Another day another bogus conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism

This time it's Dr David Hirsh in the Jewish Chronicle.  Dr Hirsh always used to deny being a Zionist but I never did work out how he differs from one nor do I recall him ever setting out a definition of Zionism that excluded himself.  But here he is on the Jewish Chronicle website happily denouncing anti-Zionism or opposition to Israel as being antisemitic, not simply leading to antisemitism which used to be his schtick:

Hostility to Israel is partly caused by antisemitism and is also itself a cause of further antisemitism.

Oh look, "partly".  So "Hostility to Israel is partly caused by antisemitism".  Only partly?  So what about the other parts of hostility to Israel?  Might they be caused by Israel's existence as a racist state based on colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing, segregationist laws and relentless violence towards non-Jewish natives and neighbours of Palestine?  Hirsh doesn't say, not in this article anyway.

Hirsh's latest masterpiece also appears on his own Engage website but not on the Israel lobby group BICOM's Fathom website.  Maybe he missed the deadline.

Israel advocate sums up Zionist disarray over cancelled Southampton Uni conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony Greenstein on Hirsh on Hitler

Tony Greenstein left a comment on my previous post, Hirsh on Hitler, and went on to do a very informative post of his own which I reproduce here:

David Hirsh – the Fake & Ignorant 'Leftist'

Apparently the Nazis were anti-nationalist, left wing univeralists!

Apparently David Hirsh, vehement figurehead of Engage and fierce opponent of all boycotts of Israel, is a leftist!  Well for 'socialist Zionists' he might be but by most other peoples' definition he is a conservative imperialist.

Hirsh pontificating about things he knows nothing about

I first saw this article on Jewssansfrontiers  and I posted the comment beneath.  Although I haven’t posted for some time, I couldn’t resist the temptation to deal with the pretend academic Hirsh, who went down with Yale’s Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism, which was deemed by the authorities to be more concerned with political advocacy than scholarship.   Even as ardent a Zionist as Prof. Deborah Lipstadt, of Daving Irving v Penguin fame, wrote in an article ‘How To Study Anti-Semitism’  that:

‘The university defended itself against charges of having succumbed to Muslim pressure by listing the Jewish studies courses taught at the school and stressing its extensive library holdings in the field. (Yale, admittedly, does have an excellent Jewish studies program, and its libraries have one of the best collections in Jewish studies world-wide.) …

There is, however, another side to this story. Apparently, there were people on the Yale campus who were associated with YIISA and who were eager to have it succeed. These friends of YIISA counseled the institute’s leadership that some of its efforts had migrated to the world of advocacy from that of scholarship. They warned YIISA that it was providing fodder to the critics’ claim that it was not a truly academic endeavor.

The anti-nationalist socialist surrounded by Israeli flags!

I have twice participated in YIISA’s activities. I gave a paper at one of its weekly seminar sessions on Holocaust denial and attended its conference last August. While serious scholars who work in this field gave the vast majority of the papers  - They were passionate and well argued. But they were not scholarly in nature.

Two lessons can be drawn from this imbroglio. First, there is a real need for serious academic institutions to facilitate and encourage the highest-level research on anti-Semitism….

Second, this struggle also demonstrates the necessity of differentiating between those who do advocacy and those who do scholarship. Both are critical — but entirely different — endeavors.

The horrors that Ford found so appealing

 But I digress.  In his talk Hirsh  argued that:

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

But by and large, the left opposed Hitler and his antisemitism….
When Israel was first established, it was supported by most people on the left.  They liked the socialist experiment of the kibbutzim and the Labour Party which ran Israel in its first decades.  They admired Israel as an anti-imperialist movement which defeated the British.  They supported Israel as the underdogs, the survivors of the Holocaust.

The Nazis were univeralists, who ‘were not so much right-wing as radical had a global programme for changing the whole world.  They were hostile to British and American imperialism and democracy’ Whilst conceding that ‘’by and large, the left opposed Hitler and his antisemitism.’

Some of this is just pig ignorant and shows how Hirsh is a master of the superficial and unacquaintted with the history of the Nazi Party.   Calling anti-Zionists 'anti-Semites' is the limit of his knowledge of racism.  As an example of Hitler's opposition to the British Empire one could quote from Mein Kampf:

Germany should not try to take advantage of turbulence in the British Empire, and link its destiny with racially inferior oppressed peoples.  An alliance with Russia against England and France was no substitute for an alliance with England.  An alliance with England and Italy would give Germany the initiative in Europe (Mein Kampf pp. 601-7)….

