Engage's Archive

Account: (login)

Report adult content:

confirm cancel

Articles on this Page

Share |

Are you the publisher? Claim this channel

Search in 110,436,109 RSS articles:

Browsing the Latest Snapshot

Browse All Articles (11 Articles)

Live Browser

Latest Articles in this Channel:

09/27/11--05:24: UCU antisemitic? Not if we change the definition of antisemitism! (chan 1864189)

www.EngageOnline.org.uk

Instead of adressing its antisemitism, UCU proposes to change the definition of antisemitism - New motion denying antisemitism to UCU Congress

Israeli academics won’t go to Ariel College while the boycotters see no difference between Ariel and Tel Aviv - New boycott motions to UCU Congress

Report of the Debate at the University of Johannesburg Last Week - David Hirsh, Joel Fishman, Ran Greenstein, Na’eem Jeenah

University of London Union (ULU) supports BDS against Israel Joel and Ethan Coen don’t agree with boycott The myth of

BDS Universalism University of California Debates Free Speech Vs. Federal Protection

Wildcat strike on Israeli railway follows arrest, beating of union leader

Trade Unions Linking Israel and Palestine: We’re now only five weeks away from the TULIP launch event in London. If you can attend, please do make sure to RSVP to ericlee@tuliponline.org.

www.EngageOnline.org.uk

09/27/11--05:24: UCU Congress re-defines antisemitism (chan 1864189)

www.EngageOnline.org.uk

UCU Congress decided this weekend to immunise itself against anybody who might claim that antisemitism can come in a form which looks like criticism of Israel. It did this by rejecting and denouncing the EUMC working definition of antisemitism. It didn't reject parts of it or propose changes. It triumphantly threw the whole thing in the bin. There was only one Jewish person at Congress willing or able to speak against this course of action. This is what Ronnie Fraser said:

I, a Jewish member of this union, am telling you, that I feel an antisemitic mood in this union and even in this room.

I would feel your refusal to engage with the EUMC definition of antisemitism, if you pass this motion, as a racist act.

Many Jews have resigned from this union citing their experience of antisemitsim.

Only yesterday a delegate here said: "they are an expansionist people”. It is difficult to think that the people in question are anything other than the Jews.

You may disagree with me. You may disagree with all the other Jewish members who have said similar things.

You may think we are mistaken. But you have a duty to listen seriously.

Instead of being listened to, I am routinely told that anyone who raises the issue of antisemitism is doing so in bad faith.

Congress, Imagine how it feels when you say that you are experiencing racism, and your union responds: "Stop lying, stop trying to play the antisemitism card."

You, a group of mainly white, non-Jewish trade unionists, do not have the right to tell me, a Jew, what feels like antisemitism and what does not.

Macpherson tells us that when somebody says they have been a victim of racism, then institutions should begin by believing them. This motion mandates the union to do the opposite.

Until this union takes complaints of antisemitsim seriously the UCU will continue to be labelled as an institutionally antisemitic organisation.

It’s true that anti-Zionist Jews may perceive things differently. But the overwhelming majority of Jews feel that there is something wrong in this union. They understand that it is legitimate to criticise Israel in a way that is, quoting from the definition, “similar to that levelled to any other country" but they make a distinction between criticism and the kind of demonisation that is considered acceptable in this union.

Ronnie was met with stoney silence.

Here is Engage's live blog from the debate on antisemitism.

Here is Engage's live blog from the debate on boycotting Israel.

Here is the response by Jewish Students to their lecturers.

Here is the letter sent by leaders of Jewish communal organisations to the General Secretary before the debate.

Here is the response to the letter from Trevor Philips,The Chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (pdf).

Here is a piece by Ben Gidley about antisemitism in the UCU.

Here is a piece by Eve Garrard on the EUMC Working Definition.

David Hirsh on the EUMC motion.

Previous letters to Sally Hunt, the General Secretary of UCU:

From Denis Noble, Michael Yudkin and David Smith, Oxford scientists. 14 November 2010

From Eva Fromjovic, Director of the Centre for Jewish Studies, Leeds University. 5 July 2007

From Dov Stekel, Centre for Systems Biology, School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham. 24 May 2008.

From Eve Garrard, Keele University UCU. 1 July 2008.

From Raphaël Lévy, BBSRC David Phillips Fellow. 22 October 2008

From Jon Pike, Open University UCU and National Executive Committee of UCU. 4 June 2009

Letter published in the Times Higher, signed by 39 union members urging Sally Hunt to meet with Gert Weisskirchen. August 2 2007

www.EngageOnline.org.uk

09/27/11--05:24: Ken Livingstone cannot be Labour's candidate for mayor (chan 1864189)

www.EngageOnline.org.uk

Ken Livingstone’s latest on next year’s battle against Conservative Boris Johnson for Mayor:

“It’s a simple choice between good and evil – I don’t think it’s been so clear since the great struggle between Churchill and Hitler.”

