EXCLUSIVE: Bristol University Hearing into David Miller’s Right To Freedom of Speech Will Take Place Next Week as the Zionist Campaign to Dismiss Him Intensifies

Part 1: The Union of Jewish Students is not a Cuddly Group of Fragile Jewish Students – it is the Israeli State on Campus – Dedicated to Defaming Opponents of Israeli Apartheid

Part 2 will look at UJS's record of attacking Jewish anti-Zionists and dissident Jews

At approx 4.21 a Zionist student Adam Schapira explains how UJS is funded by Israeli Embassy

I have just learnt from a member of management at Bristol University,  who has to remain anonymous, unhappy about the pressure being exerted on the university to dismiss Professor Miller, that the hearing will be next week.

This is the BOD real agenda

The campaign to dismiss David Miller has been a combined campaign of the British Establishment, led by the Union of Jewish Students. Their supporters include the Board of Deputies, the Community Security Trust, over 100 MPs and peers, the All Parliamentary Group Against Anti-Semitism and of course the lie sheet that goes by the name of the Jewish Chronicle.

David Miller 

Extreme Pressure to Dismiss David Miller

The campaign to have David Miller dismissed for calling for an end to Zionism, a racist political ideology and his criticism of the Union of Jewish Students, has been in full flow ever since February when David spoke at a meeting of the Labour Campaign for Free Speech. Since then there has been a Zionist tsunami washing over Bristol University. It has been led by the Union of Jewish Students which, as Al Jazeera’s The Lobby revealed in January 2017, is funded by the Israeli Embassy.

Demonstration at Bristol University Earlier This Year

At the same time David Miller has been gagged by the university, unable to speak out in his own defence, to rebut the lies and half-truths peddled by his opponents.

What will it take for Bristol to sack this lecturer? wrote Sabrina Miller in the Jewish Chronicle of 4 March. ‘Jewish students do not feel safe from him yet the university refuses to dismiss David Miller.’ The idea that Jewish students are such snowflakes that anti-Zionist ideas make them run to mummy suggests that they belong in a kindergarten not a university.  In not standing up for David Miller, Bristol University has failed in its basic duty of care to David Miller. Vice Chancellor Hugh Brady should be ashamed of himself.

On the same day The Times reported that MPs and peers call on Bristol University to condemn academic in antisemitism row.

This campaign has continued incessantly since February. On August 12 the Jewish News reported ‘Outrage as Professor Miller set to teach ‘offensive’ module despite investigation’ and of course the ‘Union of Jewish Students accuses University of Bristol of ‘legitimising the targeted attacks he made towards Jewish students’.

The Zionist campaign is perfectly understandable because in Israel, if you are a Palestinian, then you are guilty until proven innocent as the appalling case of Mohammed el-Halabi ‘Has a lone Palestinian aid worker been falsely accused of the biggest aid money heist in history?’ demonstrates. Despite being cleared by two audits of stealing money for Hamas, he has been imprisoned by Israel for over 5 years. Israeli prosecutors offered him deals to leave prison if only he pleaded guilty.  This is the Zionist justice that UJS and the Jewish Chronicle want Bristol University adopt.

On 30 June Jewish News told how ‘100 days and counting: Uni ‘dragging feet’ over ‘pawns of Israel’ investigation’. David Miller said that Israel and UJS used Jewish students as pawns not that the students were pawns (although some of them clearly are).

Jewish News reported on 28 July that ‘Bristol Uni ‘refused to discuss’ David Miller probe in meeting with UJS and J-soc’.  How strange that an employer refuses to discuss employment matters with external bodies. Perhaps Jewish News will enlighten us as to what has happened to its former foreign editor Stephen Oryszczuk? See ‘Jewish News foreign editor takes leave after criticising paper's coverage of Labour anti-Semitism row     

    

The corrupt Communities Secretary ‘Robert Jenrick has criticised one of Britain's most prestigious universities, saying that its Jewish students feel "unsafe and unwelcome". How one might ask does he know?  Has he spoken to any? Or is he repeating the lies of the JC?

The Jewish Chronicle of 13 August reported how

‘the All Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism wrote to Bristol Vice Chancellor Hugh Brady, attacking the university’s “institutional failure… to tackle anti-Jewish racism”. 

In fact the APPGA, including scab ‘Labour’ MP Rosie Duffield has written 3 times to Bristol University to pile the pressure on. At the same time the government has taken steps to ensure that holocaust deniers can speak unchallenged at universities.

