Controversial anti-Semitism ‘definition’ faces resistance over free speech concerns
Ben White, MEMO, February 22, 2018
Pro-Israel
groups in Britain are facing resistance in their attempts to use a
controversial definition of anti-Semitism to stifle Palestine solidarity
activism. Concerns over free speech are being heeded by universities and local
authorities, in what is a boost for Palestine rights activists currently
holding, or preparing to hold, Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) events on campuses
nationwide.
groups in Britain are facing resistance in their attempts to use a
controversial definition of anti-Semitism to stifle Palestine solidarity
activism. Concerns over free speech are being heeded by universities and local
authorities, in what is a boost for Palestine rights activists currently
holding, or preparing to hold, Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) events on campuses
nationwide.
 |
| View of a Palestinian refugee camp behind Israel’s apartheid wall in east Jerusalem on 3 December 2014 [Muammar Awad/Apaimages] |
In
December 2016, the British government announced
its “adoption” of a definition of anti-Semitism agreed on earlier that year by
the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Described as “bewilderingly
imprecise” by David Feldman, director of the Pears Institute for the
Study of Anti-Semitism, the definition is promoted
by the IHRA with an accompanying list of 11 examples of how anti-Semitism could
manifest itself today, including criticism of Israel.
December 2016, the British government announced
its “adoption” of a definition of anti-Semitism agreed on earlier that year by
the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Described as “bewilderingly
imprecise” by David Feldman, director of the Pears Institute for the
Study of Anti-Semitism, the definition is promoted
by the IHRA with an accompanying list of 11 examples of how anti-Semitism could
manifest itself today, including criticism of Israel.
Ever
since Theresa May’s government gave its (non-legal, non-binding) endorsement, a
number of groups in Britain have dedicated considerable time and resources to
seeking support for the definition from, among others, councils and higher
education institutions. Almost immediately, though, there was pushback from
those who saw in the definition, and the way it was being used, substantial
dangers to free speech and legitimate political activism.
since Theresa May’s government gave its (non-legal, non-binding) endorsement, a
number of groups in Britain have dedicated considerable time and resources to
seeking support for the definition from, among others, councils and higher
education institutions. Almost immediately, though, there was pushback from
those who saw in the definition, and the way it was being used, substantial
dangers to free speech and legitimate political activism.
In March
2017, the Director of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), Valerie Amos,
told the BBC that her university did not intend to adopt the definition. “I
consulted with our own Centre for Jewish Studies on this,” she explained, “who
basically said this definition is a contentious definition.”
2017, the Director of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), Valerie Amos,
told the BBC that her university did not intend to adopt the definition. “I
consulted with our own Centre for Jewish Studies on this,” she explained, “who
basically said this definition is a contentious definition.”
That same
month, human rights lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC published a legal opinion
that found “major faults”
with the definition and its accompanying guidance.
month, human rights lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC published a legal opinion
that found “major faults”
with the definition and its accompanying guidance.
In May
2017, the University and College Union – which represents 110,000 academics and
other staff – carried
a motion overwhelmingly rejecting use of the IHRA definition, and noting
“government-inspired attempts to ban Palestine solidarity events” such as
“Israel Apartheid Week”.
2017, the University and College Union – which represents 110,000 academics and
other staff – carried
a motion overwhelmingly rejecting use of the IHRA definition, and noting
“government-inspired attempts to ban Palestine solidarity events” such as
“Israel Apartheid Week”.
Now the
London School of Economics (LSE) has also joined those who, while accepting the
38-word definition of anti-Semitism produced by the IHRA, have explicitly
rejected the list of suggested illustrative examples, which include criticism
of Israel. “The School wishes to clarify that it is not anti-Semitic to
criticise the Government of Israel without additional evidence to suggest
anti-Semitic intent,” an LSE official wrote in a letter
last month. “The School also does not accept that all the examples the IHRA
lists as illustrations of anti-Semitism fall within the definition of
anti-Semitism unless there were additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic
intent.” The letter’s authenticity, which was published on a pro-Israel
website, was confirmed to me by an LSE official.
London School of Economics (LSE) has also joined those who, while accepting the
38-word definition of anti-Semitism produced by the IHRA, have explicitly
rejected the list of suggested illustrative examples, which include criticism
of Israel. “The School wishes to clarify that it is not anti-Semitic to
criticise the Government of Israel without additional evidence to suggest
anti-Semitic intent,” an LSE official wrote in a letter
last month. “The School also does not accept that all the examples the IHRA
lists as illustrations of anti-Semitism fall within the definition of
anti-Semitism unless there were additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic
intent.” The letter’s authenticity, which was published on a pro-Israel
website, was confirmed to me by an LSE official.
Universities
UK, meanwhile, the influential representative organisation for universities,
has resisted efforts by pro-Israel groups to express support for the IHRA
definition. According to a spokesperson, who spoke to me earlier this month,
Universities UK does not have a position on the matter.