Another slip of the tongue or a sign of a politician who’s lost the plot?

Yet another innocent mistake?

Ken Livingstone’s “moderate” says Jews killed Christ

Ken Livingstone, Gerry Healy, MI5, Libyan money and the Zionist connection

The story of the Ken Livingstone / Oliver Finegold affair. Here. (David Hirsh, March 06)

‘What makes ‘red Ken’ tick? Here. (Colin Shindler, November 05)

Shalom Lappin on Livingstone’s claim that “this is about Israel, not antisemitism”. Here. (February 06)

Some links from Workers’ Liberty on Ken Livingstone’s history. Here.

Jonathan Freedland on Ken Livingstone. Here.

Ken Livingstone: “[P]erhaps they’re not happy, perhaps they could always go back to Iran and see if they do better under the Ayatollahs…” Here. (David Hirsh, March 05)

Simon Pottinger on Livingstone’s “they could always go back to…” line. Here. (March 06)

Guardian leader on Livingstone. here. (March 06)

The Livingstone Formulation.

The Livingstone Formulation at greater length.

www.EngageOnline.org.uk

UCndelsohn: pushed out of his own union by antisemitism

09/27/11--05:24: James Mendelsohn: pushed out of his own union by antisemitism (chan 1864189)

www.EngageOnline.org.uk

James Mendelsohn, Senior Lecturer in Law, Huddersfield University, Resigns from UCU

Dear Sally,

Thank you for your message.

I was happy to sign the petition of no confidence in the government’s HE policies and, like you, I have very serious concerns about the White Paper.

Regrettably, though, I am no longer able to join in UCU’s fight against the government’s measures. This is because I am no longer a member of UCU. Following the passing of Motion 70 at the most recent annual Congress, I felt that I had no choice but to resign. Not only does Motion 70 reject the most widely-used definition of anti-Semitism in the world, it fails to provide any alternative definition. The motives of those who proposed the motion are clear: they rightly understood that, according to the EUMC Working Definition, their obsessive campaign to single out Israeli academics for boycott year on year might indeed be anti-Semitic. Whether intentionally or otherwise, this has made UCU an even more uncomfortable place for Jewish members than it was previously. I can no longer contribute money to such an organisation in good conscience.

Please do not send me the same generic response you have sent to others who have resigned on these grounds. Sadly, your repeated claim that UCU abhors anti-Semitism is not borne out by the evidence; rather, the evidence points overwhelmingly in the other direction. For example, a union which truly abhorred anti-Semitism would have no truck with Bongani Masuku, whose statements were correctly defined as anti-Semitic hate speech by the South African Human Rights Commission. UCU, by contrast, invited Masuku to promote the boycott campaign. Does that sound to you like the mark of a union which abhors anti-Semitism?

Speaking on a more personal level, I sent you three emails on related issues in 2008, which are attached. I think you would agree that a trade union which abhorred anti-Semitism would take such emails from an ordinary member seriously. Regrettably, I never received a reply to any of them.

I no longer wish to contribute my money to an organisation which has a problem with institutionalised anti-Semitism. I am sure I will not be the last Jewish member who feels forced to resign, even at a time when trade union protection and solidarity are more important than ever. Once again -please do not send me your generic reply. All I would ask you is: do you realise that the boycott campaign is now weakening the union’s numbers and credibility, at a time when a strong union is needed more than ever? And do you ever lie awake at night wondering why, in the 21^st century, Jewish members have left UCU in droves?

Yours sincerely

James Mendelsohn

Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Huddersfield

See here for what other UCU members have said.

Also:

Who said that Jewish Communal institutions are incapable of criticizing Israeli policy? This is the Jewish Chronicle leader this week:

This week’s leader column in the Jewish Chronicle.

This newspaper, along with almost the entirety of Anglo-Jewry, does everything within its power to oppose the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

It is a moral disgrace, and its supporters deserve every ounce of the opprobrium they receive from all decent people. But the response of the Knesset this week, in effectively silencing the proponents of BDS, is not merely misguided and an own goal; it is a betrayal of the very essence of Israel.

When boycotters berate Israel, we have always been able to point out the hypocrisy of their focus on the one truly free country in the Middle East. That argument will no longer hold water if the new law is allowed to remain on the statute books. It is the very negation of democracy, and of what Israel stands for – freedom to express views which are defeated in argument. As for the behaviour of Benjamin Netanyahu, in simply absenting himself from the vote: so much for leadership. If he thinks the law is wrong, he should have led by example and voted against. This law must be overturned, and soon.