If you deny the extermination by the Nazis of millions of people, including 6 million Jews, then that is perfectly acceptable to these MPs.  But if you challenge the apartheid movement called Zionism and thereby challenge the basis of British foreign policy in the Middle East then you must be banned, sacked and vilified.

What did David Miller Say That Was So Offensive?

What was David’s crime? Calling for an end to Zionism as a functioning ideology. Can anyone imagine that a tenured professor at a British university would have been in danger of being dismissed for having called for an end to Apartheid 30 years ago? Yet these hypocrites dress it up as protection for Jewish students. It would have just as easy 30 years ago to say that opposition to Apartheid was a threat to racist white students.

This is not the first time a Bristol Academic has come under attack

In 2017 the Zionist ‘charity’ Campaign Against Anti-Semitism called for the dismissal of Jewish lecturer, Rachel Gould for having written an article ‘Beyond Anti-Semitism’ for Counterpunch. Fat lump Eric Pickles, former Tory Friends of Israel Chair termed it the worst example of Holocaust denial he had ever seen. Bristol Post reporter Michael Ribbeck observed that:

to claim, as Sir Eric Pickles has done, that Dr Gould's paper is "one of the worst cases of Holocaust denial" is quite frankly ridiculous and inflammatory.

Perhaps Sir Eric should read up on the discredited historian David Irving before he starts throwing around accusations and trite soundbites.

Kenneth Stern, the drafter of the IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism wrote, in testimony to the US Congress about this case that:

Perhaps most egregious, an off-campus group citing the definition called on a university to conduct an inquiry of a professor (who received her PhD from Columbia) for antisemitism, based on an article she had written years before. The university then conducted the inquiry. And while it ultimately found no basis to discipline the professor, the exercise
itself was chilling and McCarthy-like.

Chilling and McCarthy like. That is an excellent description of the campaign to dismiss David Miller.

Is this the 'abusive' message Isaacs claims was sent to him?

David Isaacs – Chair of Bristol J Soc and a Liar

The attack on David began on February 15 in the Jewish Chronicle with an article by Liar Lee Harpin, arrested for having hacked phones at the Daily Mirror. He got away with that and has been defaming people ever since. He has since transferred his affections to the Jewish News which, on 13 August reported that ‘David Miller campaign accuses Jewish students of ‘whitewashing colonialism’.

‘The president of the Jewish Society at the university, Edward Isaacs, has also said that he was personally targeted for abuse in the wake of the academic’s broadside against the J-Soc.’

It went on to state that

‘‘The Union of Jewish Students has repeatedly criticised Bristol University for failing to take action “to protect Jewish students, who have been singled out and targeted.” 

This allegation is a complete lie and an example of the dishonesty of the campaign. Was the ‘abuse’ that Isaacs complains of from me? If so it was in response to an attempt by Isaacs to join Labour Against the Witchhunt Facebook Group. As the moderator I messaged him, asking what his motives were. 

‘You have applied to join Labour Against the Witchhunt. Why? You are Chair of a J Soc, i.e. the UJS which is funded by the world’s only apartheid state.

Why should a Zionist want to join an anti-racist group?’ Isaacs was attempting to join the LAW group as a spy. If this is anti-Semitic abuse then I’m a pear tree!

A second UJS member, AJ Solomon also applied to join the group. Solomon was Deputy Chair of Bristol J Soc and clearly he and Isaacs were acting in concert to try and infiltrate LAW. Unlike Isaacs Solomon responded to my question and we engaged in a conversation.  But then a funny thing happened.

He first started off accusing me of being an anti-Semite, the usual trope but I batted it back and he began to flounder – badly. So what did he do?  He unsent his messages! The conversation is below.  Losing the argument Solomon retreated. Was he harassed? Well if posing difficult questions to a Zionist is harassment then I guess I’m bang to rights!

Another article in the Jewish Chronicle of 13 August, a classic piece piece of McCarthyism complained that

‘Prof Miller is to teach two modules in the coming academic year, one of which has previously been condemned by the Union of Jewish Students for containing “offensive” material, the ‘Support David Miller Campaign’ accused the UJS and Bristol JSoc of existing to “whitewash Zionist colonisation of Palestine” and “manufacturing hysteria”.