UK, meanwhile, the influential representative organisation for universities,
has resisted efforts by pro-Israel groups to express support for the IHRA
definition. According to a spokesperson, who spoke to me earlier this month,
Universities UK does not have a position on the matter.
In a
submission to an ongoing Parliamentary inquiry
into freedom of speech at universities, the Board of
Deputies of British Jews told MPs that universities should “adopt
the IHRA definition to enable them to make considered judgements about what is
and is not considered anti-Semitism”. The Board acknowledged, “However, there
is a worrying resistance from universities to adopting it and free speech is
given as the primary reason for their reluctance.”
submission to an ongoing Parliamentary inquiry
into freedom of speech at universities, the Board of
Deputies of British Jews told MPs that universities should “adopt
the IHRA definition to enable them to make considered judgements about what is
and is not considered anti-Semitism”. The Board acknowledged, “However, there
is a worrying resistance from universities to adopting it and free speech is
given as the primary reason for their reluctance.”
Such
reluctance is well-founded. Last year, an IAW event at the University of
Central Lancashire was cancelled
by university officials, on the basis that it supposedly contravened the IHRA
definition (and following pressure from pro-Israel advocacy groups). This week,
the Campaign
Against Anti-Semitism said it hoped that there would be “similar
successes” in getting student-run IAW events cancelled this year. The Israel
Britain Alliance – a Zionist Federation project – is also basing its
“efforts to stop…[IAW]
events” on the IHRA definition.
reluctance is well-founded. Last year, an IAW event at the University of
Central Lancashire was cancelled
by university officials, on the basis that it supposedly contravened the IHRA
definition (and following pressure from pro-Israel advocacy groups). This week,
the Campaign
Against Anti-Semitism said it hoped that there would be “similar
successes” in getting student-run IAW events cancelled this year. The Israel
Britain Alliance – a Zionist Federation project – is also basing its
“efforts to stop…[IAW]
events” on the IHRA definition.
Meanwhile,
Conservative MP Matthew
Offord told Parliament on Tuesday that “the words ‘Israeli apartheid
week’ are manifestly anti-Semitic,” based on the IHRA definition. Thus, he
argued, ministers should consider “bringing forward the necessary legislation
to prevent [IAW events].”
Conservative MP Matthew
Offord told Parliament on Tuesday that “the words ‘Israeli apartheid
week’ are manifestly anti-Semitic,” based on the IHRA definition. Thus, he
argued, ministers should consider “bringing forward the necessary legislation
to prevent [IAW events].”
In
Brussels, too, the chilling effect of the IHRA definition as used by Israel
advocacy groups is already being demonstrated in the attempts to get a European
Parliament event featuring Palestinian human rights
defender Omar Barghouti cancelled. In a letter
to European Parliament President Antonio Tajani, the pro-Israel groups claim
that Barghouti, and the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) Movement he
co-founded, are guilty of “anti-Semitic” statements and objectives
respectively, “according to the [IHRA definition].”
Brussels, too, the chilling effect of the IHRA definition as used by Israel
advocacy groups is already being demonstrated in the attempts to get a European
Parliament event featuring Palestinian human rights
defender Omar Barghouti cancelled. In a letter
to European Parliament President Antonio Tajani, the pro-Israel groups claim
that Barghouti, and the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) Movement he
co-founded, are guilty of “anti-Semitic” statements and objectives
respectively, “according to the [IHRA definition].”
However,
while Israel advocates clearly see the IHRA definition as a tool for the
suppression of Palestine solidarity activism and Palestinian voices, there is
an interesting dispute, and lack of clarity, over what exactly the definition
consists of. The IHRA’s “non-legally binding working definition of
anti-Semitism” is published online inside a
clearly-marked black box. It is a 38-word text, which reads as follows:
“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as
hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are
directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward
Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The same text
appeared, also in a distinct black box, on the IHRA press release
announcing the adoption of the definition in May 2016.
while Israel advocates clearly see the IHRA definition as a tool for the
suppression of Palestine solidarity activism and Palestinian voices, there is
an interesting dispute, and lack of clarity, over what exactly the definition
consists of. The IHRA’s “non-legally binding working definition of
anti-Semitism” is published online inside a
clearly-marked black box. It is a 38-word text, which reads as follows:
“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as
hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are
directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward
Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The same text
appeared, also in a distinct black box, on the IHRA press release
announcing the adoption of the definition in May 2016.
 |
|
BDS rally
[McGill Daily/Flickr] |
Those 38
words are then followed by a much longer text, which includes the list of
examples of how contemporary anti-Semitism might manifest itself; this is the
part where criticism of Israel is, controversially, included. Are these
examples actually part of the definition itself, though?
words are then followed by a much longer text, which includes the list of
examples of how contemporary anti-Semitism might manifest itself; this is the
part where criticism of Israel is, controversially, included. Are these
examples actually part of the definition itself, though?
