The New Antisemitism

by Friends of Palestine Society

One of the pitfalls of campus activism in solidarity with Palestine is coming into conflict with Jewish students and specifically Jewish student organisations that have taken an explicitly pro-Israel stance. This informative blog post reveals the extent to which many young Jews view support for Israel as integral to there religious identity, and how more critical views of Israel are marginalized within Jewish campus organisations. The post gives several striking examples of the commitment of some Jewish organisations to evangelising for Israel. It describes a competition amongst pupils at Jewish secondary schools to find the best advocate for Israel and how the stated intention of one Union of Jewish Students organised visit to Israel is to “highlight the key messages to bring back to campus.” Reading this you cannot escape the conclusion that we are not being faced with scholarly debate but PR.

One of the key tactics of PR is misdirection- the diversion of your opponent from the debate at hand to a disparate, safer, topic. The diversion we are increasingly seeing is the accusation of antisemitism. This may well be, in part an expression of a genuine feeling amongst Jewish students of being under attack. This is unsurprising given Jewish people’s historic status as an oppressed group and the extent to which the nation of Israel is central to many Jews religious identity, something encouraged by mainstream Jewish educational establishments, as outlined above. It’s also not unfounded in every instance. Whilst unfortunate, it isn’t remarkable if some Muslims and especially Palestinians have come to feel a general antipathy towards Judaism given their treatment at the hands of the Israeli state, a state that styles itself as the ultimate outworking of Jewish identity. I’m also not in the position to rule out the existence of some whose criticisms of Israel are motivated by a deep-seated hatred of any overt expression of Jewish identity. However, it has also become clear that antisemitism has come to be used as a reflexive defence against criticism of Israel.

This has come to be a regular experience for Birmingham friends of Palestine, with many of our events being picketed by Jewish students. Complaints to the University are also common resulting in our being made responsible for security costs at events, a serious problem for the society. Recently we were subject to proceedings by the Student Groups Committee at the Guild of Students over comments made by an outside speaker at one of our events, something that could have resulted in the society being derecognised (fortunately this didn’t happen, although we were forced to print a clarification) Recently, we have become aware of a new tool in the armoury of those who wish to marginalise criticism of Israel: a definition of antisemitism proposed by a little known committee of the EU in 2005. The so-called European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) working definition outlines a number of features of discussions of Israel that its authors regard as potential manifestations of antisemitism:

o Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour.

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

o Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

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

o Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.

Now a number of these points are extremely problematic. The first point presumably means “a state of Israel” explicitly defined as a Jewish state although it doesn’t make that clear. Clearly this is an ethno-nationalist endeavour. Some would regard that as racist in and of itself without singling out Israel or Judaism in that regard. I would disagree. I believe that it is legitimate for an ethnic or national group to aspire to a state based on that group. Jews in particular have more reason than most to desire the refuge of a state of their own and all that entails in terms of sovereignty and military protection. The problem comes when this aspiration is prioritised over the fundamental rights of any other individuals or groups of people. The establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine- a region that historically had a non-Jewish majority- logically required either the forced removal of pre-existing non-Jewish residents from the land or the implicit erasure of those residents’ identities as equal citizens of the country in which they live. This is undeniably racist, and has begotten further racism amongst Israelis, as they must rationalise why Palestinian’s rights are either unimportant or at least subordinate to Israel’s national aspirations. Particularly problematic is the framing of this clause in terms of Jewish people’s right to self-determination. In practice Palestinians have had very little self-determination as a direct and natural result of establishing and sustaining the State of Israel. So the right to self-determination of Jewish people is defined as unconditional and fundamental whereas the self-determination of Palestinian people is conditional upon it not coming into conflict with the principles and security of the Israeli state.

The second point like the first is hopelessly imprecise. It doesn’t make clear whether it refers to holding Israel to standards above those currently adhered to by other democratic nations, those standards which consensus would hope that they would aspire to, or the particular ideals of the speaker suspected of applying double standards. Either way, this clause chimes remarkably well with an accusation regularly thrown at critics of Israel, as anyone familiar with this debate will know. Thus it has great potential as a weapon to be used against critics of Israel. It is a licence for “whataboutery” the derailing of the discussion of Israel’s actions by sidetracking the opponent into an irrelevant debate on the behaviour of and the opponent’s views on other countries.