The Zionist press assumes that Bristol University administration are as stupid as its few remaining readers.  And they might be right unfortunately. The first ‘Object’ in UJS’s constitution reads:

2.11    Creating meaningful Jewish campus experiences and inspiring Jewish students to make an enduring commitment to their Jewish identity, Israel, and the community.’

Israel occupies the West Bank and allocates full democratic rights to Jewish settlers whilst granting no rights whatsoever to those of another ethnicity, Palestinians. This is a classic example of Apartheid. Two groups living in the same territory with different rights.

B’Tselem, Israel’s most respected human rights group said in a Report  in January that Israel is a ‘regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid.’

And in April Human Rights Watch drew the same conclusions in a 300 page report ‘A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution’. The examples are numerous - from ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem to destruction of homes, water pipes and solar panels and the theft and confiscation of land.  All of which UJS defends in the name of Zionism.

This is just the West Bank.  In Israel itself the Palestinian minority is treated as a barely tolerated minority.  In May as Israel was attacking Gaza, there were widespread pogroms against Israel’s Arab citizens. This is what the attacks on David Miller by UJS are about. Both Isaacs and Solomon spent their summer vacation in Israel so they are fully aware of the pogroms and the ‘death to the Arabs’ March of the Flags in Jerusalem. They should bear in mind that ‘death to the Jews’ was the most popular slogan in Nazi Germany and Poland.

But what was it that David Miller said that caused such offence? Did he call for pogroms against Jewish students or threaten violence? Did he, like Bar Ilan Professor Mordechai Kedar who advocated the rape of Palestinian women, suggest raping Jewish women? To ask the question is to answer it.

Israel is a Jewish state, i.e. a state not of all its citizens but of its Jewish citizens. That is why it is inherently racist and that is why UJS seek to demonise anti-Zionist academics like Miller.

Below is a précis of what David actually said that the Union of Jewish Students and the Zionist claque found ‘offensive’.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box7unWvr7E&t=5s

David Miller Addressing February 13 Meeting of LCFS

 ‘The enemy we face here is Zionism and the imperial policies of the Israeli state... an all out onslaught by the Israeli government on the left... it is how we defeat the ideology of Zionism in practice.  How do we ensure that Zionism is ended... how we end the material reality of the jackboot of Zionism on the neck of the Palestinians...

I’ve been attacked and complained about by the head of the Bristol J Soc along with the President of the Union of Jewish Students, both of which organisations are formally members of the Zionist movement. J-Socs are part of the UJS, UJS is a member of the World UJS which is a direct member of the World Zionist Organisation. In its constitution UJS mention being pro-Israel. [David mentions similar attacks on other academics at Warwick and other universities against anyone speaking out about the Palestinians or criticising Zionism]... We have to fight back against that and the way to do that is to organise proper debate.’

So for advocating a ‘fight back’ by organising a ‘proper debate’ David Miller is guilty of threatening the safety of Jewish students! This is Orwellian doublespeak where words take on the opposite of their actual meaning.

The Dishonest Attacks on David Miller

Of one thing we should be clear. UJS’s attack on David Miller has nothing to do with defending Jewish students – it’s about defending apartheid. As David’s campaign was reported saying:

“The UJS and Bristol JSoc have been manufacturing hysteria around Professor Miller’s work for over two years. This is due to his teaching about the role of parts of the Zionist movement in promoting Islamophobia and his expertise on the subject. Both the UJS and Bristol JSoc exist to whitewash Zionist colonisation of Palestine and promote Israeli diplomatic objectives in the UK. No serious observer should take the claims of ‘discomfort’ made by these pro-Israel campaigners at face value, and they should not be allowed to dictate policy to British universities.”

Watch the Defend Miller Rally on Facebook

Also Please Sign the

Petition Defend Professor David Miller - Defend Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom

Transcript of Exchange on Messenger with AJ Solomon – Vice Chair of Bristol J Soc

why do you want to join Labour Against the Witchhunt? To be blunt are you a Zionist? I note you are from the University of Bristol so we can if necessary check if you've been involved in the campaign against David Miller

28 Feb 2021, 02:28You sent

I asked you a question. You have not answered. You are a member of Bristol J-Soc  ie a racist and Zionist you are blocked. Goodbye

28 Feb 2021, 15:19

You sentI suggest instead of pretending that you and the other Zionist Jewish students at Bristol are victims, when you are in fact perpetrators, active supporters of Israel, that you become like the Shministim, the brave Israeli youth who refuse to serve in an occupation army https://www.facebook.com/refusersn/videos/652696338746821