Inmates of Auschwitz

It is remarkable how, up to two decades later, Hitler’s views had changed very little since the publication of Mein Kampf.  He was to retain this opinion of Britain until he realised that it would not grant him the free hand in Eastern Europe which he craved, and even then, he repeatedly stressed his ambition to come to terms with Britain.  During the Second World War, the last pre-war British ambassador to Berlin, Sir Neville Henderson, wrote that Hitler “combined … admiration for the British race with envy of their achievements and hatred of their opposition to Germany’s excessive aspirations” [Failure of a Mission, Sir Neville Henderson, p.266]

Hitler repeatedly remarked to Albert Speer that the English were “our brothers.  Why fight our brothers?” [Albert Speer: His Battle with the Truth, Gitta Sereny, p.218]

The idea that the Nazis were universalist is laughable.  Hitler consistently talked of the German Volk (people) and saw everything from that absurd perspective.  Jews and the mentally handicapped were not of course part of his racial comradeship.  He was not so much a supporter of German nationalism, as per the Equality, Fraternity and Liberty of the French revolution, as a nationalist.  These sentiments were codified in the 1935 Nuremburg laws.  In this he was one with the Zionists who also derided the 'assimilationists' and the idea that you could be a German Jew as opposed to a Jew residing in Germany, witness the obsession with a Jewish demographic majority in Israel.  There were no ideas or principles that the Nazis had that could be applied world-wide and nor did they make any such claim.  Unless of course world conquest is a form of universalism!

Ford too was a socialist

As for being ‘left-wing’.  Only particularly stupid conservatives makes this claim.  He was funded by the Iron and Coal barons such as Thyssen and Emil Kordof and the other leaders of German heavy industry in particular.  He was  put in power by the German military, led by President Hindenberg.  One of his first acts was the abolition of the unions and its replacement by the German Labour Front led by Robert Ley.  Its purpose was not to organise workers and strikes (which were made illegal) as to spy on workers and ensure they did not form new unions.  A strange form of socialism. The fact that people like Henry Ford supported Hitler, until a Jewish and trade union boycott forced him to distance himself from the Nazis, should tell Hirsh something.  Then again he probably didn't know of the use Ford made of his newspapers such as The Dearborn Independent from 1921-27.  

The American Jewish Historical Society described the ideas in the paper as "anti-immigrant, anti-labor, anti-liquor, and anti-Semitic.  In Henry Ford, Adolph Hitler's Inspiration For Treatment Of Jews - How Henry Ford Helped To Create Auschwitz that Hitler talked of how "I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration" - Adolph Hitler, 1931.   Hitler even had a picture of Ford on his wall.  Perhaps Hirsh considers Ford too as left-wing?

On 30 July 1938, Ford celebrated his 75th birthday by receiving the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the most important honor that Germany might offer a non-citizen.   He received the award -- a golden Maltese cross embraced by four swastikas -- in his office, joined by the German consuls from Cleveland and Detroit. 

A longtime admirer of Ford's, Adolf Hitler sent a personal note of gratitude to be delivered at the ceremony. Signed on July 7, the parchment scroll warmly thanked Ford for his "humanitarian ideals" and his devotion, along with the German Chancellor, to "the cause of peace." No doubt Ford too was a universalist!

Hitler was also an imperialist, not something normally associated with socialism.  The 'socialist' part of his ‘national socialism’ was a sop to the plebeian element in the Nazi Party, around the SA stormtroopers, who believed that the Jews were the embodiment of capitalism and once they were got rid of then they would take control of industry, the ‘second revolution’.  The Night of the Long Knives settled that particular dream when Ernst Rohm and the unofficial leader of the Nazis ‘left-wing’ Gregor Strasser and hundreds more were murdered at the behest of the Army and the capitalists in June 1934.  Hitler believed in elites, not just racial, but within the Aryan nation, with capitalists and the leaders of industry and finance being at the top of the racial ladder. 

Left wing?  Not unless your definition of socialism includes Israel and the Kibbutz.  But then Hirsh does see the Kibbutzim as socialist rather than as stockade and watch tower settlements, the outposts of the future Israeli state.  A socialism that excluded the Arabs from membership, in other words ones of racial exclusivity is Hirsh's idea of socialism!

David Hirsh was the leader of the Engage group of Zionists who in 2005 decided to oppose the Boycott of Israeli universities.  Engage was later found to be partly funded by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who are anything but leftists – fake or otherwise.  No doubt the Israeli state contributed to the financing of Engage.

