Williamson wrong to force universities to abide by antisemitism definition, say lawyers
JVL Introduction
The Union of Jewish Students claims that universities reluctant to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism are showing “contempt … for their Jewish students.”
Nothing of the kind, as seven eminent lawyers argue cogently in a letter published on 7th January.
Harriet Sherwood’s Guardian report is reposted below, followed by the text of the letter.
The report also links to the report of a working group set up by UCL’s academic board, which we have refrained from publicising before, as it is still to be further debated by that Academic Board.
Since it has now been put into the public domain we link to it and urge you to read it. We will carry more on it in due course.
This article was originally published by the Guardian on Thu 7 Jan 2021. Read the original here.
Williamson wrong to force universities to abide by antisemitism definition, say lawyers
Letter accuses education secretary of ‘improper interference’ after instruction on IHRA text
Loading article text…
We need to call this out for what it is. Universities are being bullied into adopting a totally inappropriate definition of antisemitism by the establishment and the pro Israeli lobby. The CST figures on so called antisemitic “incidents” are dubious. Dave Rich at CST is responsible for promoting the false left wing antisemitism narrative. The UJS thinks the mere exposure of Jewish students to pro Palestinian views constitutes antisemitism because they say so. Adopting the non international IHRA definition of antisemitism means endorsing anti Palestinian racism. It acts to divide rather than unite the struggle against antisemitism with the fight for Palestinian justice. It plays into the hands of those who seek to pit the Jewish communities against the Palestinians.
I know that in the Bible it says that when God thrust the tablets of stone into the arms of Moses he said unto Moses, who was disinclined to carry this encumbrance with him since he had papyrus and couldn’t see the point in hefting two stone tablets around, “Don’t worry, Moishe, it’s only a working draft. We can work on the details later.” It’s in there, Exodus something or other. And then, doesn’t it say – I can’t find the passage, but I know it’s there! – that when Moses looked alarmed at the sudden appearance of those pretty rigid commandments set in stone God said him, “Don’t worry, Moishele, they’re not legally binding.”
“But G’d” – he used the short form because they were on intimate terms – “this is all obvious and, if I may say so, not very well put.” “I know” came the voice of the Almighty, “but I’ve attached thousands of illustrative examples, which I’ve set out in two books, and that’s just for starters.”
Of course, we all know what happened next.
How does this configure with the All Party Parliamentary Group definition of Islamophobia? The IHRA code forbids denial of the Jewish people’s “right to self determination.” The APPG code forbids denial of the Palestinian people’s “right to self determination.” Thus we must agree with both. Yet we know in practice they are in conflict with each other. The Israeli Nation State law defines “self determination” as being the sole prerogative of Jewish people in the state of Israel denying the same right to Palestinians living in Israel. It obliges the Israeli state to promote “Jewish settlement” – effectively destroying all hope of a two-state solution. I don’t agree with that. Hamas was founded to establish an Islamic state in historical Palestine. I don’t agree with that either. But these are mainstream definitions of Jewish and Palestinian “self determination.” They are extreme and contradictory but the blanket ban on denial of Jewish and Palestinian self determination in the two codes obliges us to accord with them. This is nonsense. Authors of both these codes should define what they mean by self determination before forcing us to approve. Until they do, how can rational people sign up to them?
This must be the worst government to ever enter parliament, they have heaped shame and disgrace upon the head of the mother of all parliaments. They should all be in prison for theft, fraud, corruption, corporate manslaughter and treason.