The next two clauses are less problematic, and describe behaviour that is at least insensitive to Jewish people’s sensibilities surrounding their history. However there is also a risk that these could be used as a “gotcha” tactic to catch out speakers who don’t have any hateful intentions. We have experienced this at Birmingham with our recent disciplinary action after an outside speaker- former US soldier and antiwar activist, Mike Prysner- likened some of Israel’s actions to those of the Nazis. We made clear that we feel that such comparisons are unacceptable as they take advantage of some of Jewish people’s most painful collective memories in a way that outweighs any insight they may provide into the current situation in Palestine. Nevertheless this was a short section of a talk that didn’t primarily concern Israel and some present felt that one, well known, Jewish student tried to goad the speaker into making controversial remarks. The subsequent disciplinary proceedings felt like a deliberate attack on the activities of the society as a whole.

How then did such a flawed document come to be produced by an official agency of the European Union? Richard Kuper of Jews for Justice for Palestinians describes how the definition was drafted in a non-transparent process heavily influenced by back room lobbying. The contentious parts of the working definition seem to be largely identical to work by Dina Porat, of Tel Aviv University amongst others. Porat views anti-zionism as, in itself a variety of anti-semitism. According to Kuper, the EUMC and it’s successor body, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) abandoned the working definition after its lack of utility in monitoring the prevalence of antisemitism became apparent. It appears never to have developed beyond draft stage.

Nevertheless, it was endorsed by a parliamentary enquiry on antisemitism, although it was subsequently rejected by the then Government on the grounds that it “is in fact a work in progress and has not been recommended to states for adoption” according to the EUMC’s own evidence to the committee. (The Government would go on to endorse the, potentially even more problematic, Stephen Lawrence Enquiry definition that states that any action is racist-or antisemitic- if any observer perceives it as such). Extensive lobbying by Jewish student organisations resulted in the working definition being adopted by the National Union of Students and our very own University of Birmingham Guild of Students.

Whilst the working definition itself tentatively notes, only, that the clauses relating to Israel could represent antisemitism “taking into account the overall context.” In practice this caveat is often abandoned as can be seen in this Youtube video of audio clips from Mike Prysner’s talk (the full recording can be found here and the official Friends of Palestine video here). It appeals to the EUMC working definition as an absolute authority, and from there on in it is deemed unnecessary to further establish their case: a statement is antisemitic because the EUMC says (or to be more accurate, once said) it is. Similarly, CIF Watch, a website dedicated to- or as some might put it, obsessed with- recording examples of, what it terms antisemitism, on the Guardian newspaper’s online comment site, uses the EUMC working definition to demand that both Guardian writers and commenters whose statements could fall within the definition, be barred from the site. It’s worth noting that some of the writers identified are Jewish and at least one is Israeli. Statements are often described as “violating” the EUMC definition, as if it were a code of conduct. As we have seen, it was never intended as such. It’s original intention was as a definition to be used in monitoring the prevalence of antisemitism. When it was found to be ineffective for even that purpose, it was dropped by it’s own sponsors.

It is clear that the EUMC working definition is used to confine the discussion of the situation in Israel and occupied Palestine within terms of the choosing of Israel’s defenders. Usually they will allow that some criticisms of Israel’s actions are acceptable, but demand that this be in proportion to “those leveled against any other country” although these are never defined. In an article linked above Dina Poratm, one of the main architects of the EUMC definition, writes that such criticisms aren’t antisemitic if they targets ”a specific program, policy, political leader or party… as it might…in respect to any other country.” Thus, individual actions of the Israeli state are offered up as subjects of free debate, but their historical and idealogical underpinnings are kept off limits. Even if these boundaries are observed, the critic may still fall under suspician if he or she is perceived as too fervent or too focused on Israel.

We foresaw the problems associated with this definition when our Guild council endorsed it but were unable to prevent it from being passed. The dual nature of the Jewish people as a historically oppressed group and the Israeli state with an agenda to repel criticisms of its own, often oppressive, actions, presents a challenge to the usual liberal consensus that victims of prejudice are the best judges what constitutes that prejudice. I have heard at least one non-jewish student express the opinion that the opposition amongst Jewish students to the Mike Prysner speech, represented proof that it was unacceptable, as the opposition wasn’t restricted to “a few extremists” but seemed to be the majority opinion of the Jewish student body. This sets up one group as the arbiter of the acceptable limits on the discussion of the oppression of another group. We are seeing our fears of the effect of this motion, confirmed, and intend to try to overturn it within the next year. It is incumbent upon anyone who with any concern for the situation of Palestinians or for the free discussion of ideas at our Universities to challenge this document.

