Tribunal blow to Israel\u2019s advocates – UCU vindicated<\/i><\/i><\/p>\n
Taunting and tainting opponents with the charge of anti-semitism is a long-standing Zionist ploy, familiar to everyone involved in the Israel-Palestine issue. As their support weakens in the face of evidence-based argument, Israel\u2019s advocates have stepped up their use of the accusation as a means to close down debate, particularly on proposals for boycott, divestment and sanctions.<\/p>\n
A key component in their armoury is what\u2019s been called \u201clawfare\u201d: attempts to use the courts to stifle opponents. This strategy, which has been employed in the US, France and Britain, suffered a significant reverse at the end of March, when an Employment Tribunal in London comprehensively rejected a claim made by Ronnie Fraser, of Academics for Israel, against his union, the University and College Union.<\/p>\n
Fraser and his celebrity lawyer, Anthony Julius, argued that debates and decisions on Israel-Palestine issues within UCU amounted to \u201charassment\u201d against Fraser as a Jew. They made ten specific allegations to support this charge; every one of them was dismissed by the Tribunal as false or irrelevant.<\/p>\n
Jonathan Freedland once lauded Julius\u2019s musings on anti-semitism as \u201cforensic\u201d. But when subjected to a genuinely forensic examination at the hands of the Tribunal, they were shown to be anything but. In fact, the Tribunal\u2019s point by point demolition of Julius\u2019s arguments shows just why Zionists are so fearful of open, fact-based, rational discussion. (For a thorough examination of the Tribunal\u2019s findings and the aftermath, see Mark Elf\u2019s excellent blog, http:\/\/jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.co.uk<\/a>.)<\/p>\n The judges had harsh words for a number of Fraser\u2019s witnesses, particularly the chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, Jeremy Newmark, whose testimony as to his alleged treatment at a UCU meeting was labelled \u201cfalse\u201d. Two Labour MPs, John Mann and Denis Macshane (still in Parliament when the hearings were held last autumn), appeared for Fraser but did him no favours. They were criticised by the Tribunal for giving \u201cglib evidence\u2026Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking.\u201d<\/p>\n The Tribunal also found no evidence of the \u201catmosphere of intimidation\u201d alleged by Fraser. UCU\u2019s adherence to democratic procedures was fully exonerated. Unions in general should be relieved that the judges have found that they are not liable for psychological \u201cdamage\u201d arising from debates among members.<\/p>\n Most significantly, on the core question of whether opposition to Israel or Zionism amounted to anti-semitism, the Tribunal reached a clear-cut, unimpeachable conclusion. \u201cA belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment cannot amount to a protected characteristic,\u201d they declare, adding \u201cIt is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness.\u201d It\u2019s welcome to have this simple truth, so fiercely denied by Israel\u2019s advocates, upheld as logical and lawful.<\/p>\n Julius had argued that although not all Jews were Zionists the great majority felt an affinity for Israel. The Tribunal found this argument unpersuasive; a political view cannot claim \u201cprotected\u201d status simply because many members of a particular religion or \u201crace\u201d hold it. If that were to be the case, political debate would be shut down. The Tribunal was clearly aware of that danger, as their final words on the case indicate: \u201cWe greatly regret that the case was ever brought. At heart, it represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means\u2026 The Employment Tribunals are a hard-pressed public service and it is not right that their limited resources should be squandered as they have been.\u201d<\/p>\n In the pro-Israel camp, the humiliating ruling has caused consternation. Some are now calling for what is known as \u201cthe European Union Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia\u2019s \u2018working definition\u2019 of anti-Semitism\u201d to be adopted in British law. According to this definition, opposition to Zionism, descriptions of Israel as an \u201capartheid\u201d or \u201cracist \u201c state, and calls for boycotts are all in themselves anti-semitic. It has never had any official status within the EU and has been quietly dropped by the EUMC\u2019s successor body, the Fundamental Rights Agency. Clearly, it would endow Israel and supporters of Israel with a protected status enjoyed by no other state or political opinion. This from people who accuse their opponents of \u201csingling out Israel\u201d. Worryingly, a similar definition was adopted last year by the California state legislature, without a single vote against.<\/p>\n It apparently does not trouble the self-appointed protectors of the Jewish community that inscribing the \u201cworking definition\u201d into law would make the British state the adjudicator on what does and does not constitute Jewishness. Historically, Jewish freedom and equality has been advanced as and when the state\u2019s role in relation to religion opinion has been diminished. Here we see again how the Zionists\u2019 abuse of the anti-semitism charge actually undermines the real struggle against anti-semitism.<\/p>\n There\u2019s been no mention of the Tribunal ruling anywhere in the mainstream media. Of course, had the judges found the UCU guilty of \u201charassing\u201d its Jewish members, the story would have been on every front page.<\/p>\n _________________________<\/p>\n Mike Marqusee is the author of <\/i>If I Am Not for Myself: Journey of an Anti-Zionist Jew (Verso). He was born in New York City in 1953, emigrated to Britain in 1971 and has lived mostly in London since that time. Mike has been active for several decades in numerous campaigns for social justice. As well as his books<\/a>, Mike has published articles on a wide variety of topics in (among others): <\/i>The Guardian, The Independent, the Daily Telegraph, The Observer, London Review of Books, Index on Censorship, BBC History Magazine, New Left Review, Red Pepper <\/em>(in UK), <\/i>The Nation, Colorlines <\/em>(in USA), <\/i>The Hindu, India Today, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, Frontline, Outlook<\/em> (in India). <\/i><\/p>\n