Also:

But anti-boycott campaigners in the UK rounded on the new law. Ronnie Fraser of Academic Friends of Israel said it “will make it more difficult to argue that Israel is an open democratic society with few restrictions on debate. Once again the Israeli government has failed to understand the problems for pro-Israeli activists in the diaspora.”

David Hirsh, editor of the website Engage, which counters antisemitism and anti-Zionism in the academic world, said: “The boycott campaign treats Israel as though it was no more legitimate than the settlements in the occupied territories. The new law shares this assumption… Instead of driving a wedge between the peace camp and the boycotters, the new law pushes the peace camp into the arms of the boycotters.”

Also:

See the report on Jonathan Freedland’s debate with Omar Barghouti, including:

… both Ms Gould and Mr Freedland were repeatedly shouted down by pro-Palestinian activists.

A clearly shaken Mr Freedland told the audience: “Tonight has been hugely revealing. I thought my disagreement with the boycott movement was because I want to see the end of occupation and you want to see the end of occupation and it was an argument about tactics.

“What has come through loud and clear is your motivation is not actually just the end of occupation but it’s with Israel itself – you have a fundamental problem with it.”

Also:

What overseas issues are UCU Congress interested in? – Ronnie Fraser

www.EngageOnline.org.uk

UCndelsohn: pushed out of his own union by antisemitism

09/27/11--05:24: Another UCU resignation et Robert Fine en Francais (chan 1864189)

www.EngageOnline.org.uk

Dear Sally Hunt,

As a life long socialist and a member of the AUT/UCU for almost 42 years, I could not have imagined that anything could have made me resign from the union. I have grown accustomed to the UCU’s annual adoption of illegal Israel boycott motions. But my imagination was obviously limited: the official UCU rejection of the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) working definition of anti-Semitism has accomplished just that. It has brought about my resignation from the union.

One part of that working definition rejected by the union stands out: it is anti-Semitic to ‘deny the right of the Jewish people to self-determination’, within some borders, unspecified as what they might be. It is hard for me to comprehend how anyone could consider this relatively anodyne claim as unacceptable, let alone reject it as a current form of anti-Semitism, which it most certainly is.

I have no doubt that there remain some individual Jewish members of the UCU. Many publicly identify as Jews only for the purpose of opposing Israel ‘as Jews’ and at no other times. But I can no longer allow my dues to support a union that is institutionally racist and that has demonstrated its anti-Semitism so repeatedly and unashamedly. I am therefore resigning my membership of the union with immediate effect.

David-Hillel Ruben, Professor of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London

Richard Kuper on the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism (by Eve Garrard)

Sally Hunt pretends not to understand the term “institutional racism”

Institutional Racism? norm is giving some straightforward examples

Open antisemitism doesn’t harm your reputation

What is the real motivation behind singling out Israel for boycott? Meir Perez, University of Johannesburg

Scottish socialist contextualizes the beheading of a 3 month old baby

More letters in the South African Jewish Report responding to Ran Greenstein

Le mouvement de boycott en Grande Bretagne et la délégitimisation d’Israël – Robert Fine

Premier colloque européen de JCall

Le dimanche 19 juin, à la mairie du XIIIème, 1 Place d’Italie, Paris, de 9h30 à 18h

D’abord je veux exprimer mon plaisir à assister à ce colloque européen de JCall et m’excuser pour mon français pénible.

Commençons par un rappel historique. Il ya six ans quelques activistes, longtemps antisionistes, ont réussi à gagner pour la première fois un vote dans notre syndicat, la Association of University Teachers, pour un boycott des universitaires Israéliens. On a remis en question ce vote pour des raisons de procédure. Une assemblée spéciale a été convoquée par le syndicat. Beaucoup de délégués sont venus, y compris moi, et après un grand débat la proposition de boycott a été rejetée. Les opposants au boycott ont eu la majorité des voix et aussi à mon avis de meilleurs arguments.

Bien sûr un mouvement antisioniste a longtemps existé dans une fraction de la gauche. Dans les années quatre-vingts, le plus grand parti de la gauche radicale en Grande Bretagne a appelé Israël ‘l’état illégitime’ et a refusé de reconnaître dans les universités les associations juives parce ce que l’on a pensé qu’elles étaient sionistes. Mais c’était la première fois que le mouvement antisioniste essaye de convaincre le syndicat de soutenir un boycott et il a perdu.

