{"id":93885,"date":"2017-06-19T12:00:22","date_gmt":"2017-06-19T11:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=93885"},"modified":"2017-06-15T12:22:08","modified_gmt":"2017-06-15T11:22:08","slug":"eu-parliament-ignores-advice-and-votes-for-muddled-definition-of-antisemitism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2017\/06\/eu-parliament-ignores-advice-and-votes-for-muddled-definition-of-antisemitism\/","title":{"rendered":"EU Parliament Ignores Advice and Votes for Muddled Definition of Antisemitism"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

An International Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony, 25 January 2017, organised by the President of the EU parliament and the European Jewish Congress .<\/p><\/div>\n

Far-right Islamophobes unite with pro-Israel lobbyists in European Parliament antisemitism debate<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

By Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, Free Speech on Israel
\nJune 01, 2017<\/em><\/p>\n

A debate in the European Parliament on Wednesday, May 31st, exposed pro-Israel lobbyists as the natural allies of far-right Islamophobes supporting a definition of antisemitism designed to defend the state of Israel.<\/p>\n

Ostensibly about a motion on \u201cCombating Antisemitism\u201d, the discussion in fact revolved around one clause calling for institutions of the EU and all member states to adopt the controversial \u201cInternational Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Spanish socialist MEP, Juan-Fernando L\u00f3pez Aguilar, Chair of the European Parliament Working Group on Antisemitism.<\/p><\/div>\n

This document, based on an earlier \u201cworking definition\u201d abandoned by the now defunct EU monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia (EUMC), broadens the widely understood concept of antisemitism as hostility towards Jews, to include criticism of Israel.<\/p>\n

In Thursday\u2019s vote, 101 MEPs voted against its inclusion in the motion, but 479 voted in favour while 47 abstained. The motion including the contentious clause was passed.<\/p>\n

Speakers for the two largest political blocs, the Conservative European People\u2019s Party and the Socialists & Democrats, praised the virtues of the document and insisted that it was essential in the fight against a wave of antisemitism that they said was sweeping the continent. Other forms of racism were barely mentioned during the debate.<\/p>\n

Spanish Socialist Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar, one of the architects of the motion who has worked closely with Zionist lobbyists in his role as chair of the European Parliament working group on antisemitism, insisted that the IHRA clause was basically about hatred of Jews. It had nothing at all to with legitimate criticism of the Israeli occupation or its settlements, Lopez Aguilar said.<\/p>\n

Fellow social democrat, P\u00e9ter Niederm\u00fcller from Hungary, was more honest, extolling the IHRA clause for making clear that \u201cyou cannot question the very being of the Israeli state.\u201d<\/p>\n

Islamophobes back the IHRA definition in European Parliament debate<\/strong><\/p>\n

Little doubt remained about the chilling implications of the document when it was defended by speaker after speaker from far right nationalist groups such as the UK Independence Party and Italy\u2019s Northern League. UKIP\u2019s Gerard Batten, already infamous for calling Islam a \u201cdeath cult\u201d, urged MEPs to make sure the blame for antisemitism is placed where it belongs \u2013 at the door of Muslim immigrants.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

P\u00e9ter Niederm\u00fcller \u2013 \u201cyou cannot question the very being of the Israeli state.\u201d<\/p><\/div>\n

The outpouring of racist bile from supporters of the motion pledging their commitment to Israel while claiming to fight against antisemitism was relieved by contributions from a number of non-aligned, Green and Left MEPs.<\/p>\n

Ex-UKIP independent Steven Woolfe, describing himself as of Black and Jewish heritage, and as a believer in the state of Israel, nonetheless said adopting the IHRA clause would mean preventing freedom of speech and creating fear of speaking out. \u201cThis definition is so broad and wide that if we adopt it we would have to jail Mahatma Gandhi for things he said about Palestine,\u201d Woolfe said.<\/p>\n

Barbara Spinelli, an independent Italian politician whose mother was a German-Jewish anti-fascist activist, described the IHRA clause as \u201ca trap\u201d, because it includes elements that far exceed a proper definition of antisemitism, \u201chostility to Jews as Jews, full stop.\u201d She argued that the European Parliament must listen to Jews who were critical of Israel, who wanted to combat all forms of xenophobia and who were opposed to the IHRA document.<\/p>\n