According
to the IHRA Permanent Office in Berlin the answer is no. In an email
dated 12 September, 2017, an IHRA official confirmed that the definition
consists only of “the text in the box”, with the examples intended to “serve as
illustrations” for how anti-Semitism “could [emphasis added] manifest itself”.
to the IHRA Permanent Office in Berlin the answer is no. In an email
dated 12 September, 2017, an IHRA official confirmed that the definition
consists only of “the text in the box”, with the examples intended to “serve as
illustrations” for how anti-Semitism “could [emphasis added] manifest itself”.
It seems
that this confirmation was a slip up or, at least, is not being repeated. I
approached the IHRA Permanent Office about this and, bizarrely, found it
impossible to get a clear confirmation of what the definition actually is,
either by email or over the phone.
that this confirmation was a slip up or, at least, is not being repeated. I
approached the IHRA Permanent Office about this and, bizarrely, found it
impossible to get a clear confirmation of what the definition actually is,
either by email or over the phone.
In a
five-minute conversation earlier this month, an IHRA staffer repeatedly met my
request to clarify whether the definition is purely the 38-word text by saying
that I should “refer to the information on our website”, or “just include a
link to the IHRA website”.
five-minute conversation earlier this month, an IHRA staffer repeatedly met my
request to clarify whether the definition is purely the 38-word text by saying
that I should “refer to the information on our website”, or “just include a
link to the IHRA website”.
When I
pointed out that certain bodies are endorsing the 38-word text, but not the
accompanying list of examples, the official acknowledged that “it’s up to the
discretion of the institutions and the authorities to adopt whatever they think
is useful”, but still refused to answer the simple question.
pointed out that certain bodies are endorsing the 38-word text, but not the
accompanying list of examples, the official acknowledged that “it’s up to the
discretion of the institutions and the authorities to adopt whatever they think
is useful”, but still refused to answer the simple question.
While the
IHRA is curiously reluctant to clarify what constitutes the definition, others
have already decided: a statement I received from a European Commission
spokesperson made a clear distinction between the “definition” on the one hand,
and “the non-exhaustive examples” on the other.
IHRA is curiously reluctant to clarify what constitutes the definition, others
have already decided: a statement I received from a European Commission
spokesperson made a clear distinction between the “definition” on the one hand,
and “the non-exhaustive examples” on the other.
Some
local authorities in Britain are similarly only adopting the 38-word text;
recent examples include Manchester
City Council and South
Northamptonshire Council. When Liverpool
City Council endorsed only the 38-word definition, one pro-Israel
activist was furious – prompting Merseyside
Friends of Israel to affirm that the two sentences were, in fact,
“the actual definition”.
local authorities in Britain are similarly only adopting the 38-word text;
recent examples include Manchester
City Council and South
Northamptonshire Council. When Liverpool
City Council endorsed only the 38-word definition, one pro-Israel
activist was furious – prompting Merseyside
Friends of Israel to affirm that the two sentences were, in fact,
“the actual definition”.
The
confusion – and potentially intentional ambiguity by the IHRA – over what
constitutes the definition, the pushback over free speech and the crude
attempts at censorship by those who (falsely) claim that the definition
“proves” that events like IAW are anti-Semitic, are all very familiar. That’s
because the story of the IHRA definition has echoes in the tale
of its ill-fated predecessor, the EUMC draft working definition. This
eventually became discredited and abandoned, after pro-Israel advocates used it
– in the words
of one of the definition’s authors – “with the subtlety of a mallet”.
confusion – and potentially intentional ambiguity by the IHRA – over what
constitutes the definition, the pushback over free speech and the crude
attempts at censorship by those who (falsely) claim that the definition
“proves” that events like IAW are anti-Semitic, are all very familiar. That’s
because the story of the IHRA definition has echoes in the tale
of its ill-fated predecessor, the EUMC draft working definition. This
eventually became discredited and abandoned, after pro-Israel advocates used it
– in the words
of one of the definition’s authors – “with the subtlety of a mallet”.
Despite
those efforts, Palestine solidarity activism and the BDS campaign in particular
have grown and expanded across Europe, including Britain, in direct relation to
the policies of an Israeli government that continues to colonise the West Bank
and devastate the Gaza Strip.
those efforts, Palestine solidarity activism and the BDS campaign in particular
have grown and expanded across Europe, including Britain, in direct relation to
the policies of an Israeli government that continues to colonise the West Bank
and devastate the Gaza Strip.
Israel’s
apologists are not going to stop redefining anti-Semitism in order to target
solidarity with the Palestinians. However, they are unlikely to stifle an
anti-apartheid movement which, in an era of Trump and Israeli annexation, is
only going to find more participants both on and off campuses around the world.
apologists are not going to stop redefining anti-Semitism in order to target
solidarity with the Palestinians. However, they are unlikely to stifle an
anti-apartheid movement which, in an era of Trump and Israeli annexation, is
only going to find more participants both on and off campuses around the world.
