UK government tries to smear “boycott Israel” call as anti-Jewish

Sarah Irving Lobby Watch 20 January 2015

David Cameron, seen here with his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu, enjoys a cozy relationship with the Zionist lobby. (Number 10)

A recent British government report attempts to smear the Palestinian call for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions as “anti-Jewish.”

The document was published by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 28 December. As many people in Britain were on Christmas holidays at that time, the decision to release the report on a day it would not be widely-noticed is a curious one.

The report includes a list of supposed “government action on addressing anti-Semitism.”

However, closer examination reveals that the report conflates anti-Semitism with criticism of the State of Israel. It also misrepresents a 2004 call made by various Palestinian organizations for an academic boycott of Israel.

In one section, the report uses the following wording:

Calls to boycott contact with academics working in Israel are an assault on academic freedom and intellectual exchange. We recommend that pro-democracy lecturers in the new University and College Lecturers Union are given every support to combat such selective boycotts that are anti-Jewish in practice. We would urge the new union’s executive and leadership to oppose the boycott.

The genuine Palestinian statement on academic boycott, however, makes it clear that individual Israeli academics are not the target of the boycott call. Rather, the boycott targets Israeli academic institutions. Guidelines issued by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), state:

Anchored in precepts of international law and universal human rights, the BDS [boycott, divestment and sanctions] movement, including PACBI, rejects on principle boycotts of individuals based on their identity (such as citizenship, race, gender, or religion) or opinion. If, however, an individual is representing the State of Israel or a complicit Israeli institution (such as a dean, rector, or president), or is commissioned/recruited to participate in Israel’s efforts to “rebrand” itself, then her/his activities are subject to the institutional boycott the BDS movement is calling for.

It is also worth noting that many BDS advocates signed a 2012 letter against all forms of racism and bigotry. That letter opposes “the cynical and baseless use of the term anti-Semitism as a tool for stifling criticism of Israel or opposition to Zionism, as this assumes simply because someone is Jewish, they support Zionism or the the colonial and apartheid policies of the State of Israel, a false generalization.”

Smearing solidarity

Other problematic aspects of the government report include the portrayal of sympathy and solidarity with Palestinian victims of the Israeli war machine by local authorities in Britain as somehow equating to anti-Semitism, as seen in statements such as: “This year we also saw councils misjudging their remits, with Leicester City Council, banning Israeli-manufactured products, and Tower Hamlets flying the Palestinian flag.”

In portraying Palestine solidarity as anti-Semitic, the report hews to the line held by the State of Israel, which attempts to claim a representative role in respect of the global Jewish population. In reality, of course, many Jews around the world either have little interest in or reject Israel’s acts.

Claiming that actions such as the flying of the Palestinian flag by the London borough of Tower Hamlets and by other councils in Britain are associated with anti-Semitism obscures and cheapens the existence of a genuine problem of anti-Semitism in many parts of Europe.

The Department of Communities, however, seems determined to repeat and uphold inaccurate versions of the boycott call, and to defend the actions of the State of Israel as somehow representative of all British Jews. The question, of course, is why?

The answer quickly becomes apparent when one looks at the British government’s choice of advisors on the subject of anti-Semitism.

Prominent amongst these is the Community Security Trust (CST), a “charity” which purports to monitor anti-Semitism.

In one of a number of citations of information from the CST, the report describes it as “an organization that looks after the safety and security needs of the Jewish community.” Other researchers, though, would add less worthwhile activities to this benign description.

Political cover for Israel

Antony Lerman — a genuine expert on the problem of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish violence in Europe — has strongly criticized the CST for its conflation of anti-Semitism with any moves to question the behavior of the State of Israel.

Lerman accused the CST in 2014 of “abusing its mandate” by going beyond its proper — and entirely legitimate — role of ensuring the safety of Britain’s Jewish community, and instead choosing to defend indefensible acts such as the mass killing of civilians in Gaza.

Lerman went on to say of the CST that its acts in “providing political cover for Israel in this way takes the CST into the realm of partisan political action that hardly seems compatible with its charitable status.”

He also suggested that the CST was “muddy[ing] the waters when they seem to be encouraging hysteria and feeding paranoia” through the organization’s claims that anti-Israeli protests during the summer 2014 onslaught on Gaza constituted, first and foremost, a wave of anti-Semitism.

Broader examples of the CST exceeding its remit, going well beyond simply defending British Jews and instead working on behalf of the State of Israel, include the CST’s involvement in anti-BDS campaigning.

And when the British legal system rejected claims that discussing the academic boycott of Israel constitutes anti-Semitism in 2013, the CST resorted to cheap insults, with Mark Gardner, the organization’s director of communications, referring to senior judges sitting on an employment tribunal as “sneering bastards.”

Other CST shenanigans include its role in plotting with the British government to keep Sheikh Raed Salah, a leader of the Palestinian community within Israel, out of the UK. That role included providing the British authorities with doctored or intentionally mistranslated evidence against Salah, and attempting to smear British Jews who opposed Zionism.

And, lest the CST’s Jesuitical approach to the truth need any more evidence, there is the organization’s acceptance of funding from Richard Desmond. A British media magnate, Desmond is not only the owner of a string of pornography magazines, but also of the Daily Express, a newspaper with a history of anti-Semitim, as well as many other forms of racism.

The CST enjoys a cozy relationship with the British establishment. David Cameron, the prime minister, has been known to speak at its events. Its malign role in enforcing Israel-friendly ideas is very much par for the course.