Student Union Disciplinary Hearing

THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM STUDENTS' UNION (Guild) today decided not to undertake any disciplinary action against the Friends of Palestine Society with regard to its invitation of US Army veteran Mike Prysner. The society was found to have followed the correct procedures in inviting Mr. Prysner.

However, a sanction was still decided upon by the student groups committee:
The society has been sanctioned to issue the following statement, and reiterate the clarification made in its previous blog post:

"The University of Birmingham Friends Of Palestine Society would like to apologise to anyone that was offended by guest speaker Mike Prysner’s comments comparing Israel’s actions to that of Nazi Germany.

The views and opinions expressed at all Friends of Palestine events are those of the speaker(s) in question and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the society."

The Guild's Student Groups Committee is comprised of:

Daniella Kotzmann (Guild Councilor)
Mark Harrop (Guild Councilor)
Sam Noakes (Guild Councilor)
Matt Lamb (Guild Vice President: Student Activities and Development)
Ashley Chambers (Guild Vice President: Democracy and Resources)
Julian Adeniran (Guild Vice President: Sport)

We would like to say a big thank you to the hundreds of people who signed the petition in support of Friends of Palestine in light of the disciplinary procedures and threats made against us.

(http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/supportbirminghampalestinesociety/signatures)

Your support has strengthened our determination to continue fighting for justice in Palestine, and the right of all oppressed peoples to live in dignity and freedom.

A Hectic Week for Friends of Palestine - WE STILL EXIST!

Hi Everyone,

MY SINCERE APOLOGIES FOR THE LACK OF CLARITY

OVER OUR UPCOMING EVENTS

AND THE SITUATION OF THE SOCIETY.

LAST WEEK, Zionist students seized the opportunity to do something they have been dreaming to do ever since Friends of Palestine was established in 2008.

They picked up on a comparison made by our Guest Speaker, Mike Prsyner, between the actions of Israel in Gaza and that of Nazi Germany in World War II.

I have declared that I strongly disagree with and don't advocate the use of such comparisons because I find them to be insensitive to the memory of the systematic murder of millions of Jews by a regime determined to wipe out an entire people.

Nevertheless, supporters of Israel have labelled Friends of Palestine as anti-Semitic and accused us of cynically trivialising the memory of the Holocaust.

They have dedicated all of their resources and much of their time into exerting pressure on the Guild to ban Friends of Palestine as a society, and prevent us from holding future events. Not only this but they have pressured the University of Birmingham management at the highest levels to scrutinise the actions of the Guild and sanction the society.

The issue has now been taken to a Guild committee , who will ultimately decide the fate of the society. They have the power to ban, sanction, and suspend the society.

If you would like to support us, please sign the petition:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/supportbirminghampalestinesociety/

WE HAVE SEVERAL EVENTS PLANNED FOR THE NEAR FUTURE, including our elections which have been postponed until next week.

We promise to give enough notice to people who want to volunteer as to the date of the handover meeting (where me and the rest of the committee will stand down from our positions).

More details to follow,

Thanks,
Faris

Point of Clarification - Mike Prysner Event

We are aware that the Birmingham Guild of Students has received 60 emails of complaint about one of our events: 'US Army Veteran Mike Prysner- Crisis in the Middle East', on the 26th of January.

The complaints related to the timing of the event, coming as it did on the same day that a commemoration was held at the University, to mark Holocaust Memorial Day. Complaints were also made about some of the content of the talk. We also note that upwards of 200 students expressed their support of the event in an online petition (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/mikeprysner/signatures).

At the time it was organised we were unaware of the Holocaust commemoration taking place on the same day not least because both events occurred on the day before Holocaust Memorial Day. When we became aware of the clash we brought our event forward by two hours so that people could attend both events if they chose.

We hope that people will understand the constraints of hosting an international speaker on a tight schedule who was only in the area for a short period of time. We would also like to stress that this was part of a regular series of events held by Friends of Palestine and was in no way intended to minimise or draw attention away from commemorating the Holocaust.

The other complaints related to the content of the talk. We do not vet outside speaker talks in advance, and cannot always take responsibility for all of the content within them. Nevertheless we are happy to emphasise that, in common with all events involving outside speakers, the views expressed in this particular talk do not always reflect the views of Friends of Palestine or its member, in particular the brief section of the talk that caused the most distress, in which the Gaza Strip was likened to a “concentration camp.”

We believe that associating the actions of the Israeli state with the history of Nazi Germany, or its iconography, is neither useful nor respectful to the sensitivities of sections of the student body and are happy to dissociate ourselves from any such comparison.

