Needless to say all hell is breaking loose and UK academics are the most foul, antisemetic people in the world!!
They want freedom of speech and not to accept a definition of antisemitism which limits academic thought and can be seen as an attempt to shield the State of Israel from criticism.
Academics vote to reject EUMC’s working definition of anti-semitism | Jews for Justice for Palestinians
A great deal of what is said is without question antisemetic and I have no problem agreeing with that.
One thing which shoots off the pages at me is not equating Jews with Israel. I never do that but that is what I see done again and again and again by Pro Israeli's themselves.
But to the nitty gritty. Prejudice and racist/religious hate is always to be opposed but a distinction must be made between what is indeed antisemetism and what is criticism of Israel
Let's look at what UK academics have supposedly done which is so wrong. First, this is a 'working definition', no more. Academics can make their choice on what they think of any 'working definition'
Any critic of six-year-old definition of antisemitism attacked as antisemitic | Jews for Justice for Palestinians
They want freedom of speech and not to accept a definition of antisemitism which limits academic thought and can be seen as an attempt to shield the State of Israel from criticism.
Academics vote to reject EUMC’s working definition of anti-semitism | Jews for Justice for Palestinians
A great deal of what is said is without question antisemetic and I have no problem agreeing with that.
One thing which shoots off the pages at me is not equating Jews with Israel. I never do that but that is what I see done again and again and again by Pro Israeli's themselves.
But to the nitty gritty. Prejudice and racist/religious hate is always to be opposed but a distinction must be made between what is indeed antisemetism and what is criticism of Israel
Let's look at what UK academics have supposedly done which is so wrong. First, this is a 'working definition', no more. Academics can make their choice on what they think of any 'working definition'
Always in draft, never formally adopted, it is not up for discussion by those who could change it. Yet it is increasingly presented today as the definition of antisemitism. It cannot bear this weight. It is being used, rather, in ideological battles on campuses to demonise robust criticism of Israel. This conflation, as the UCU motion suggests “confuses criticism of Israeli government policy and actions with genuine antisemitism” and makes the task of identifying genuine antisemitism and fighting it harder, not easier.
-snip “In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” This single sentence has dominated the way the “working definition” is read.
The use of “could”, here and later in the document, is loaded. Following six relatively unproblematic examples of antisemitism, the document again focuses on Israel and lists five ways in which antisemitism “could’ be manifested, which are both confused and tendentious. The text says that “the overall context” should be taken into account. Yet, regardless of context, one of the examples – “using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism” – could hardly be anything but antisemitic. The other four examples, grouped around this one, are clearly tainted by association, the suggestion being that they could be anti-semitic, “just like the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism”.
In reality they can and often have been contested on grounds that have nothing to do with antisemitism.
Take, for instance, the example of “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination”. This could be antisemitic. Equally, denying that same right to Basques, Catalans, Scots or indeed the Zulu or Afrikaner nations/peoples, could be racist. But there are all kinds of non-racist reasons why someone might not support these national causes. The right to national self-determination is after all not the primordial right.
-snip-
Someone at the EUMC saved the organisation from considerable embarrassment by insisting that qualifications be inserted, changing the word “are” to “could, taking into account the overall context” be antisemitic. In other words for Kenneth Stern and his colleagues the link between criticism of Israel and antisemitism is much closer than in the final document, highlighting the original presumption that criticism of Israel on certain topics, no matter how carefully reasoned, was likely to be antisemitic by definition; and to put the onus on critics of Israel to prove their innocence on this matter.
In short: the EUMC working definition has little to do with fighting antisemitism and a lot to do with waging a propaganda war against critics of Israel. It is time it was buried and the UCU decision to take it on is hopefully a step in that direction. The fight against antisemitism should not be muddied by those who confuse criticism of Israeli violations of human rights and international law with hatred of Jews. It is clearly no such thing.
Any critic of six-year-old definition of antisemitism attacked as antisemitic | Jews for Justice for Palestinians
Last edited: