British universities must resist the imposition of the IHRA definition
Published
by
JVL
JVL Introduction
In this Middle East Eye article Jamie Stern-Weiner gives a comprehensive overview of the controversy surrounding Secretary of State Gavin Williamson’s attempt to force universities to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
He spells out the background to the definition, points to the dangers of its implementation and urges resistance to its imposition.
Thanks to Middle East Eye for permission to repost.
This article was originally published by Middle East Eye on Tue 9 Feb 2021. Read the original here.
British universities must stand firm against government's 'antisemitism' ultimatum
The ruling Conservatives have threatened to withhold funding from schools that do not adopt the controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism
Loading article text…
It is so obvious. The IHRA definition of antisemitism is not really valid and is emerging as a crude means of prevention of criticism of the State of Israel.
Terrifying. Will Muslim students be safe at a university that follows Williamson demands? Palestinians are already unsafe in the Labour Party.
Another useful article on the wretched definition of antisemitism that the establishment and the Israeli Lobby are trying to impose on UK universities. We need to debunk the fallacious arguments they put forward to justify its adoption. As the author states, this is not a”Internationally recognised definition”. It is hopelessly vague on what constitutes antisemitism and has more to say on anti zionism than antisemitism. In reality it is anti Palestinian because it’s adoption denies the legitimacy of the Palestinian struggle against Israeli settler colonialism.
If true, and I don’t doubt it, the most important part of this article is the recollection by “an ambassador to the IHRA who participated in the Bucharest plenary meeting” that “The original draft text was cut into two, and only the first two-sentence part was to be the working definition to be adopted, while the other part, the examples, remained what they were: examples to serve as illustrations, to guide the IHRA in its work.”
Jamie Stern-Weiner also states that “this account has been corroborated by a second delegation head who attended the May 2016 plenary. Two other members of delegations from different countries also confirmed their understanding that the IHRA definition comprised only the two-sentence passage reproduced above. It was only by separating the examples from the definition that the IHRA was able to reach consensus.”
But if this is so – and, again, I suspect it is – it is essential that the these people speak out. If they don’t their recollections are worthless.
I wrote to the IHRA asking for the minutes of the Plenum but was told that the minutes are only available to participants. So I wrote to all the participants of the British delegation, asking them to send me the minutes or at least that part that related to the voting on the Working definition text. Most did not answer. Two did but would not accede to my request, simply assuring me of the considerable effort they had put in to arrive at an agreement.
I would appeal to those people who have greater weight than me to press the members of the delegation for the minutes. I don’t agree with the IHRA document in any case but if it can be shown to be a hoax – a document never agreed by vote in the first place – this would enormously dent its authority.