Marcus Dysch article on Jeremy Newmark disappears from JC website

It's probably an innocent thing but I just tried this Jewish Chronicle link to an article headed, Jeremy Newmark urged to step down as local councillor and I got this:

I always find the JC and Dysch suspect but as I said, it's probably an innocent and google of course has its cache which is here but won't be for long.  So here is that article in full pending its restoration to its rightful place on the JC website:

Jeremy Newmark urged to step down as local councillor

Mr Newmark was advised to “step back” from his role as leader of the Labour group on Hertsmere Borough Council by the authority’s Conservative leader during a meeting in Borehamwood

Marcus Dysch

March 1, 2018

Jeremy Newmark has been urged to stand down as a local councillor following revelations about the circumstances of his departure from the Jewish Leadership Council.

Mr Newmark was advised to “step back” from his role as leader of the Labour group on Hertsmere Borough Council by the authority’s Conservative leader during a meeting in Borehamwood last night.

Morris Bright said Mr Newmark should show “the same deference” to the council that he had paid to the Jewish Labour Movement, from which he resigned as chairman. Doing so would allow him to “defend himself and his reputation”, Mr Bright suggested.

The council leader told a full meeting of the authority that he had been contacted by local residents asking “what the council is intending to do about this matter”.

He revealed he had met Mr Newmark in the days after the publication of allegations dating back to 2013 when Mr Newmark was chief executive of the JLC.

Mr Bright said: “Cllr Newmark was accompanied by councillor Rebecca Butler to the meeting. We spoke openly about the allegations made against Cllr Newmark by a national newspaper.

“I expressed the concern that was being expressed to me around the headlines and stories in the Jewish Chronicle, the Times and other media outlets.

“Cllr Newmark said the claims were ‘largely unfounded’ and ‘largely untrue’ and some were completely false.

“I explained that I was not forming a judgement as to any guilt and that everyone has a right to defend themselves, their name and their reputation.”

Mr Newmark has denied that he misused JLC funds or claimed inappropriate expenses. He resigned as chairman of the Jewish Labour Movement the day after the story broke in February and has made no public comments since issuing a denial to the JC.

Mr Bright added: “Let me repeat here in this chamber and on the webcast what I said to Cllr Newmark at that meeting; and let me be very clear about this… that neither I nor the anyone in my group are implying any guilt on his part at all.

“It is felt though both by my group and by residents who have communicated with me that he should, as indicated by the JLM, allow himself the time and space to attempt in a clear and individual way to seek redress and to clear his name.

“I made this request in person and in writing. I hope now that Cllr Newmark has had time for reflection since we first spoke about this some weeks ago.

“It is appropriate now for him to do the honourable thing and step back from Hertsmere, at what I know must be a difficult personal time for him.

“And I personally wish him well in his efforts to seek to clear his name of these serious allegations.”

Mr Newmark attended the council meeting and spoke after Mr Bright, but did not respond directly to his remarks. It is thought it was his first public appearance since the JC’s revelations last month.

QC on 2 CEs at the JLC

The QC here is one Jonathan Goldberg QC and the JLC is the Jewish Leadership Council.

I remember Goldberg as one of a few high profile Jews speaking out against the ragbag of Zionist hucksters who brought the case of Fraser v The University and College Union.

At the time of the FUCU case he said some very interesting stuff in The Jewish Chronicle about what he called an "epic folly".  The FUCU case involved Ronnie Fraser arguing that the UCU's support for the Palestinian cause amounted to harassing him as a Jew.  He brought ten counts and they all failed.
Here's what Jonathan Goldberg said at the time:

A main premise underpinning the claim — that the union was responsible in law for anti-Israel views promulgated by individual members in its annual congresses and in-house internet chatroom — was held wrong in law. Nor was that by any means the only error of law.

The underlying notion that a commitment to Zionism should be a “protected characteristic” in English employment law was in my view almost as fanciful as suggesting that supporting Tottenham Hotspur should be a protected characteristic, because so many Jews do so.