Pourquoi le parti du boycott a-t-il perdu à ce temps là? A mon avis il ne pouvait pas expliquer deux problèmes en particulier. D’abord, la question de ‘pourquoi Israël ?’ Il y avait beaucoup d’autres pays, bien sûr, où l’histoire de violation des droits de l’homme était bien pire que les violations commises par Israël. C’est vrai que l’occupation du territoire Palestinienne mène nécessairement aux abus contre le peuple Palestinien, mais le niveau des violations est quand même beaucoup moindre qu’en Chine ou au Sri Lanka ou en Syrie ou peut-être moins que les abus commis par les forces Américaines et Britanniques en Iraq. Alors le premier problème: pourquoi sélectionner l’état juif ? Pourquoi exclure les universitaires Israéliens et seulement les Israéliens de la communauté scientifique mondiale. ? C’est sûr que ce n’était pas seulement une question de droits de l’homme.

Et puis la question de : pourquoi les universitaires ? Pourquoi cette cible ? Pourquoi tenir les universitaires responsables pour les actions de leur gouvernement ? D’habitude dans le syndicat on apporte un soutien à la société civile contre un gouvernement ou un appareil étatique répressif. On supporte les syndicats étrangers contre leurs propres gouvernements. Mais cette fois c’est une exception à la règle. Cela a semblé bien imprudent car les universités Israéliennes fournissaient une espace important pour des voix plurielles, y compris des voix pour la paix et des voix pour la fin de l’occupation. Il semble que le parti du boycott n’a pas fait la distinction essentielle entre le peuple et leur état et qu’elle a voulu discriminer quelques universitaires à cause de leur nationalité.

De toute façon nous avons gagné et les boycotteurs ont perdu. On pourrait imaginer alors que c’était la fin de cette campagne mais en fait ce n’était que le début. Depuis, tout est devenu de pire en pire dans notre syndicat.

Première problème : la rhétorique contre Israël est devenue encore plus fantasmagorique. Israël est assimilé à l’apartheid d’Afrique du Sud, le Sionisme au Nazisme, Gaza au ghetto de Varsovie. Les Israéliens rient quand les Palestiniens souffrent. Le Sionisme est essentiellement expansionniste. Le but de Sionisme est toujours la purification ethnique.

Deuxième problème : la rhétorique contre les supporteurs de l’Israël est aussi devenue fantasmagorique. Le ‘lobby’ sioniste – ce n’est pas seulement un groupe de pression, c’est une puissance mondiale à laquelle même le gouvernement Américain ne peut pas résister. Il est responsable des guerres : non seulement des guerres auxquelles Israël prend part mais aussi la guerre en Iraq et peut-être en Afghanistan. Nous entendons que le ‘lobby’ sioniste est si puissant qu’il peut forcer les journaux à ne jamais publier les critiques robustes d’Israël, si puissant qu’il peut forcer l’Union Européenne a appeler toute critique d’Israël « antisémitisme », si puissant qu’il peut pousser la commémoration de la Shoah vers la défense des Juifs, uniquement des Juifs, et contre l’humanité universelle. Nous commençons à entendre que les victimes de la Shoah, les Juifs, sont devenus maintenant – selon un processus d’éducation intergénérationnelle - les bourreaux des Palestiniens. La plupart des Juifs, dit-on, sont devenus indifférente à la souffrance des autres.

Troisième problème : on voit le développement dans la rhétorique contre Israël et contre les supporteurs d’Israël des tropes classiquement antisémites pour comprendre et traduire les conflits du Moyen-Orient. Quelques fois ces manières de voir antisémites sont bien vulgaires. Un petit exemple : une commission d’enquête des syndicats Irlandais a récemment rendu compte d’une visite en Israël et Palestine. Le contenu était très critique à l’égard d’Israël et l’exposé décrit un meurtre rituel d’un prêtre par les ‘colons’ Israéliens : ‘Il était tué avec une hache de façon rituelle par les colons sionistes qui ont voulu purifier la région de toutes traces de Christianisme. Assassiné quand il faisait les vêpres, ses yeux étaient arrachés et trois de ses doigts étaient tranchés – les doigts avec lesquels il faisait le signe de Croix.’ On a écrit ce passage dans l’enquête d’un syndicat. Bien sûr cela a troublé la petite communauté juive en Irlande. Quand on parle des meurtres rituels par les colons – ou dans un autre exemple le vol des organes corporels par l’armée Israélienne – on franchit une ligne.

Chaque année, depuis six ans, notre syndicat, qui est beaucoup plus large qu’avant et qui s’appelle maintenant UCU (University and College Union), propose un boycott des universités en Israël et chaque année la résolution est adoptée. Chaque année il y a un préambule qui dit que la critique d’Israël ne peut pas être considérée comme antisémite. On annule même la possibilité que certaines formes de ‘critique’ d’Israël puissent être antisémites.