28 Feb 2021, 17:19You sent

Yeah it must be very stressful supporting apartheid and having to face down anti-racists! https://tinyurl.com/yblgczbb

You sentEven more stressful having to deal with arguments you can't answer - it's called fake victimhood

28 Feb 2021, 22:59

AJhttps://www.adl.org/resources/tools-and-strategies/what-is-anti-israel-anti-semitic-anti-zionist

2 Mar 2021, 06:44

Is that the same ADL that spied for South Africa's secret police (BOSS) and trains US Police Forces in how to kill Black people better? Your as much a victim as Germany's 'Aryans' were in 1933! https://www.adl.org/who-we-are/our-organization/signature-programs/partnering-with-law-enforcement

2 Mar 2021, 10:24

AJJust deflecting from the fact that this clearly calls both you and David Miller an anti semite

2 Mar 2021, 19:12

You sent

Then that shows what a rubbish definition it is then. If you redefine anti-Semitism to mean opposition to Zionism then fine. We're all 'antisemitic' But at least I'm not a racist scumbag like you!

AJThe article does not say anti-Semitism is the opposite to Zionism, it says anti-Zionism may be motivated by or a result of anti-Semitism

What is anti-Semitic is saying all Jews such as myself is responsible for Israel’s actions

You sent

that is the position of the ADL. Anti-Zionism is never motivated by anti-Semitism. That's why the friends of Zionism are people like Trump, white supremacists like Tommy Robinson and Richard Spencer and leaders like Viktor Orban. You are wet behind the ears. You know nothing of Jewish or Zionist history. Polish Jews voted overwhelmingly for the anti-Zionist Bund in the last free elections. In Warsaw out of 20 Jewish Council seats the Bund won 17 and the Zionists precisely one

You sent

Yes it is anti-Semitic to say that all Jews are responsible for Israel's crimes but you need to take it up with Israel not me. Israel calls itself a Jewish state and specifically states that it is a state of the whole Jewish people (a nonsense in itself). It is Zionism which plays into the hands of anti-Semites which is why Zionism has historically formed alliances with anti-Semites. I suspect like most Zionists you know nothing about Zionism. Try reading Herzl's Jewish State where he talks about the 'power of the purse' of Jews. Or the social Darwinist writings of Arthur Ruppin, the second most important Palestinian Zionist after Ben Gurion who openly proclaimed he was an anti-Semite. Do you even know of the concept of the Negation of the Diaspora? When Zionism began most Jews accused it of being a Jewish version of anti-Semitism.

Israel’s Attack on Gaza Is Why Antiracists Should Ditch the IHRA Misdefinition of Anti-Semitism That Protects Israeli Apartheid

 Support the Labour Campaign for Free Speech’s Model Resolution that Replaces the IHRA with the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism

Watch Asa Winstanley's Latest Video on How the Israel Lobby Brought Jeremy Corbyn Down with False Accusations of Anti-semitism

The Jewish Chronicle was hot off the mark with an exclusive no less! ‘EXCLUSIVE: Labour grassroots campaign to jettison IHRA definition of antisemitism’ in the shock horror mode normally adopted by the tabloids. And what was this Exclusive?  That the Labour Campaign for Free Speech which lists Chris Williamson, Jackie Walker and myself on its Steering Committee were proposing a motion to Labour Party Conference in favour of replacing the Zionists’ IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism with the Jerusalem Declaration of Anti-Semitism.

The IHRA Misdefinition, previously called the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism [WDA], was first proposed by Dina Porat of the Stephen Roth Institue of Tel Aviv University. You can read about the origins of the WDA in a Report on the WDA – Six Years After in a Conference in Paris in August/September 2010.

Particularly interesting is the contribution by Kenneth Stern, the principal drafter of the WDA, "The Working Definition – A Reappraisal" Stern  wrote that

the idea for a common definition was, as far as I know, first articulated by Dina Porat, who leads the Stephen Roth Institute,... in  April 2004. I recall Dina, who gets very animated when she latches on to a good idea,  talking to me, to my colleague Andy Baker, and just about anyone else she could  corner about the need for a definition.  

Dina Porat is today the Chief Historian at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Propaganda Museum and is one of the leading ideologues of Zionism.