But it gets better.  See what he has to say about Jeremy Newmark:

Who is qualified to say, unless they sat through the 20 days of evidence, that the particular criticisms made of the evidence of Jeremy Newmark [untrue] and two MPs [glib] were not reasonable. And just as important, why did Mr Newmark and the others ever voluntarily place themselves in a position to be so criticised in support of a claim brought on such dubious legal foundations?

At the time Newmark was the chief exec of the Jewish Leadership Council.

Well now there's been a bit of a to-do over a video made by the current  chief exec of the JLC, Simon Johnson.  In the video Johnson took a hefty swipe at the zionist Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) for exaggerating the incidence and effects of antisemitism.  CAA reacted angrily and the video was pulled as was the tweet touting it:

I managed a screengrab.

So what has this to do with Jonathan Goldberg QC?  I saw the Jewish News today and it had the recent saga on its front page under an "apologise or resign" headline.  Deep down in the article Jonathan Goldberg is quoted thus:

“The sheer smug complacency of Simon Johnson in this matter is appalling.”

He added: “All credit to the unpaid young volunteers of the CAA for calling it how it is unlike the cosy back-slapping club of our Jewish establishment organisations.”

That's some beef he's got with the JLC. When it comes to false allegations of antisemitism, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The Truth about Jeremy Newmark: "you couldn't make it up"

Oh but he could and he did.  Not only is Jeremy Newmark utterly dishonest he is also stupid so a couple of times recently he popped into my timeline and probably wished he hadn't. A little bit of history first.  I heard a rumour that Momentum were going to host Jeremy Newmark at a meeting at the Labour Conference.  Most followers of Zionist antics in the UK will know Jeremy Newmark as the most notorious liar in the Zionist movement here.  They will also know that liars for the racist war criminals of the State of Israel (Zionists) are ten a penny in all the mainstream media and political establishment including the so-called opposition. So free speech isn't denied to the likes of Jeremy Nemark.  He has no shortage of outlets for his abject dishonesty.  So some of us are dismayed that Momentum are giving Newmark the time of day.

I tweeted as follows when I heard the rumour:

Rumours that @PeoplesMomentum plans to host the most notorious liar in the UK #Zionist movement: @Jeremy_Newmark. Are the rumours true?

— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) August 25, 2016

Well then Tony Greenstein and Jeremy Newmark responded to Tony.   See this:

@TonyGreenstein so much for “free speech”… you couldn’t make it up!

— Jeremy Newmark (@Jeremy_Newmark) August 26, 2016

Now just a little detour because I like exposing Newmark for what he is. I responded thus:

.@Jeremy_Newmark you couldn't make it up? You're too modest, you're always making things up. It's official. #FUCU! @TonyGreenstein

— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) August 26, 2016

My comment here was based on the finding of the Tribunal in the case of Fraser v University and College Union. The FUCU case was a rehearsal for the orchestrated smear campaign we have witnessed against the Labour left ever since Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the party. This is what the Tribunal judges had to say about Jeremy Newmark on the matter of free speech:

The opinions of witnesses were not, of course, our concern and in most instances they were in any event unremarkable and certainly not unreasonable. One exception was a remark of Mr Newmark in the context of the academic boycott controversy in 2007 that the union was “no longer a fit arena for free speech”, a comment which we found not only extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing.

So much for Newmark's commitment to free speech. Regarding who could make what up. Here is what the Tribunal had to say about Newmark making stuff up:

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. 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. One painfully ill-judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark’s preposterous claim, in answer to the suggestion in cross-examination that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a ‘pushy Jew’ stereotype was being applied to him.

So there we have a bog standard Zionist.  He believes that free speech on Israel should not be allowed in a trade union whose members might (or might not) support the Palestinian cause.  He lies when he can't convince anyone who matters that criticising or condemning Israel is of itself antisemitic, because of course it isn't. And he lied of course to make out there had been an antisemitic incident when there wasn't one.

He tries to ridicule honest anti-racists who don't want to offend real victims of racism by hosting a low life like him.  You really couldn't make it up.

By the way, Momentum still haven't responded to my tweet asking them to confirm or deny the rumour that they are to host the shameless Newmark.

Let sleeping dogs lie or let lying dog sleep?

