Antisemitism is racism not “a distinct form of harm”: response to Bell
JVL responds to David Bell’s “Independent review -antisemitism in schools and colleges in England”. JVL finds it politically biased, drawing inappropriate conclusions from flawed data. It will silence debate and foster distrust.
We agree unreservedly with one sentence in the government’s response to Sir David Bell’s review of antisemitism in schools and colleges in England:
“No child or young person should experience bullying, harassment or discrimination because they are Jewish.”
It should not need to be stated that no child or young person should experience bullying, harassment or discrimination because of their faith or ethnicity, whatever that may be. But according to Bell, Jewish children need special protection from a “distinct form of harm.” He makes no case for treating antisemitism as a safeguarding issue needing special status different from other forms of racist abuse, except to elevate a biased view of politics to the domain of child protection.
By singling out Jews for exceptional treatment, the government has at a stroke confirmed the worst fears of Black, Asian, Muslim, and other racialised communities confronted daily with a hierarchy of racisms.
Bell’s report, and the government’s response to it, combine contempt for non-Jewish victims of far-right racism with measures calculated to silence anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian voices. They yoke Jewish identity to Israel, a genocidal state, and demonise those who protest against it, particularly Muslims.
The report is shot through with Jewish exceptionalism. Its emphasis on the Holocaust locks it into a tragic past period of Jewish and European history, hindering us from learning from it to perceive and oppose current genocides in Gaza, Sudan and elsewhere.
Bell’s 27 recommendations, all instantly accepted by the government, must be rejected by those who are serious about combatting antisemitism and all forms of discrimination and harassment. Implementation would impose new duties at every level of the education system, on the pretext of combating dangerous levels of antisemitism described as “increasingly expressed through political and geopolitical narratives” … “including when linked to the conflict in the Middle East”.
The report builds on a picture of Jewish people disproportionately at risk from hate crime, enthusiastically promoted by politicians, media and pro-Israel lobbies but based on a deeply flawed presentation of official data. Bell quotes from his own idiosyncratic survey which is even less authoritative. A more responsible look at the data shows Muslims at the top of the unenviable league of communities suffering racist attacks. According to Crime Survey for England and Wales data for April 2022 to March 2025, Muslims were the most likely of any religious and ethnic group to face both religious and race-based hate crime. JVL has pressed government officials to stop this misrepresentation of official statistics.
Bell’s proposals would impose on every child, teacher, school leader and parent in the country the widely-discredited non legally binding IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which makes any form of anti-Zionism presumptively antisemitic.
We welcome the response of the National Education Union:
“The IHRA’s contested framing risks blurring the line between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and the genocide in Gaza… Schools must enable young people to confront difficult issues openly and develop empathy, not drive teachers into silence or leave pupils afraid to express their views.”
The NEU correctly opposes focusing on antisemitism without an equally clear commitment to tackling all forms of racism. “No form of racism should be minimised, and no pupil or member of staff should receive less protection.,” said general secretary Daniel Kebede.
Secretary of State for Education Lucy Powell impugned teachers’ professionalism when she told MPs there would be stronger guidance on impartiality, to make sure teachers did not “bring their own political views into the classroom.” And yet the report and its recommendations could not be more political!
Bell’s report was commissioned by Labour Together stalwart Bridget Philipson when she was Starmer’s education secretary. Bell himself sits on the board of the Academic Study Group for Israel and the Middle East, encouraging collaboration between UK and Israeli schools. This may help to explain, but cannot excuse, the Review’s resolute determination to skirt round the elephant in the room – Israel’s genocide and war crimes in pursuit of Zionism’s goals. Instead it presents anyone who raises these issues as a threat to the safety of the Jewish people!
This report closely follows Lord Mann’s report on the NHS, similarly promoting a sectarian political agenda under the pretence of neutrality. As with Bell’s review, Mann’s recommendations were instantly accepted by the Government. The objective of both seems to be to stifle debate. That must not be allowed to happen.
If allowed to go ahead, Bell’s recommendations will see increasing penetration of Zionist propaganda into our schools. It will shrink the space for our children and young people to undertake the necessary exploration of one of the critical issues of our time and lead to growing distrust between Jews and others in our diverse communities.
Institutions who have adopted the IHRA Definition must be challenged to repudiate it.
“No child or young person should experience bullying, harassment or discrimination because they are Jewish.”
Of course we must all agree with this.
But what about someone (Jewish and non Jewish) who supports the bullying, harassment or discrimination against indigenous Palestinians ? Should your Jewish faith shield you from criticism of your support for violent racism ?
Thank you. I suspected there was likely to be something suspicious with the report but find such documents too depressing to read through. The government’s immediate acceptance of all the report”s recommendations suggests that despite the little bit of noise from Burnham & Milliband about ‘listening’ and doing things differently there will be no serious attempt to do so or to consider other viewpoints.
Quite apart from errors of basic logic and statistical reasoning in the document so numerous as to suggest that, if our politicians really believe the garbage they endorse then they are suffering from a form of AI-induced collective dementia, the obsequious author of this document didn’t even bother to check the most basic facts.
On p22 he asserts the IHRA has been endorsed by the UN. This is most definitely NOT the case:
“…The United Nations Secretariat does not endorse any
definition on antisemitism. It is important to note that any definition of antisemitism should be applied taking into account the guidance provided in the Human Rights Committee general comment No. 34 on freedoms of opinion and expression (2011),7 in the Rabat Plan of Action (2012),8 and in the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination general recommendation No. 35 on combating racist hate speech (2013).
In this regard, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief noted in 2019 that criticism of the Government of Israel is not per se antisemitic, junless it is accompanied by manifestations of hatred towards Jews in general or by expressions that build on traditional antisemitic stereotypes.”
https://www.unaoc.org/wp-content/uploads/Antisemitism-UN-Action-Plan.pdf
Despite enormous pressure the official UN position has not changed since.
The Bell document also notes that the IHRA has been “adopted by many other countries from across the world”. We may note that of the roughly 47 régimes which have been bludgeoned into ‘adopting’ the ‘non-legally binding working definition’ as an administrative weapon of intimidation of their citizens, virtually all of them are satellites or dependencies of the US empire or NATO. The fact that others with some measure of self-respect have demurred is scarcely surprising, since as Sir Stephen Sedley pointedly remarked, the IHRA fails the first test required of a definition: it is indefinite.
With regard to David Hawkins comment above, the cited sentence from the government response:
“No child or young person should experience bullying, harassment or discrimination because they are Jewish.”
is a perfect example of the collapse of any clear semantics which is now so rife in corporate-speak that we hardly notice it anymore.
But the wording of the sentence may betray more than it intends of the underlying thought processes since it raises the obvious question:
“Which children or young persons should experience, harassment or discrimination, and why?”