The poor definition of Rebecca Tuck

JVL Introduction

We recently posted evaluations of the Tuck Report into allegations of mishandling of antisemitism complaints by the National Union of Students, produced by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Bricup, under the title: Tuck Report into the NUS and antisemitism – unfit for purpose.

Here, in a special article for JVL, Mike Cushman looks at a central aspect of the Report: its commitment to and uncritical use of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. He shows that this allegiance contaminates the central argument of the report and produces not the required impartial review of NUS’s activities but a partisan tract.

It results, he argues, in a one-sided and unhelpful report which prioritises the interest of Zionist Jewish students over all others. In so doing it failing to recognise or assess the concerns of any of their fellow NUS members, Palestinians and non- or anti-Zionist Jews among them.

It thus provides the NUS with no guide as to how to address all forms of harm and discrimination, including antisemitism.

Mike Cushman writes

Rebecca Tuck, author of the “Independent investigation into allegations of antisemitism within NUS”, has a well-deserved reputation as a determined advocate. Sadly, her report reads as a work of fierce advocacy and not the dispassionate arbitration of conflicting voices that was required.

Her report has an extensive section (pp. 40-55) on definitions of antisemitism which demands careful analysis and which I will explore here. Its faults are symptomatic of the inadequacy of her approach to the subject she was asked to investigate and drastically limit the strength of her findings.

We can start with one area of accord Tuck opens with descriptions of appalling antisemitic activity which require no definition to identify as abusive. However, she fails to establish how the handling of these incidents would have been improved if a suitable definition had been available. The inclusion of these examples seems designed to intimidate readers into a ‘something must be done’ mode, rather than advance understanding.

All students, Jewish and non-Jewish, religious and secular, have the right to have their concerns fairly addressed. That obviously includes Zionist Jewish students who have every right not to be subject to antisemitic abuse.  But that protection must be integrated with a concern for the right so others; it is undermined and not enhanced if it is made dependent on the marginalisation of others’ rights.

Indeed, the entire report broadcasts the concerns of Zionist Jewish Students but does not critically address them and fails to recognise the concerns of any of their fellow NUS members in relation to these very same issues. Consequently, it does a disservice to all NUS members by failing to map a path to enhancing NUS’s ability to address all forms of harm and discrimination, including antisemitism .

The section starts with an extract from Tuck’s Terms of Reference “The IHRA definition of antisemitism (including all of its examples) will inform the investigation”. While she accepts that the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism (IHRA WDA) is contentious, the discussion of any problems caused by its use is complacent and does not address many of the most incisive criticisms of the definition, including those by its lead author Kenneth Stern or by such legal experts as Hugh Tomlinson KC. Her conclusions are largely determined by this uncritical embrace of the WDA.

The lack of critical enquiry is most pronounced in her cursory discussion of the most important alternative to the WDA, the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, 9 lines in 16 pages. The paragraph in full states:

5.3 Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (‘JDA’)

In 2021 an international body consisting largely of university professors in fields such as Jewish Studies, Middle East Studies, History and Political Science proposed the JDA. This is said to be in “response to the IHRA definition” which is alleged to have caused confusion and generated controversy. The JDA also starts with a definition (that “antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews – or Jewish institutions as Jewish”) and then has a set of Guidelines. It has been noted that while a major criticism of IHRA is that 7 of its 11 examples refer to Israel, no less than 10 of the 15 JDA guidelines similarly refer to Israel/Palestine. (p. 45)

It is striking that in listing the disciplines of the authors and signatories she fails to note that they include many of the world’s leading authorities on antisemitism. She fails to contrast the authority of these authors with the much smaller and far less distinguished group who drew up the IHRA WDA whom she nowhere identifies.

She quotes the JDA definition

Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)

but does not at any point quote the IHRA Definition (while relying on it throughout)

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

Many would view the clarity of the JDA wording favourably in comparison with the ambiguity and indeterminacy of the IHRA version.