I see, belatedly again, that one of two people openly accused of lying by the judge in the Fraser v UCU Employment Tribunal case, Jeremy Newmark, has stepped down as leader of the Jewish Leadership Council.  Here's the Jewish Chronicle:

Lucian Hudson said that last week’s decision by JLC chief executive Jeremy Newmark to step down for health reasons created a new opportunity.

Mr Hudson, who is a member of the JLC council, expressed sadness at Mr Newmark’s departure, saying that he was “an outstanding leader”.

Here's what the Tribunal said:

We regret to say that we have rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark concerning the incident at t he 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 al so false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted. One painfully ill- judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark’s preposterous claim, in answer to the suggestion in cross-examination that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a ‘pushy Jew’ stereotype was being applied to him.

And that's an "outstanding leader" of what passes itself off as the Jewish community.  Only one zionist, as far as I know, has criticised Newmark himself over his dishonesty and that was Adam Wagner in Cartoon Kippah:

...we should, as a community, be embarrassed by this ruling. It involved not just the looney fringe but central figures in the community, who have been branded exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars.

And this "arrogant liar", Jeremy Newmark, is no longer leading the Jewish Leadership Council, not because he has been caught by a court lying to that court, but because of his ill health.  Well the illness, I believe it's diabetes, is all very sad and all, but to have such a character, not simply not censured but praised by his peers says it all about mainstream Jewish organisation today.

As far as wilful dishonesty goes they have decided both to let sleeping dogs lie and the lying dog sleep.

False Allegation of FUCU Tribunal's Antisemitism Spurs Zionist QC

I'm not sure if this link works  If it does you will see a pdf page of an article by Jonathan Goldberg QC in the Jewish Chronicle.

UPDATE:  Here's a copy of the pdf. Click on it to make it bigger (I think)

Right let's have a look at what it says:

First up the headline is a bit dodgy.  It's Why the Ronnie Fraser case against the UCU was a legal and public relations disaster".   Now it wasn't simply legality and PR.  It was the presentation of dubious descriptions of events and a ludicrous definition of who is a Jew and what, therefore, antisemitism or anti-Jewish racism means.  In other words, the facts of the case that were against Fraser and his team.

In fairness, Goldberg gets into all that so I'm guessing he didn't write the headline.  I should point out that the article appeared in the same edition that carried the front page headline, Union case is 'Hitler's legacy' so the fact that it has a misleading headline and doesn't appear in the regular website presumably has something to do with JC editor, Stephen Pollard.

So here are some choice snippets:

It was misconceived in law, wasted a fortune in legal costs (rumoured in legal circles to be over £500,000) but worse of all it showed no Jewish seichel or streetsmart whatsoever.

Wow! £500k?  Who from? Where from?  Fraser mentioned sums like £70k and £50k going from the JC's Fair Play Campaign Group to Engage and it has never really been denied definitively.  There have also been online rumours of Israeli government support for "lawfare" cases in the UK but I've never seen as much as £500k mentioned before.

What about reactions to the outcome:

Those who now react to this defeat with sour grapes should more carefully study the judgment...https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/eemployment-trib-fraser-v-uni-college-union-judgment.pdf.  From a lawyer's point of view it is impeccably written....

I do not accept that the court was antisemitic, as Dr Hirsh and others have insinuated.....

Do those who so rashly suggest on such shaky foundations that an English court was antisemitic have any conception of the damage they are doing to our community thereby?

What about points of fact and law?

Of the 10 factual complaints...all but one were found to be unmeritorious....with detailed reasons being given as to why the court rejected them.....

A main premise..- that the union was responsible in law for anti-Israel views promulgated by individual members...- was held wrong in law.  Nor was that by any means the only error in law

We now get to possibly the best bit:

The underlying notion that a commitment to Zionism should be a "protected characteristic" in English employment law was in my view almost as fanciful as suggesting that supporting Tottenham Hotspur should be a protected characteristic, because so many Jews do so.

He goes on to criticise those who take umbrage at the court's withering criticisms of the two MP witnesses ("glib evidence") for Fraser and the Jewish Leadership Council CEO, Jeremy Newmark, ("untrue", "preposterous", "extraordinarily arrogant", "disturbing") before returning to the "protected characteristics" issue:

...why should the court be criticised.....for saying "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."