Le syndicat n’exclut personne de la communauté universitaire mondiale, sauf les Israéliens. Pas antisémite, dit-on. Le syndicat invite un syndicaliste Sud Africain à faire un tour en Grande Bretagne pour appuyer le boycott – un syndicaliste qui était reconnu coupable de ‘discours de haine’ contre les Juifs par la Commission Sud Africaine des Droits de l’Homme. Pas antisémite. Israël meurtre d’enfants. Pas antisémite. Israël contrôle la politique extérieure des Etats Unis. Pas antisémite. Les Juifs inventent l’antisémitisme uniquement pour invalider la critique d’Israël. Pas antisémite donc.

C’est la quatrième problème : la négation de l’antisémitisme. On dit que l’antisémitisme n’est plus un problème en Europe, que c’est un préjudice du passé, d’une époque évanouie, et qu’il n’existe plus dans la nouvelle Europe post-nationaliste. Et s’il y a de l’antisémitisme, c’est d’abord la faute des Israéliens et de leurs supporteurs. Il ne faut pas exprimer la peur de l’antisémitisme, car on répond que les ‘pourvoyeurs de l‘antisémitisme’ (c’est le mot utilisé par Alain Badiou) sont fondamentalement malhonnêtes et réactionnaires. Cette réponse est ce que David Hirsh appelle la ‘Livingstone formulation’ en référence a l’ancien maire de Londres.

Maintenant le parti du boycott annonce que la définition de l’antisémitisme avancée par la commission monitoring de l’Union Européenne est invalide parce qu’elle confond la critique d’Israël et l’antisémitisme. Ce n’est pas vrai, bien sur, mais le syndicat a voté pour se débarrasser de cette contrainte sur la parole libre, sur la liberté d’expression, et quelques intellectuels antisionistes ont assuré que le syndicat n’a rien fait de mal. Quelle formulation de l’antisémitisme est mise en sa place ? Aucune. Ici on attaque les institutions intégrales de la nouvelle Europe, on fait marche arrière dans la lutte Européenne contre cette haine prolongée.

En cinq ans beaucoup de choses ont changé. Plusieurs Juifs et démocrates sont sortis du syndicat à cause du boycott ; de dedans et du dehors des critiques parlent du racisme institutionnel dont le syndicat fait preuve ; Engage, le mouvement contre le boycott et contre l’antisémitisme de la gauche, continue à fonctionner ; et les accusations d’antisémitisme qui sont portés contre le syndicat sont absolument rejetées par l’exécutif.

Jusqu’ici les gagnants sont évidemment le parti de boycott. Et qui sont les perdants ? A mon avis, ce n’est pas le gouvernement réactionnaire en Israël ou les juifs ultranationalistes. Les perdants sont surtout les voix pour la paix, les voix contre le racisme n’importe où, les voix qui veulent entendre les voix des autres. On a converti la compassion pour les Palestiniens en une haine pour les Israéliens. On réserve toute compassion pour un parti et rien pour l’autre. Enfin la haine se substitue à la compassion et à la compréhension. Le but de ceux qui résistent à la délégitimation d’Israël doit rester l’antiracisme universel – en Israël, en Palestine, au Moyen-Orient et ici entre nous en Europe.

Robert Fine, Warwick University

Also by Robert Fine Fighting Phantoms: a contribution to the debate on antisemitism in Europe

www.EngageOnline.org.uk

09/27/11--05:24: Primo Levi conference and Engage Articles (chan 1864189)

www.EngageOnline.org.uk

A sort of Wisdom: Exploring the Legacy of Primo Levi

An international conference commemorating the 25th anniversary of Primo Levi’s death

6-7 July 2012, Edge Hill University, Lancashire, England

edgehill.ac.uk/primolevi

Primo Levi Edge Hill Call for Papers

Primo Levi Edge Hill Conference Poster

Ariel Hessayon, Historian at Goldsmiths, Resigns from UCU

Following the recent motion at the UCU congress in Harrogate on 30 May 2011 to reject the EUMC working definition of anti-Semitism (overwhelmingly carried), I have taken the decision to resign my membership of the UCU. Mine is not the first resignation, nor do I expect it will be the last. A number of people have already resigned from our Union in protest at policies that are antisemitic in effect (though arguably not intent). These are people with far better credentials as union activists and anti-racists than myself. So I do not expect you – and certainly no one who has been pushing these motions – to be unduly troubled. After all, and so far as I’m aware, we’re still waiting for an investigation into the reasons for the initial spate of resignations.