(The audio recording is available from http://www.zshare.net/audio/860855823658cefe/ The part on Gaza starts at 29 minutes)

The University’s Code of Practice on Freedom of Speech on Campus states that “the University is an academic community of staff and students. Central to this concept is the ability of all its members freely to challenge prevailing orthodoxies, query the positions and views of others and to put forward ideas that may sometimes be radical in their formulation.”

We believe that this talk made and important and compelling contribution to understanding the Middle East and many attendees found it a challenging and valuable experience. Nonetheless we regret, deeply, that some students have been upset by aspects of the talk and would like to reaffirm our, desire as a Society, to pursue our activities in the spirit of mutual understanding and solidarity with all victims of oppression or injustice, wherever or whenever it has taken place.

written by:
Faris Karouni

President
Friends of Palestine Society
University of Birmingham

The Palestinian Right of Return: It's so simple.

by Adam O'Connell

High quality:
http://palestinethinktank.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/palestine_map_1948_eng.jpg

the Right of Return is ......

Sacred,

• It is in the psyche of every Palestinian. No peace can prevail without it.

Legal,

• It is a basic right, derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all international and regional covenants.
• It is an individual right derived from the sanctity of private ownership and a collective right derived from the Principle of Self-Determination.
• It has no statute of limitation and cannot be extinguished by a treaty or the establishment of a state.
• It is affirmed by the UN resolution 194 and repeatedly confirmed by the international community over 110 times in 50 years, unparalleled in UN history.

and

Possible.

78% of Jews live in 14% of Israel. The remaining 22% of Jews live in 86% of Israel's area, which is Palestinian land. Most of them live in a dozen or two Palestinian towns. A tiny minority lives in Kibbutz, now ideologically and economically bankrupt. This minority exploits the vast Palestinian land.

Thus, only 200,000 Jews exploit 17,325 sq. km, which is the home and heritage of 5,248,180 refugees, crammed in camps and denied the right to return home.

Calling all Birmingham students, let’s take a short journey into the past…

by Faris Karouni

Calling all Birmingham students, let’s take a short journey into the past…

15th January 2009: Blue and white stripes flying everywhere, the colours of an apartheid state. There is a crowd of people standing by the clock tower at the University of Birmingham. Their message is a political one; ‘We support Israel, and we will defend its actions at whatever cost, despite any international outrage and condemnation that may result from its actions’. Israel has just been accused of destroying hospitals and schools in Gaza, during a wide-scale aerial bombing raid that has resulted in the deaths of 1400 people, 400 of which are children.

The Zionist dream was realised 62 years ago, when a ‘Jewish State’ was proclaimed in Palestine (later named ‘Israel’), a land in which Muslims, Jews and Christians had coexisted for hundreds of years, but nonetheless had a Jewish minority. This was purported to be a state in which Jews could live in dignity and have the right to self-defence; given the atrocities committed during the Second World War. Jews worldwide were to be offered automatic citizenship to the new state, encouraging immigration. The majority of the indigenous people in Palestine however were not Jewish, and their rights were immediately being threatened.

The founder of the state of Israel (and commander of the terrorist organisation Haganah), David Ben Gurion, declared “We must expel Arabs and take their places."

Thus, Israel came to existence in the most appalling circumstances with 750,000 people being terrorised into leaving their homes simply because they were not Jewish (and their homes repossessed by incoming Jewish immigrants); a racially motivated war crime that is shockingly under-publicised in the international media, yet it is the root cause of the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Absurdly, Birmingham University is a very special place for Israel. The Guild of Students has a very well organised and influential Zionist lobby that defends Israel’s actions whenever under scrutiny from students who stand up for human rights and try to condemn it.

When the flags of Israel were flying on our campus in 2009, a clear message was being sent out: ‘Israel must not be criticized, because doing so is attacking the Jewish people’. This terrible fallacy, regularly trumpeted by the Israel lobby, is an insult to the diversity of opinion that exists in the Jewish community. Are Jews assumed to naturally defend indiscriminate Israeli massacres of innocent Palestinians simply because it is in the interest of Israeli’s on-going apartheid policy? No.

Birmingham’s Guild Officer Team have typically been easily influenced by the Israel lobby on campus. The Guild historically has very low student participation outside of the main Officer Elections in Spring-time. Its decision-making council has a shamefully low turnout for elections and a large number of seats are awarded to students in uncontested elections, often with a turnout of less than 5 votes in constituencies where there are hundreds of students. This disastrous undemocratic system has poisoned our Student Union, and has led it to be so easily corrupted by the views of a few.

