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.

Defining, Redefining and Unredefining Antisemitism

Here's a good little post on the Jewdas website titled Keeping Antisemitism Simple.  The intro does "what it says on the tin" and simply defines antisemitism as anti-Jewish racism:

It’s all getting very complicated. The definition of anti-semitism has become an fine art, presided over by professors of antisemitism and fought over across the internet.
It shouldn’t be like this. The more complex the debate becomes the more people disengage from it, leaving antisemitism in the hands of neo-Nazis (who celebrate it) and extreme supporters of the Israeli government (who see antisemitism in all serious criticism of Israel). Instead we should keep it simple. Antisemitism is racism. It’s just a word for anti-jewish racism, hatred of Jews because they are Jews, equivalent to hating people because the are black, asian, Irish or whatever. (And don’t tell me Jews are a religion. There is a major ethnic component to Jewishness, so that many people define as Jewish purely because of their family background. So Jews can certainly be victims of racism).

So, back to basics, how to you avoid being racist? It’s easy. You treat people as individuals. If you meet a new person you don’t assume you know anything about them from a group that they may be connected to. When they do something, be it good or bad in your eyes, you don’t connect those actions with any group – the actions are purely the responsibility of the individual in question. You don’t generalise about groups of people – you allow individuals to define themselves in their own terms. Even if you’ve met more than one person from a ‘group’ that have a certain trait – don’t assume that the next person you meet from that group will be just the same.

Its usually the negative generalisation ones we tend to call racism: when a group is generalised as being mean, stupid, corrupt, evil, dominating, pathetic etc. But although people tend to worry less about positive generalisations (‘Italians are great lovers’ ) these are no less stupid and can easily hide a negative element inside a supposedly positive one (c.f. ‘Black people have such wonderful rhythm’). The surefire way to avoid racism is to cut out generalisations full stop. And the fact that people sometimes make generalisations about their own ‘group’? That’s stupid too, but they have a right to do it as a member of that group in a way that an outsider simply doesn’t. At this juncture we should clarify that of course any act that goes beyond generalisations to actually stirring up hatred against, discriminating against or committing violent acts against members of an ethnic group is utterly racist.

As antisemitism is simply racism, you avoid antisemitism in just the same way. If you hear about somebody Jewish who did something, good or bad, you draw conclusions only about that individual – not about any other Jewish people. That applies whether that person is a drunk guy on the street, an executive at a bank or the Prime Minister of Israel. People are only responsible for their own deeds. And if a person, group, or state, claims to speak for all Jews, take that with a massive dose of salt. Stick to your guns and don’t generalise. And obviously, do not, in a million years, discriminate against people because they are Jews or commit violence against them for the same reason. I hope that goes without saying.

 I first noticed the post being touted in a comment on the Israel advocacy site, Engage:

Eric Says:
February 15, 2015 at 4:40 pm
Its odd and harmful that the definition of anti-semitism is controversial. If anti-semitism requires a phd to recognise and reems of “unpacked” examples then we might as well give up any hope of anyone paying attention to these definitions. Listing examples of anti-semitism is not the right way to go, just elaborate the general principles involved. Over at Jewdas they have nailed it nicely.
http://jewdas.org/keeping-antisemitism-simple/

  Eric was a late comer to the post and so there was only one response and that was from a zionist retired (I think) academic called, Brian Goldfarb.  He seems to have read the Jewdas piece but feels it falls down by not being sufficiently racist against Palestinian Arabs regarding their fault for their own victimisation and their apparently inherent murderousness:

the Palestinian “right of return” ignores the history of how the Palestinian “diaspora” came about…and what of the greater number of Jews from Arab lands even more obviously forcefully dispossessed and expelled (and, yes, Eric, I will expand on this and the other points below, if you so wish)? Calling for Israel/Palestine to become a single. binational state glosses over all sorts of consequences, not the least of which is the likely further diaspora of up to 6 million Jews, or worse.

And here's the rub with the redefinition of antisemitism as opposition to Jewish supremacy.  If we accept, as Goldfarb advocates, that the abolition of Jewish supremacy in Palestine is antisemitic then we are saying that antisemitism is not a form of racism.  We are also saying that in order to avoid being antisemitic we have to be or at least to accept anti-Arab racism.  It's remarkable how many academics fail or refuse to see this.

Fathom This! Addressing the Hasbara Shortage

See this banner ad:



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

Enrage Online?

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

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

And here's their first tweet:

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

Seeing that was a nice start to my working day.

Hirsh on Hitler

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

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

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

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

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

Fair Play for £50 k?

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

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

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

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

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

I was curious about it and so tweeted the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's see if anyone gets back to me.

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!

UCU Tribunal: Zionists try three approaches - All bogus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what was wrong with the Tribunal?

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

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

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

Crumbs from the UCU Tribunal table

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

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

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

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

Sarah Annes Brown picks up on the idea that

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

And that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zionist reactions to the UCU Tribunal ruling

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

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

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

(3)        Accordingly, the proceedings are dismissed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See how the report dealt with that in paragraph 170:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected characteristics 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

147 The Claimant impressed us as a sincere witness. 

 In fairness, they did qualify this:

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

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

Other zionist responses were nuttier still.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  26 March at 16:36
• 
  

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

  26 March at 16:53 · 1
• 
  

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

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

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

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

Tribunal finds zionists guilty - Round up the usual suspects!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 And served notice that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The tribunal has employed the Livingstone Formulation.

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

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

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

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

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

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