For my own part, I am an historian whose research interests and writings include studies of attitudes towards Jews and secret Jews in early modern England. I have also looked at the ways in which modern histories of Jews and antisemitism reflect the present day concerns of their authors. Based on my professional expertise, I have no doubt that the politically motivated rejection of the EUMC working definition has antisemitic implications. Accordingly, I cannot in good conscience remain a member of a union that countenances the antics of such extremists; fanatics who seem at best oblivious and at worst disdainful of the consequences of their single-minded obsession: Israel. Their relentless promotion of a boycott of Israeli Universities – and therefore by extension Israeli academics – at a time when their energies would be better channeled dealing with the ‘bread and butter’ issues that concern the vast majority of our membership has succeeded only in alienating people who while condemning the occupation, nonetheless believe in a just two-state solution as the best way to achieve peace in the region. It also happens to be a fact that in their own way most of these people identify as Jews.

Yours sincerely, Ariel Hessayon

Letter by David Hirsh in the South African Jewish Report

RAN GREENSTEIN wants to get us bogged down in the detail of wording and of who said what. But what is important is whether we choose to embrace the politics of peace and reconciliation between Israel and Palestine; or whether we choose the politics of siding with one set of ardent nationalists in their war against the other.

Greenstein does not support a peace between Israel and Palestine. He insists instead that Israel and Palestine should be thought of as one divided people who are ruled over by an apartheid regime.

He wants to dismantle Israel, like the apartheid regime in South Africa was dismantled, and he proposes instead a regime of individual rights within a new state.

But Israel is a nation, the nation descended from those who were driven out of Europe, out of Russia and out of the Middle East by 20th century anti-Semitism.

Israel is not an apartheid regime, it is a life-raft state, and it will not allow itself to be dismantled. Given this fact, Ran’s plan for treating Israelis in the way that the apartheid regime was treated, can only be a programme for conquest. The conquest of Israel is, hopefully, impossible and would in any case, never lead to a democratic outcome.

It is quite wrong to tell Palestinians that Israel must be finally defeated before they can be free, because it is like telling them that they can never be free.

But Palestinians can be free. Even the most terrible and entrenched conflicts between nations come to an end. They don’t come to an end with the final defeat of one or the other, but with a peace agreement between the two.

President Barack Obama was right when he outlined the deal: an Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories and both nations to recognise the sovereignty of the other.

Greenstein’s “Boycotts, Divestments, Sanctions” slogan tries to exclude Israelis, and only Israelis, from the cultural, academic, sporting and economic life of humanity.

It is war by other means, it is not peace and reconciliation. And such a politics of exclusion, aimed at the descendents of the Jews who have already been boycotted and pushed out, is a politics which is insufficiently sensitive to the history of anti-Semitism which not only hangs over Jews, but over us all.

Ran Greenstein, who has given up on Israelis, has despaired of building the Israeli peace movement, imagines that peace in his homeland can be built by demonising them here, and in the UK and around the world.

He thinks that anybody who disagrees with him should be denounced as supporters of apartheid.

Instead of the politics of anger and desperation, we should back those in both Israel and Palestine who want peace and who stand against the demonisation of the other.

David Hirsh
Goldsmiths College, University of London

Israelis excluded from cycle race in Turkey

www.EngageOnline.org.uk

09/27/11--05:24: Another UCU resignation et Robert Fine en Francais (chan 1864189)

www.EngageOnline.org.uk

Dear Sally Hunt,

David-Hillel Ruben, Professor of Philosophy, Birkbeck, University of London

Richard Kuper on the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism (by Eve Garrard)

Sally Hunt pretends not to understand the term “institutional racism”

Institutional Racism? norm is giving some straightforward examples

Open antisemitism doesn’t harm your reputation

What is the real motivation behind singling out Israel for boycott? Meir Perez, University of Johannesburg

Scottish socialist contextualizes the beheading of a 3 month old baby

More letters in the South African Jewish Report responding to Ran Greenstein

Le mouvement de boycott en Grande Bretagne et la délégitimisation d’Israël – Robert Fine

Premier colloque européen de JCall

Le dimanche 19 juin, à la mairie du XIIIème, 1 Place d’Italie, Paris, de 9h30 à 18h

D’abord je veux exprimer mon plaisir à assister à ce colloque européen de JCall et m’excuser pour mon français pénible.