Possibly the most misleading sentence in the whole paragraph is the final one “It has been noted that while a major criticism of IHRA is that 7 of its 11 examples refer to Israel, no less than 10 of the 15 JDA guidelines similarly refer to Israel/Palestine.” While this simplistic count is at one level accurate, it is accuracy deployed to deceive – it is a comparing apples and elephants error. The IHRA WDA attempted to locate discussion of antisemitism to a quite disproportionate extent in discussion of Israel. Consequently, any attempt to unravel the damage induced by this disproportion is inevitably forced to spend a perhaps excessive effort on discussion of Palestine/Israel so as to provide the necessary clarification. Only, after this is done, can the prime focus be located on understanding the antisemitism experienced by British, and other, Jews from any discrimination they may face and the threats to their person and property: discrimination being a concept notably absent from the IHRA WDA.

Tuck’s response to the widespread, cogently argued criticisms of the IHRA WDA is to reduce them to the view that it is “alleged to have caused confusion and generated controversy”. Such dismissive phrasing marginalises criticism and avoids the need to look at its substance. As noted earlier, there is no evidence that Tuck has given the numerous critiques the attention they deserve.

Tuck pays considerable attention to the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee 2016 report on ‘Anti-Semitism in the UK’ and vests significance in its endorsement of the IHRA WDA, noting that it recommended it only be adopted with the addition of two “clarifications”:

that it is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent

and

that it is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent (p. 44)

Despite her reliance on the HAC she does not disclose that the Government blandly rejected these clarifications which the HAC had stated were necessary, “to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate”. Neither does she explore the effects of this rejection.

While Tuck refers to the MacPherson principles (p 46) that the definition of a racist incident should be “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person” she does not refer to any of literature about how this should be interpreted. In particular, she fails to refer to the sub-report that Professor David Feldman wrote for the 2015 All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, chaired by John Mann:

… it is unambiguously clear that Macpherson intended to propose that such racist incidents require investigation. He did not mean to imply that such incidents are necessarily racist. However, Macpherson’s report has been misinterpreted and misapplied in precisely this way. Its authority has been thrown behind the view that such incidents should, by definition, be regarded as racist. In short, a definition of antisemitism which takes Jews’ feelings and perceptions as its starting point and which looks to the Macpherson report for authority is built on weak foundations.

This understanding is echoed in the HAC report, which notes “an incident will only be prosecuted as a crime if it meets certain legal tests, such as for the existence of sufficient evidence.” (para 13) and notes that the Community Security Trust also “defines incidents against Jews as being antisemitic only where it can be objectively shown to be the case, and this may not always match the victim’s perception as called for by the Lawrence Inquiry.”

The authorities that Tuck cites are partial and weighted heavily to those who share her view of the benefits of the IHRA WDA. Tuck cites 2015 research by members of City University throughout the document and in this section, on page 48, on British Jews attitudes to Israel. In contrast she ignores the extensive output of the Institute of Jewish Policy Research which have published extensively on the British Jews experience of antisemitism and their views of Israel, reaching rather different conclusions.

The penultimate paragraph says: “the adoption of one definition of antisemitism over another would NOT solve the issue of actual or genuinely perceived antisemitism – nor indeed of perceptions of allegations of antisemitism being made in bad faith” (p.55). Despite this she does not resile from her unconditional support for the IHRA WDA which this statement undermines.

She concludes the section

Criticism of the Israeli government, its actions and policies will be the subject of student activism – as has been the case for decades. This must however take place within NUS in a manner which recognises that Jewish students are a welcomed and valued group, and that many of them may well be Zionist, and that there is no place for antisemitism. (p.55)

It does not say:

Criticism of the Israeli government, its actions and policies will be the subject of student activism – as has been the case for decades. This must however take place within NUS in a manner which recognises that Jewish students are a welcomed and valued group [as are Palestinian students], and that many of them may well be Zionist [while others will be non- or even anti-Zionist], and that there is no place for antisemitism.

All students, Jewish and non-Jewish, religious and secular, have the right to have their concerns fairly addressed. This section illustrates how the entire report focuses uncritically on the perspectives of Zionist Jewish Students but fails to recognise or assess the concerns of any of their fellow NUS members. Consequently, her report does a disservice to all NUS members by failing to map a path to enhancing NUS’s ability to address all forms of harm and discrimination, including antisemitism.