Hirsh is someone who gives lectures about subjects he knows nothing about.  He is a junk academic dealing in cliches and trivia.  Anyone acquainted with Mein Kampf would know of Hitler's oft-expressed comments that he was an admirer of the British Empire and explained how one must never align oneself with those whose countries were under colonial domination.  It was simply that he wanted to replicate it in Eastern Europe.  For example he gave no support to the General Strike and Arab rebellion in Palestine from 1936-9. 

The rest of Hirsch's points such as universalism have been dealt with above and of course Hirsh compared the left and the Nazis whilst denying that the Nazis were right wing.  That I suppose is why on May 2nd he abolished all unions and sent socialists and trade unionists to Dachau.  That is why the Nazi party was given massive support by the capitalists, especially the Iron and Steel barons of the Ruhr.  And oh yes, the old Prussian army generals who put him in power did so because Hitler was such an ardent socialist!!

What Hirsh does is betray his own ignorance of the development and politics of the Nazi party and also the function that anti-Semitism played within it.

That is not to say that Hitler wasn't contemptuous of the conservative parties (DNVP, DVP, Centre Party).  They were gentle folk who would never win over the workers, whom they despised.  They were unable to work amongst the masses and they even purported to believe in democraacy.  In that he was right.  The Nazis organised their plebeian followers and the lumpen proletariat whereas the Conservatives confined their work to the middle classes and rich.  What the industrialists and army feared came to pass.  In exchange for attacking the left, outlawing the KPD (Communists), abolishing the unions they made a deal with the devil.  They surrendered political power to the Nazis and Thyssen ended up in a concentration camp and the army leaders of the attempted putsch were hanged with piano wire.  It was an experience the bourgeoisie are not keen to repeat.

One can only suggest that Hirsh go back to school!

Tony Greenstein

Got to admire Tony. I suppose anyone can find the time to do a good bit of debunking but who has the patience?

I should mention that out of 33 comments to Hirsh's post not one criticised the compliment he paid to the nazi regime.

Hirsh on Hitler

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

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

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

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

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

Hirshohito!?

David Hirsh has been touting his ludicrous "prelimary response" to the Employment Tribunal decision in the case of Fraser v University and College Union (FUCU) to anyone who will host it and Shiraz Socialist didn't disappoint.  The comments are a hoot but let's first look at Hirsh's argument which is presented in his usual way,which is to state the facts but in a way that invites disbelief.  Hang on. Let me explain that.  He says things like "they say we falsely allege antisemitism to silence them".  See?  Well that's a factual statement. We do say that about zionists in general and Hirsh in particular.  But he isn't saying that that bit is factual.  Ah, you know what I mean.  Here's that opening para:

A co-ordinated campaign by Ronnie Fraser, his lawyers and his witnesses to try to intimidate critics of Israel with an invented accusation of antisemitism would indeed be vile and disgraceful.  This is what the Tribunal thought was happening,  and this explains the unusually intemperate and emotional language employed in its dismissal of Fraser’s case.

Actually, "co-ordinated campaign" can't be quite "what the Tribunal thought was happening".  Just a quick example.  The Tribunal said that evidence given by Jeremy Newmark and Jane Ashworth was "untrue" but that there were "truthful witnesses" on the complainant side.  Look:

We regret to say that we have rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark concerning the incident at the 2008 Congress (see our findings under complaint (8) above). Evidence given to us about booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers at Congress debates was also false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted.

You see, there were truthful witnesses on the claimant side and there what untruthful witnesses on the same side. Hirsh's side.  No co-ordination suggested.  Basically, what Hirsh is saying is that the Tribunal found against Ronnie Fraser because the Tribunal was antisemitic.

Now, the comments.  You can probably guess what Hirsh said in the post already but if you can't you will be able to from the comments:

charliethechulo said,

April 4, 2013 at 11:16 pm

Rodent: you make no sense. Hirsh can speak for himself but my position is quite simple: the bourgeois courts (in this case, tribunal) are not the place to decide what is, or isn’t racism.

I give no credence to their ruling in this or any other case.

For the record, I always thought Fraser and Engage were ill-advised to pursue their case at ET, given the fact that well over 90% of all ET claims fail and the respondent only has to defend their position on ‘balance of probabilities.’