Robert Fine, Warwick University

Also by Robert Fine Fighting Phantoms: a contribution to the debate on antisemitism in Europe

www.EngageOnline.org.uk

09/27/11--05:24: The tipping point for UCU (chan 1864189)

www.EngageOnline.org.uk

Ronnie Fraser, a Jewish UCU member who has been bullied, scorned, ridiculed and treated as though he was a supporter of racism and apartheid for ten years, is going to sue the UCU. His letter to Sally Hunt, written by Anthony Julius, says that UCU has breached ss. 26 and 57 (3) of the Equality Act 2010:

That is to say, the UCU has “harassed” him by “engaging in unwanted conduct” relating to his Jewish identity (a “relevant protected characteristic”), the “purpose and/or effect” of which has been, and continues to be, to “violate his dignity” and/or create “an intimidating, hostile, degrading humiliating” and/or “offensive environment” for him.

The letter alleges a course of action by the union which amounts to institutional antisemitism and it gives examples: annual boycott resolutions against only Israel; the conduct of these debates; the moderating of the activist list and the penalising of anti-boycott activists; the failure to engage with people who raised concerns; the failure to address resignations; the refusal to meet the OSCE’s special represenative on antisemitism; the hosting of Bongani Masuku; the repudiation of the EUMC working definition of antisemitism.

The Equality Act 2010 codifies our society’s rejection of racism even in its subtle and unconscious forms; it is one of the most important victories of the trade union movement and of antiracist struggle. The Equality Act is our Act, passed by a Labour government, a weapon designed to help antiracist trade unionists to defend workers who are subjected to racism.

How is it that a union is itself charged with its violation? The story begins with the campaign to boycott Israeli academia. It began to take root in the predecessor unions AUT and Natfhe after the collapse of the peace process between Israel and Palestine. By 2005, AUT Congress passed motions to boycott Haifa and Bar Ilan Universities on spurious grounds. There was a mass membership revolt in the union, an unprecedented recall conference was called, there was a whole day of debate, following debates on campuses up and down the country and the boycott movement was democratically defeated. But then Congress shrunk back to its usual size, the hard core activists reasserted their control and the mood to single out Israelis for punishment gained ground on the British left more generally.

There has been an unhappy and unstable stalemate in the union since. UCU Congress passes resolutions to support boycotts of Israel and only Israel; the boycotters and the Socialist Worker Party are allowed their demagogy, but they know that the leadership of UCU won’t ever implement a boycott because they all know that it would violate antiracist law in the UK. The rhetoric ratchets up, the Jews are bullied out and the union does nothing at all to help Israelis or Palestinians.

With the boycott campaign, which is antisemitic in its effect though not in its intent, comes an antisemitic poltical culture. Anyone who opposes the boycott is accused of being an apologist for Israeli human rights abuses; Jews who do not define themselves as antizionists are suspected of being Zionists; Zionists are denounced as supporters of racism, oppression, war, apartheid and imperialism. People who are concerned about antisemitism are routinely accused of raising the issue in bad faith in order to try to de-legitimise what is always called “criticism of Israel”.

Now we have reached a tipping point. The government has found UCU’s weak spot, its institutional racism, and it has begun targetting it.

What will UCU do? There are two factions inside the decision making structures of the union. There are the hard core antizionists and then there are the grownups.

The antizionists will storm with anger that UCU is being sued. They will say that it is a matter of principle that UCU should defend its independence from the courts and that it should defend its own democratic structures and its right to make whatever policy it chooses. They will say that the Israel lobby is conspiring against the union, that it is hugely powerful, that it is in cahoots with those who want to privatise education, that it is playing the antisemitism card in bad faith and that it is putting trade union solidarity at risk. They will say that there is no question of antisemitism in the union and they will at all times try to construct the question as a debate about Israel and Palestine. The antizionists will be tempted to treat their right to demonize Israel as more important than building a united defence of education. They will say that the fight against the Zionists is the same fight as the fight against the education cuts.

The grownups in union, including the trustees, and including the lawyers who will advise the leadership, will want to settle this court action and to make it go away. They will be worried about the immense cost to the union of defending its antisemtic record in front of a tribunal, both in terms of money and also in terms of humiliating publicity. They will be worried about the rules of disclosure. They will wonder what the emails between Tom Hickey and Matt Waddup and Sally Hunt and Mike Cushman might reveal if they were made available to Ronnie Fraser. They will remember that the union’s legal advice was withheld even from the National Executive Committee. They will remember that internal complaints by members of the UCU regarding institutional antisemtism were passed to a committee chaired by Tom Hickey, one of the central people responsible for the antisemitic culture in the union.

But what are Ronnie’s terms? The reinstatement of the EUMC definition; an apology from the union for its record of institutional antisemitism; a new code of conduct concerning Jewish members; an ongoing campaign of education within the union about the relationship between antisemitism and antizionism.

It would appear that Ronnie is ready to go to a tribunal. He must know that it will be difficult for the leadership of the union to agree to these terms. Evidently he wants his day in court and he wants to prove his case.