Swedish Green MEP Bodil Valero pointed to the dangers of failing to distinguish between Jews and the state of Israel. It must be possible to criticise Israel without being accused of antisemitism. \u201cMany Jewish peace organisations are quite clearly opposed to defining antisemitism in a way that endangers freedom of speech,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Margrete Auken from Denmark\u2019s Socialistik Volkpartij quoted verbatim from the letter sent to MEPs earlier on Wednesday by the UK campaign group Free Speech on Israel on behalf of 11 Jewish organisations around Europe:<\/p>\n

\u201cEndorsing the highly contentious and flawed IHRA document will not aid our collective endeavour to combat antisemitism. In our view, endorsement would significantly undermine the defences against antisemitism by expanding the concept in a politically motivated way.\u201d<\/p>\n

The full text of the letter appears below, followed by another from umbrella group European Jews for a Just Peace (EJJP) analysing arguments put forward by the pro-Israel Transatlantic Institute. Below that is an important statement from the Rabbinical Council of Jewish Voice for Peace in the US.<\/p>\n

Letter Sent to MEPs by Free Speech On Israel on Behalf of Eleven Jewish Groups<\/h2>\n

Eleven Jewish groups urge MEPs to reject equating antisemitism with criticism of Israel<\/em><\/p>\n

Please note these new reasons to oppose contentious parts of the motion on antisemitism being put to the European Parliament on May 31.<\/em><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Further Jewish organisations have added their names to the letter (below) sent to MEPs last week opposing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) \u2018working definition\u2019 of antisemitism.<\/em><\/li>\n
  2. The University and College Union (UCU) in the UK, Europe\u2019s largest post-school education union, has rejected the IHRA document<\/em><\/li>\n
  3. Supporters of the IHRA document have written to MEPs misrepresenting its status and ignoring serious free speech concerns expressed in the UK Legal Opinion<\/em><\/li>\n
  4. Amendments are being proposed to remove reference to the IHRA document from the resolution and to acknowledge the broad spectrum of Jewish opinion, which is not uniformly in support of Israel. Please support these amendments.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    We have been alarmed, as Jewish organisations, to learn that a motion is to be debated in the European Parliament on \u2018combatting antisemitism\u2019 that is likely to weaken defences against antisemitism, not strengthen them.<\/em><\/p>\n

    Whereas many of the measures proposed in this motion are appropriate and timely, the proposal to \u201ccall on the Member States and European Union Institutions and Agencies to adopt and apply the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance\u00b4s (IHRA) working definition\u201d is not.<\/em><\/p>\n

    We strongly urge that no decision is taken to endorse the IHRA document without a detailed review of its potential legal implications. Possible alternative mechanisms for achieving this are<\/em><\/p>\n

    to delay the vote on this motion pending that review<\/em>
    \n to remove clause C2 pending that review<\/em>
    \n to add a clear proviso that nothing in the clause can be interpreted as in any way abridging established freedoms of assembly and expression<\/em><\/p>\n

    The IHRA document is virtually identical with the \u2018Working Definition of Antisemitism\u2019 developed by a working party of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). This was never adopted by EUMC, and has since been disowned by its successor Fundamental Rights Agency. Despite claims from promoters of the resolution, no EU institution has officially endorsed either of these \u2018working definitions.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    Antisemitism is and has been widely understood, and abhorred, as \u2018hostility to or prejudice against Jews\u2019. The fundamental flaw in the IHRA document is its attempt to expand the definition of antisemitism to cover criticisms that may quite legitimately be made of the state of Israel and its policies. The consequence is that any public body that attempts to apply this formulation in practice is highly likely to find itself acting unlawfully.<\/em><\/p>\n

    Freedom of expression is protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Freedom of assembly and association is protected by Article 11. These protections have been generally enacted into national legal frameworks within Europe.<\/em><\/p>\n

    An Opinion from leading human rights lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC on the status and implications within the UK system of law of adopting the IHRA document has been obtained by a number of UK NGOs. These arguments are developed by Sir Stephen Sedley, a Jewish former appeal court judge, in a recent article.<\/em><\/p>\n

    The Opinion explains the concerns that many Jews have about the implications for freedom of speech of the IHRA document. These implications would apply equally in any jurisdiction adopting the document. The Opinion states that:<\/em><\/p>\n