The critics have chosen to take five words out of context.....

In context, the court was saying no more than that an attachment to the modern State of Israel ("modern" is important here) is not intrinsic to Jewishness.  And that is surely correct.

....who can ignore the stark fact that many fellow Jews, including, for example, certain Israeli academics and at least one sect of ultra-Orthodox Jews, are among Israel's most rabid detractors, whereas many gentiles are fervent zionists (Lord bless them).

The QC then goes on to suggest legal fights that Zionists could win, like suing for disrupting Zionist events.

He could be a surer ground there unless the disrupters of events can show that they are merely trying to prevent worse crimes by the racist war criminals of the State of Israel and their supporters.

What clearly won't work any more is the lie that Jews are essentially Zionists and that therefore anti-Zionism is a form of racism.  Jews have many different political persuasions and anti-Zionism is one of many forms of anti-racism.

Jeremy "preposterous" Newmark hits back and misses

It was well worth the wait.  Jeremy Newmark, the CEO of the Jewish Leadership Council, has issued his verdict on the FUCU Employment Tribunal that found his evidence to be "untrue", "false", "playing to the gallery", "extraordinarily arrogant" and "also disturbing".

The arrogant and disturbing bit was in relation to Newmark's suggestion that the University and College Union was "no longer a fit arena for free speech".  Looking at Twitter today it appears that Jeremy Newmark is still willing to threaten free speech about the racist war criminals of the State of Israel:

EUMC definition of anti-semitism | The Alliance forWorkers' Liberty gets it right. workersliberty.org/story/2013/04/… @workersliberty #sensibletrots
— Jeremy Newmark (@Jeremy_Newmark) April 15, 2013

But it is the Jewish Chronicle where, assuming the report is accurate, he has fully justified the ET's descriptions of him:

The judgment in the case of an academic who accused the University College Union of harassment and institutional antisemitism was “devastating” and a “travesty”, the chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council has claimed.

 Now when the Tribunal said that a claim he had made about "booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers" was "untrue" or "false", they were going on the evidence, among other things like recordings, of people the ET described as "truthful witnesses".  Is Jeremy Newmark saying that these "truthful witnesses" were actually the liars and that he was the one telling the truth?  I wonder if these "truthful witnesses" will write into the JC to clarify this for us. Let's face it we can't believe a word Newmark says.

But the JC didn't just give him space to imply that zionist witnesses other than him were lying.  They allowed him to misrepresent the whole proceedings.  Look:

In the judgment, published last month following a three-week hearing last year, employment tribunal judge Anthony Snelson said Mr Newmark’s evidence had been “false, preposterous, extraordinarily arrogant and disturbing”.

But speaking at a Manchester Jewish Representative Council meeting on Sunday, Mr Newmark hit back.

Right now let's look at where those words appear in the judgment and what they related to:

False: already mentioned above. This was Newmark's claim that there had been "booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers".
Preposterous: This was Newmark's claim that he was being stereotyped as a "pushy Jew" over his attempt to push his way into a union meeting.
Extraordinarily arrogant and disturbing:  Again, mentioned above.  This was Newmark's description of the UCU as "no longer a fit space for free speech".

So, now let's watch Mr Newmark "hit back":

He said the tribunal’s finding that there could be no link between Jewish identity and support of Israel “cannot be left to stand”.

“That is a shocking and ignorant statement to make. It is something that will have to be followed up," he said.

“If a Jew is bullied or harassed in the work place or his trade union, and part of that bullying or harassment contains anti-Israel slogans, material or activity, then to take that forward to the judicial system is considered by this panel in their ruling as an attempt to usurp the British judicial process for political means – that’s something that is very, very wrong.”

Did you see what happened there? He's been called preposterous, and a disturbingly arrogant liar and he hasn't hit back against any of that.  He's simply changed the subject whilst showing he has lost none of his propensity for untruth.

The Tribunal did not say that there "could be no link between Jewish identity and support of Israel".  The Tribunal said:

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.