It is, however, worth noting that the ET has *not* given a judgement upon whether or not the UCU is antisemitic, but merely upon the applicability of the legal terms ‘harassment’ and ‘secondary liability.’ The UCU so-called “left” are, of course, cock-a-hoop at this decision, but in fact it does *not* vindicate them with regard to the main charge against them: antisemitism.

flyingrodent said,

April 5, 2013 at 7:19 am

For the record, I always thought Fraser and Engage were ill-advised to pursue their case at ET, given the fact that well over 90% of all ET claims fail and the respondent only has to defend their position on ‘balance of probabilities.’

I was led to believe that the claim was thrown out in its entirety not on the balance of probabilities, but because it was almost entirely composed of unprovable assertions based on highly dubious reasoning.

But I can see why fans of unprovable assertions based on highly dubious reasoning might not be fans of the legal process.

Nonetheless, let’s note that a major chunk of Britain’s Woe-Is-Us Israel fans threw their whole weight behind this case, and have driven their cause into a ludicrous disaster. They should have the balls to at least admit this, I think.

After all, when Hirohito declared that the war situation had developed “not necessarily to Japan’s advantage”, he was at least conceding defeat, rather than standing on the rubble and shouting that modern warfare is inherently racist.

I think CharlieTheChulo, is the Shiraz blog host, Jim Denham.  By the way, he's wrong about the Tribunal merely ruling on "legal terms 'harassment' and 'secondary liability' as the "untrue" stuff above proves. And also, Denham is too stupid to realise that he has flatly contradicted Hirsh's argument which was that the Tribunal was antisemitic because it accused the complainant(s) of a cock and bull story.

Hirsh has also had this nonsense posted up at Harry's Place where comments have been barred, only on that post.  I'm guessing that's because HP can usually rely on their own trolls to overwhelm any critical comment but not always.  Some slip through the net and make the hosts look very silly indeed.  Hirsh can and does control the comments at his own Engage website and, again I'm guessing he trusted Jim Denham to control things at Shiraz.  But he forgot that Jim likes a drink and can be even sillier than Hirsh sometimes, hence he (and Hirsh) got dealt a few body blows that had the host contradicting the guest.

ps I'm sure others have noticed what I only noticed a few hours ago, that a handy acronym for the Fraser v University and College Union is FUCU.  Coincidentally, it was what Harry's Place had on their masthead when the UCU rejected the ludicrous working definition.  Ah well, what goes round comes round!

Now CST's Mark Gardner loses it over Tribunal result

Many thanks to Ben White for monitoring the wackier fringes of Facebook so we don't have to.

Mark Gardner of @cst_uk asks if UCU Employment Tribunal was "harbinger of hate", calls the judges "sneering bastards" on.fb.me/12r6yYt
— Ben White (@benabyad) April 5, 2013

I've written about the Community Security Trust's Mark Gardner being a bit too spontaneous before but here he is loosing off again, this time against the Employment Tribunal in the case of Fraser v University and College Union (FUCU geddit?)



David Hirsh

10 hours ago · 

• http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/104578/does-ucu-harbour-hate-you-decide

  
  

  
  

  Does the UCU harbour hate? You decide | The Jewish Chronicle

  www.thejc.com
  

  In 2006, Ronnie Fraser stood as a delegate to NATFHE conference (a predecessor to UCU). It was said at the regional meeting that Mr Fraser could not be a delegate because he was a Zionist and therefore a racist. NATFHE held an investigation and found

  Share

  • 6 people like this.
  • 

    Mark Gardner 'is the UCU tribunal a harbinger of hate?' might have been more appropriate. sneering bastards.

    9 hours ago · 1
  • 

    Michael Cohen ‘if you want to understand the Jews, read Mein Kampf'..Sally Hunt thinks that it would not necessarily be antisemitic to think that ..Planet and which one is she on springs to mind.

    8 hours ago
  • 

    Dave Rich They could at least have spelt your name right.

    5 hours ago · 1
  • 

    Jonathan Hoffman yes. next question?

    5 hours ago

Oh, if you saw my "epic folly" post earlier today, I was right about it being on the front page of the JC's print edition.  I mention that now because I hope more in the Jewish community will see what a bunch it is that pass for our communal leaders and defenders.

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.

Zionist reactions to the UCU Tribunal ruling

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

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

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

(3)        Accordingly, the proceedings are dismissed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See how the report dealt with that in paragraph 170:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected characteristics 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

147 The Claimant impressed us as a sincere witness. 

 In fairness, they did qualify this:

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

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

Other zionist responses were nuttier still.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  26 March at 16:36
• 
  

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

  26 March at 16:53 · 1
• 
  

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

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

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

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