The antizionists will also believe they can win in court. And they will believe that they can blame the Zionists for the huge cost of defending their antisemitic record and for the disruption to UCU unity which will become even worse than it is now. They will think that it is enough to parade a couple of dozen Jewish antizionist academics before the tribunal who will say that the union has an unblemished record on the question of antisemitism.

The grownups will not believe that they can successfully defend UCU’s record on antisemitism before a tribunal and they will know that there is a good chance that UCU will be found by an antiracist tribunal to have breached our own hard-won equality legislation. They will imagine how the antizionist Jews will cope with unrelenting and forensic cross-examination as to the relationship between criticism of Israel, demonization and antisemitism. They will understand that the usual demagogy will fail to impress a tribunal.

The leadership of the union is now between a rock and a hard place.

Will UCU allow itself to be led into a train-wreck in court by the antizionists? Or will the grownups be allowed to open negotiations over how they will recognize, apologze for, and deal with UCU’s problem of institutional antisemitism. But this course of action would be greeted by antisemitic howls from the conspiracy theorists, who would say that Zionist power has forced the union to admit to that of which it is not guilty. Who in the union has either the power or the authority to lead UCU out of this predicament?

David Hirsh, Goldsmiths UCU

Here is Ronnie Fraser's speech to UCU Congress 2011.

Here are links to some of the evidence concerning institutional racism in UCU.

Tories target UCU’s weakspot

www.EngageOnline.org.uk

09/27/11--05:24: Matthias Küntzel and Colin Meade exclusive on Engage (chan 1864189)

www.EngageOnline.org.uk

In the Straightjacket of Anti-Zionism: A critical review of Gilbert Achcar’s The Arabs and the Holocaust - Matthias Küntzel and Colin Meade

In almost every part of the world, since the end of the Second World War, “Nazi” has been a synonym for “criminal”. Not so, however, in the Arab world, where positive references to Hitler and the destruction of the Jews have been an accepted part of public discourse for decades. For this reason alone – but also in the light of the current upheavals in the region – the topic of Gilbert Achcar’s recent book, The Arabs and the Holocaust, is of great importance.

In the first part of his book, Achcar tackles the issue of “Arab Reactions to Nazism and Anti-Semitism, 1933-47“. A good half of this part is devoted to an account of the origins of the Islamist movement, described as the “reactionary and/or fundamentalist pan-Islamists”, in the Arab world. Further chapters deal with the attitude of the other political currents in existence in this period: the “Liberal Westernizers“, “Marxists“ and ”Nationalists“.

In the second part the author deals with “Arab Attitudes to the Jews and the Holocaust from 1948 to the Present“. The treatment of these matters is divided into three successive epochs, “The Nasser Years (1948-67)“, “The PLO Years (1967-88)“ and “The Years of Islamic Resistances (1988 to the Present)“.

“A straightforward and logical structure”, thinks the reader, as he opens the book with eager anticipation. Alas, the experience of actually reading it confirms the verdict of two history professors, Stephen Howe and Jeffrey Herf, that “Achcar is a man at war with what he has written in his own book“ and “a combatant, and even victim, in such a war within his own pages“.

Another way of putting it would be: this is a book in which an author from the political left seeks to protect the dogmas of Western anti-Zionism from the reality of Arab antisemitism….

Download the PDF of the whole review by following this link: In the Straightjacket of Anti-Zionism

Follow this link for Achcar’s response in full, in a PDF file

Gilad Atzmon and Mearsheimer and Walt

When Mearsheimer and Walt started publishing on the “Israel Lobby” many of us thought that their discourse facilitated a slippage from social science into antisemitic conspiracy theory. Others found that to be insufficiently careful and they took the argument seriously, even saying that there should be further debate on the issue. Now, Mearsheimer has decided to legitimize an unambiguously antisemitic book. He started by stumbling into antisemitism but is now openly embracing it. Mearsheimer, and even Gilad Atzmon will be accepted amongst some sections of academia in a way that bigots against black people, Muslims, or women would never be. Many scholars are nowadays incapable of recognising antisemitism; some others simply don’t care about it; lots of people who do get it will remain silent. Follow the links:

Joseph Weissman explains the issue. More from Weissman here.

Andy Newman on Gild Atzmon.

Atzmon, Rushdie and Reem Kelani.

London Met Senior Lecturer thinks Atzmon is like Rushdie.

Interpal and Hamas.

Covering up antisemitism in the Guardian.

Sharmini Brookes reports from a debate at the University of Johannesburg on whether Israel is 'apartheid'.

Union of Jewish Students backs a 2 state solution and a Palestinian state.