They didn't say there's no link.  They said there is no intrinsic link between support for Israel and being Jewish and that even if there was it still couldn't amount to a "protected characteristic".

What's the matter with Newmark?  Has he not read the report?

But anyway, just to clarify.  Even if he could show that support for colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing and racist laws was an intrinsic part of Jewishness, he still couldn't use that to prevent campaigning against those repugnant things.

He goes on to say,

“It wasn't just Ronnie, it was hundreds of Jewish members [who] felt there was an atmosphere of bullying and harassment. Many decided to leave their union.

But surely the zionist members that left the union wouldn't have been at the meetings where, in his evidence, Newmark had complained there had been "booing, jeering and harassment of Jewish speakers".  So he's hit back against allegations that haven't been made.

And that's the leader of Jewish leaders in the UK.  When he finally takes his opportunity to refute the allegation that he is a preposterous arrogant liar, he changes the subject and tells more lies.

UCU Tribunal: Whatever happened to Snow White and the Eighth Dwarf, Pushy?

Of all the zionists openly ridiculed and denounced in the Fraser v University and College Union Employment Tribunal ruling, Jeremy Newmark and Jane Ashworth come off worst:

131 There was a conflict of evidence concerning an event at the Respondents' Congress in 2008. It is not pleaded in the claim form but since it relates to the behaviour of witnesses who appeared before us, we think it right to record brief findings on it. A closed debate was to be held, for which permits were required. Ms Jane Ashworth, a member of Engage (and a witness before us), managed (as she put it) to "sneak in" without the necessary permit. Mr Jeremy Newmark, now and perhaps then Chief Executive of the Jewish Leadership Council (also a witness before us), attempted to do likewise but was stopped by stewards. He then tried to push his way in, but was not allowed to do so. Mr Waddup (already mentioned in relation to complaint (2», spoke to Mr Newmark and told him that he would not be allowed in. We reject the allegation that Mr Waddup said, "You're not wanted here". We also reject as utterly unfounded the emotive allegation of Ms Ashworth that Mr Newmark was "Jew-baited". He was not baited at all. Neither Ms Ashworth nor Mr Newmark was a member of the Respondents. 

132 More generally, we can record these brief observations. We do so having spent an entire day listening to recordings of Congress debates. In our judgment, the proceedings were well-ordered and balanced. They were carefully controlled from the Chair. They were managed in an even-handed fashion with speakers selected in turn to speak for and against the motions. On the very rare occasions when it was necessary to call Congress to order, the chairman did so and those present responded appropriately. The debates were conducted with courtesy. Speakers on both sides received applause. Despite the strength of feeling, they lightened the occasion with humour from time to time. We were quite unable to detect the atmosphere of intimidation which the written case on the Claimant's behalf attempted to convey.

 So much for evidence but what of the people giving the evidence:

148 An unsurprising consequence of bringing forward on behalf of the Claimant a very large number of well-informed and independent-minded witnesses (including some individuals of great distinction in their fields) largely for the purpose of offering their opinions rather than giving evidence of facts, was that disagreements emerged. We have already given an example (para 53). This diversity eloquently made Mr White's 'range of views' point. Some witnesses were most impressive. These include, but are not by any means limited to, Professor Yudkin, Mr Kline and Dr Seymour. They gave careful, thoughtful, courteous evidence and were clearly mindful of their obligations as witnesses in litigation.

Unfortunately. others appeared to misunderstand the nature of the proceedings and seemed more disposed to score points or play to the gallery rather than providing straightforward answers to the clear questions put to them. 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. One painfully ill-judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark's preposterous claim, in answer to the suggestion in cross-examination that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a 'pushy Jew' stereotype was being applied to him. The opinions of witnesses were not, of course, our concern and in most instances they were in any event unremarkable and certainly not unreasonable. One exception was a remark of Mr Newmark in the context of the academic boycott controversy in 2007 that the union was "no longer a fit arena for free speech", a comment which we found not only extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing.

Both Jane Ashworth and Jeremy Newmark have yet to break their silence on their forensic denunciation. I don't know if or where Jane Ashworth tweets or posts but Jeremy Newmark tweets @Jeremy_Newmark.