It is useful to read Stern’s article because it explains the thinking behind the IHRA. Stern’s criticism of the previous attempts of the EUMC to formulate a definition of anti-Semitism was that it had constructed a list of Jewish stereotypes and come up with what he described as a ‘clunker of a definition’ because it ‘didn’t know how to deal with the problem of a Jew being attacked on the streets of  Paris or anywhere else as a stand-in for an Israeli.’

Stern argued that a definition of anti-Semitism could not be created on the basis of stereotypes of Jews because it was ‘unworkable to require a clear view of what is in the mind of any  actor (many of whom are never found) before making a classification.’

Stephen Pollard, Editor of the Jewish Chronicle is mystified why what is happening in Israel should impact on Jews in Britain - perhaps he should have a quiet word with the BOD!

And in this statement you can see why the IHRA, even if Stern was in good faith, went off the rails. Stern created a definition based on people’s political beliefs. It’s difficult to understand his thinking. Stern says that the WDA was created for the collection of statistics but it’s unclear how someone comparing Israeli policy and the Nazis fits into that. But regardless Stern was wrong. It is is essential to understand the motives of someone in order to classify whether it was an anti-Semitic attack.

If someone attacks me in the street because I’m wearing a rolex watch that is not an anti-Semitic attack.  It is a straightforward robbery. The fact that I am Jewish is irrelevant.  But if I’m attacked because my attacker is of the belief that all Jews are rich and I am therefore singled out, then of course that is an anti-Semitic attack.

If someone is attacked because the attacker believes all Jews support Israel then that is an anti-Semitic attack because the person was attacked because s/he is Jewish. Of course the reason why so many people believe that British Jews are responsible for what happens in Gaza is because Zionist organisations like the Board of Deputies repeatedly support Israeli war crimes whilst, at the same time declaring that they are ‘the voice of the Jewish community.’

No less than Stephen Pollard of the Jewish Chronicle had the gall to send me his Editor’s Letter this week which proclaimed:

Quite why people going about their daily lives in parts of North London should be linked to Israeli military action is something which lies in the mind of the Jew haters and their fellow travellers

Could it have something to do with its support for the actions of Israel in Gaza?  Whilst most of the world condemns Israel as a Apartheid state, the Board intoned on behalf of all British Jews that:

“We are deeply concerned and saddened by the escalation of violence, and the seemingly unremittent  rocket fire against Israeli civilians by Hamas in Gaza. These attacks are abhorrent and, despite the protection of Iron Dome, have sadly already caused loss of life. Israel has the right to defend its citizens and it is the responsibility of Hamas to immediately halt all rocket fire from Gaza.

Not a single word about the devastation and loss of life in Gaza.  Palestinian Lives Simply Don’t Matter. So of course some people will be fooled into believing that all Jews support Israeli war crimes and thus it is the Board itself which has placed British Jews in danger.

The Working Definition of Anti-Semitism was foisted in 2005 on the European Union Monitoring Committee. In 2014 the EUMC’s successor body, the Fundamental Rights Agency, removed the WDA from its website and in 2016 the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an obscure inter-governmental body adopted it or rather it adopted the 38 word core IHRA definition. That too is now shrouded in controversy as the IHRA Secretariat have deliberately misrepresented the decisions of the 2016 Conference in Bucharest.

The IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism has been used to close down free speech on Palestine and at the moment there is a particular targeting of academics. This much is admitted by the person who drafted it, Kenneth Stern, in testimony to Congress and an article in the Guardian.

That is why the Labour Campaign for Free Speech is urging local Labour Parties to adopt a Model Motion adopting the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism.

See Why We Should Critically Welcome The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism [JDA]

Below you can see all the dishonest ploys of the Jewish Chronicle, all in one article. We are told that the Zionist Community Security Trust (which acts effectively as an arm of Israel’s Mossad (MI6)) says it “could hamper efforts to tackle antisemitism”. They don’t explain how it will manage this! What they really mean is that efforts to close down campaigns in support of the Palestinians will be less effective.

When Dave Rich of the CST say that the JDA ‘was drawn up without widespread consultation of Jewish community organisations’ what he means of course is Zionist organisations.

The IHRA limits the Palestinian right to define their own struggle by branding it as ‘anti-Semitic’. Palestinians who experience racism every day of their lives, as in the vandalism and destruction of the Al Tafawk Childrens’ Centre last weekend by the Israeli Military, are told that they are anti-Semitic if they complain.

