated with a ragbag of zionist islamophobes?  Or they are ashamed to be proud of the association?

UPDATE: 07:38 9/12/2012 Woops! Something I forgot to mention from the JC article.  The bottom line of the JC piece really does speak to the bottom line of what the symposium was all about:
At the end of the event, the former Labour MP, Denis MacShane, was given an award for his work in fighting antisemitism. Yup, that Denis MacShane.  No walkouts on him reported.  There's a certain consistency to that inconsistency.