I must say that the more I look at the judgment the more ludicrous the case looks.  Many friends of mine have asked "what were they thinking of?"  The scary thing is that they may have been hoping, in fact they must have been hoping for a perverse decision.  After all, Israel was admitted to the United Nations.

Funder and fundee give their "evidence" at UCU antisemitism tribunal

The zionists' case against the Universities and Colleges Union is still rumbling on at the employment tribunal. The aim of the case is to portray the UCU as antisemitic and to have it punished accordingly.  I don't really understand why the case is being heard at all given that it has nothing to do with employment and the case hasn't been brought by an employee against an employer.  But anyway, here's a chunk from a report on the hearing from the Jewish Chronicle:

The University and College Union travelled a “dangerously slippery slope” from criticism of Israel to “plain old antisemitism”, an employment tribunal has heard.

Jeremy Newmark, Jewish Leadership Council chief executive, said the UCU’s proposed academic boycott of Israel had been “hugely concerning” for the Jewish community.

Mr Newmark gave evidence at the employment tribunal brought by maths lecturer Ronnie Fraser, who is challenging the UCU after its rejection of a widely-accepted definition of antisemitism last year.

That rejection had marked a “tipping point”, Mr Newmark told London’s Central Employment Tribunal on Tuesday.

“That was the moment we began to talk of institutional antisemitism.”

During two-and-a-half hours of cross-examination, Mr Newmark regularly clashed with the UCU’s defence lawyer, Antony White QC.

Mr White accused Mr Newmark of making “a series of false accusations” in his submitted witness statement.

Mr Newmark said that at the union’s congress in 2008 he had been “targeted” by UCU officials who saw he was wearing a kippah and stopped him entering the conference hall.

Mr White said: “What, in fact, happened was you were trying to push your way in, despite having the wrong badge.”

Mr Newmark responded: “It’s very easy to use the stereotype of a pushy Jew. That’s not what happened. Nobody else was stopped from going in. They knew me.”

Readers may recall that it was Jeremy Newmark who "had brilliant idea of funding soft Trotskyists Engage to lead the campaign against the higher ed boycott".

Now I hope whoever is hearing this ludicrous case has some idea of how casually zionists invoke the charge of antisemitism from Newmark's translation of "you were trying to push your way in" to "It’s very easy to use the stereotype of a pushy Jew".

Not content with putting an antisemitic spin on just about anything, Newmark also tried to redefine the Jewish identity:

Mr White argued that some Jewish members of the union had backed the boycott. The tribunal heard how activists from Jews for Justice for Palestinians had been supportive of the policy.

Mr Newmark rejected those Jewish views as having been “grossly, disproportionately magnified” by UCU. The Jews backing the boycott were “a tiny group of people who only identify as Jews to take political positions in debates on Israel. These people are not engaged in Jewish life in any way,” he said.

Those Jews supporting the UCU stance “could not be more irrelevant in Jewish life in this country. Most British Jews are deeply disturbed by what they have seen in British academia”.

Of course if zionists succeed in redefining Jews as zionists then anti-zionism and antisemitism become the same thing but then they might also succeed in legitimising antisemitism. That wouldn't bother them but it would bother me and many others.

Woah! I nearly forgot the point of the headline. Jeremy Newmark was the funder but who is the fundee?  I'll give you a clue. He was a member of parliament in the UK until very recently.  He too likes to redefine antisemitism so as to stifle criticism of the State of Israel.  Ok, one last clue.  He got done (but not well done yet) for fiddling expenses, paricularly over his work on "antisemitism".  Aha! you got it that time.  It's Denis the menace MacShane.  Here's the JC again:

Former MP Denis MacShane gave evidence on Wednesday. He chaired the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism and said that the EUMC definition had been “very helpful” and “invaluable” to those combating hatred.

After the union rejected the definition, Dr MacShane “felt horrified for all the Jewish lecturers who felt obliged to resign”.

Dr MacShane likened the boycott calls to the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany, and said he felt the union had “gone down an antisemitic road”.

Cor, that's powerful. I wonder what he thinks about colonial settlement. ethnic cleansing and segregationist laws. Oh yes, he supports those things and accuses the opponents of being nazis.