Tags

Comments

picture

Abe Hayeem replied on

Along with the CST, we have the CAA which was formed in the UK during the Gaza assault in July/August 2014, allegedly to combat the rise in anti-Semitism that was directly attributed to Israel's horrendous massacres and destruction in Gaza, (which were portrayed as being Israel's self-defence against 'the rockets') ostensibly turning British Jewry rather than the Palestinians into the victims. The CAA (a grassroots pressure group) has been welcomed with open arms by the Home Office, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police (who have close links with the CST) who are all in discussion to push for restrictive and punitive action on protests, demonstrations, and anything that might make the Jewish community feel intimidated -including for a definition of anti-Semitism that includes criticism or action directed at Israel -nothwithstanding Israel's war crimes. No restrictions though on mass rallies to support Israel during these criminal assaults on the Palestinians -often attended by MPs, which might intimidate the Palestinians or Muslim communities, or those who oppose Israel's actions.

picture

Greg Dropkin replied on

The document Sarah Irving discusses also cites the College of Policing Operational Guidance on Hate Crime, which adopts the discredited EUMC definition of antisemitism. See pp 43-44 here

College of Policing (2014) Hate Crime Operational Guidance
http://library.college.police....

picture

Amir Dread replied on

Today, the International Criminal Court agreed to investigate Israeli occupation crimes and Palestinian resistance during the last Israeli "mow the lawn" bombing of the imprisoned indigenous Palestinians.

picture

Peter Loeb replied on

Each head of state should issue a stern message to each and every Jewish
and Christian Church or congregation that THEY are responsible for ALL
violence against ALL Muslims !! (Nonsense.)

This use of "anti-Semitism" as a free pass to all Jews to be free of all
laws and agreements on human behavior---because they are Jewish--- and
to imply that they have never been guilty of any criminal act at all is by
definition "anti-Jewish" and "anti-Semitic" is absurd on its face.

In terms of religion, it automatically absolves any and all Jews from all
responsibility for any action.

The rape of youth in areas under Israeli control is criminal and totally
unacceptable even if performed by soldiers supposedly representing (superior?)
Jewish values. (See EI story on children elsewhere in recent editions of EI).

Or perhaps Netanyahu wants the world to believe that rape is ethical as long as the rapists is or are Jewish.

---Peter Loeb, Boston, MA , USA

picture

JeffB replied on

@Peter

So far the Israeli Palestinian conflict has not involved much rape. Israel doesn't rape Palestinians (there may be a few exceptions but it is not systematic or widespread). Let's not provide encouragement for either side to go there with false accusations.

picture

Peter Loeb replied on

To JeffB:

You haven't read the article nor have you used common sense when one country
demolishes others' homes, massacres communities, forces thousands from their
homes, builds so-called "settlements", murders, rapes (evidently "exceptions" in the
views of the rapists and their "ethical" brutal armies of of conquest)...

In fact, the State of Israel never had any inherent "right" to take over Palestine.
They never intended to share from the beginning and suceeded with the help
of anti-Semites such as James A. Balfour and later other major powers----today
the US---with less than altruistic motives.

Look into the eyes of that Palestinian youth and tell him of the "exceptions".
Read of the description of the night raids by the IDF ....Read the destruction of Palestinian families in a subsequent EI article (photos). Perhaps all those deaths
were just more "exceptions".

----Peter Loeb, Boston, MA US

picture

JeffB replied on

@Peter

The bulk of your post is an apologetic of the form "the Israelis do stuff I disagree with therefore they rape". Conquest is not rape the same way it is not kidnapping. Rape like kidnapping can be a tool of conquest but so far this conflict has been with rare exceptions rape free. And I stand by what I said. Falsely accusing the Israelis of rape encourages the behavior. Stick to what they are doing not fabricating what are they aren't.

picture

Peter Loeb replied on

I hope that JeffB reads the article in question and responds to what they "are doing".
There doesn't seem to be any "fabrication".

Certainly there is conquest. In conquest Israel has used many "tools" of
oppression .

To be more direct: This is not an academic disputation of what is or is not
"conquest". What is going on is that there IS rape, massive state terror by Israel,
home demolitions, murder, massacre ....

Those children are your children. Those homes homes being demolished are your homes. Those family members murdered are your family members...

----Peter Loeb, Boston, MA USA

picture

Sue Blackwell replied on

What on earth is "the new University and College Lecturers Union" to which the government report refers? The University and College Union (UCU) was formed in 2006 by the merger of AUT and NATFHE - not exactly "new". And it deliberately doesn't contain the word "Lecturers" because our members include researchers and administrators. Perhaps a new scab union is being formed to undermine the troublemakers in UCU? I think we should be told.

picture

Peter Loeb replied on

The definition to which you refer is unacceptable. Whether it is in use by
courts in the UK is irrelEvant. "Zionists" are not "an ethnic groupt" and
it is doubtful if Jews are an ethnic group.

I refer you and others to Catholic theologian Michael Prior CM in his work
THE BIBLE AND COLONIALISM:A MORAL CRITIQUE, p. 114, footnote 11.
This not only puts the definition in a historical context but separates" popular"
uses from others.

-----Peter Loeb, Boston, MA USA

Sarah Irving

Sarah Irving's picture

Sarah is a freelance writer and editor, author of a biography of Leila Khaled and of the Bradt Guide to Palestine, co-editor of A Bird is Not a Stone (a volume of Palestinian poetry translated into the languages of Scotland), and a PhD candidate at the University of Edinburgh. She has worked and traveled in Palestine since 2001.