Palestinians struggle for their rights against Zionist oppression not because they are anti-Semitic but because they, like most people, don’t like being oppressed! It really is that simple.

But David Rich, an academic prostitute on hire to Mossad’s CST, gives the game away when he complains that:

While IHRA warns against comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, the Declaration suggests such comparisons are “contentious” but not antisemitic.

That is true. When Jewish demonstrators march in Israel to the chant of ‘death to the Arabs’ we should call them for what they are – Judeo-Nazis. And when people like the late Profess Ze’ev Sternhell wrote an article ‘In Israel, Growing Fascism and a Racism Akin to Early Nazism’ no doubt Rich would call him anti-Semitic despite Sternhell being a child survivor of the holocaust. 

Rich also complains that denying the ‘Jewish people their right to self-determination’ would not be anti-Semitic. Why should it? Only nations have such a right and Jews are a religion not a nation.

Clearly the JDA has got the Zionists and their academic puppets worried that their chosen instrument of demonisation of anti-Zionism, the IHRA, is meeting more resistance than they bargained for.

If you are in the Labour Party please move this resolution

Tony Greenstein

See:

Unlike the IHRA Misdefinition of Anti-Semitism the JDA Makes a Clear Distinction Between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism

Why do we need to define anti-Semitism?

Model motion: Abandon IHRA and adopt the Jerusalem Declaration

This motion has been drafted as a model motion to go to Labour Party conference 2021, but it can be tweaked for other purposes. Please note that this has to go through your branch first, then your CLP and needs to be submitted to the NEC by September 13 in order to be heard at Labour Party conference. Remember that a CLP can either submit a rule change (which needs to be submitted by June 11) or a ‘contemporary’ motion like this one.

1. We note

1.1. That the ‘working definition’ published by the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) has been rejected by numerous legal practitioners and academic scholars , because it conflates anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism and has been used to ‘chill’ freedom of speech on campuses.

1.2. Among the many critics of the IHRA are:

• Its principal drafter Kenneth Stern who explained that: “The definition was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus. In fact, at a conference in 2010 about the impact of the definition, I highlighted this misuse, and the damage it could do.”
• Professor David Feldman (vice-chair of the Chakrabarti Inquiry and director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism) who has described the definition as “bewilderingly imprecise”.
• Sir Stephen Sedley, the Jewish former Court of Appeal judge, who has written that the IHRA “fails the first test of any definition: it is indefinite”.
• Hugh Tomlinson QC who has warned that the IHRA definition had a “chilling effect on public bodies”.
• Geoffrey Robertson QC who has explained that, “The definition does not cover the most insidious forms of hostility to Jewish people and the looseness of the definition is liable to chill legitimate criticisms of the state of Israel and coverage of human rights abuses against Palestinians.” Robertson, a prominent human rights barrister, also wrote that the definition was ‘not fit for purpose’.
• Tony Lerman, the founder of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, wrote that “it’s not fit for purpose, but it also has the effect of making Jews more vulnerable to antisemitism, not less, and exacerbating the bitter arguments Jews have been having over the nature of contemporary antisemitism for the last 20 to 25 years.”

2. We believe:

2.1. That the adoption of the IHRA definition and all eleven examples by the Labour Party’s NEC in 2018 has not brought an end to the ongoing claims that the Labour Party is riddled with anti-Semites. In fact, the opposite has occurred. It has encouraged the leadership of the Labour Party to accelerate the expulsion and suspension of critics of the Israeli state and Zionism.

2.2. The government’s threat to defund universities that refuse to adopt IHRA is a serious attempt to shut down free speech and academic freedom

2.3.  That unlike the IHRA, the JDA, whilst not without its flaws, is about anti-Semitism not anti-Zionism.

3. We resolve:

3.1. To reverse the Labour Party’s NEC decision and jettison the IHRA definition. 

3.2. To adopt the Jerusalem Declaration, which has been “developed by a group of scholars in the fields of Holocaust history, Jewish studies, and Middle East studies to meet what has become a growing challenge: providing clear guidance to identify and fight antisemitism while protecting free expression”. In contrast to IHRA, it has been written “in good faith”, as Professor Moshe Machover said

3.3. To campaign for freedom of speech, which includes the right to call out Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians as racist, discriminatory and oppressive.