Policy that is highly offensive to students has been passed by the Guild Council over the past few years. They refused to condemn Israel during the Gaza massacre in 2009, saying that they ‘did not want to take sides’. Tom Marley (Vice President for Education and Access) and Hollie Jones (Vice President for Welfare) were both responsible for this decision. In May 2010, the Guild president Fabian Neuner spoke in support of a new policy calling for the Guild to label critics of Israel as ‘Anti-Semitic’ if they refer to Israel as a racist endeavour. This outrage sparked a facebook campaign with hundreds of students opposed to the motion, but the policy still passed with a majority vote.

The current Guild President, Dora Meredith, has stood on a platform of making the Guild more relevant to students. She has the potential to do this, but we need a broad student movement to support her. Also, unless other Guild Officers help her in this endeavour, it will be a difficult battle to win, and I call on all Vice Presidents to consider this in the next few months.

The recent NUS (National Union of Students) elections have been a huge victory for students on campus.

Edward Bauer, Adam O’Connell and Hannah Dadd have been elected (out of the 7 positions available). I can testify that these people have dedicated endless hours of their time to work on grassroots campaigns that benefit not just students, but society in general.

‘If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour’ was the slogan the Tories used to secure a shock victory at the 1964 general election in Birmingham Smethwick. 42 years ago the Conservative MP Enoch Powell gave his infamous speech in a Birmingham hotel warning that continued immigration into Britain would result in ‘Rivers of Blood’. These events have all happened in our city, and as students of Birmingham we should strive to use our knowledge and learning potential to create a world where history is never allowed to repeat itself and all peoples’ voices are heard.

Let’s work with each other across different backgrounds/religions/races/interest groups to fight racism and discrimination in all its forms, from Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, gender discrimination, to cuts in education, human rights violations, and the general damage to society that we see in today’s distressing economic climate.

Redbrick Letter

Regarding the article "The Quest for Peace in the Middle East continues" in last week's Redbrick. We support freedom of speech including for deceitful propaganda like that piece; this response is just to maintain some balance.

Regarding "one of the most controversial issues engulfing the conflict: West Bank settlements", in 2004 the International Court of Justice issued a ruling on many aspects of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and all fifteen judges agreed the settlements are illegal. Security Council resolution 465 (passed with a vote of 15-0) determined that the settlements 'constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention' and called on them to be dismantled. The Red Cross, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch have all issued statements declaring the settlements illegal. In fact, one would struggle to find a less controversial issue in international affairs; yet Israel and its apologists pretend there exists some kind of controversy, depicting an illegal occupation as merely a 'dispute' by two sides with equally legitimate claims. We advise readers to check the facts for themselves and see who's telling the truth.

On the "unprecendented" 10-month settlement moratorium, we advise readers to enter 'Maariv feature documents "settlement freeze" sham' into Google, where they'll find Israel's main newspaper reporting that settlement building continued throughout this 'moratorium'.

On Israel making 'the painful concession of uprooting settlements in Gaza', we'd ask readers to ponder whether to stop committing a flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions legitimately constitutes a 'painful concession'. We'd also advise readers to enter "Dov Weisglass interview with Haaretz - "The Big Freeze"" into Google, where they'll find its architect explaining that rather than being a 'painful concession' for peace, the objective was "the freezing of the peace process... When you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state."

Regarding a Palestinian state 'not confined to the pre-1967 borders' being 'the only real way' to resolve the conflict. Considering that the international community (bar Israel and the US) in the UN General Assembly has long agreed to settle the Israel-Palestinian conflict by a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders (i.e. its legal borders); that since 2002 all twenty-two Arab states signed the Arab Peace Initiative offering full peace with Israel for a withdrawal to the 1967 borders; that all fifty-seven Islamic states (including Iran) have agreed to support this initative; that all major Palestinian factions (including Hamas, enter "Hamas renews offer to end fight if Israel withdraws" into Google for Hamas' position) have offered to end the conflict if Israel would withdraw to the 1967 borders; we advise readers to question whether supporting Israel's refusal to join the rest of humanity really is "the only real way" to resolve the conflict.

We call upon all students wanting an end to the conflict to take a principled stance against fake 'negotiations' with unelected Palestinian collaborators and demand that Israel withdraw from Occupied Palestinian Territory; and to demand the British government put its official positions into action and cease assisting Israeli crimes with arms deals, preferential trade agreements and dealing in illegal settlement goods.

University of Birmingham Friends of Palestine Society

* This letter was published on page 14 of the 29th October 2010 edition of Redbrick and was written in response to THIS article.