21 Spring-Summer 2017 determination; applying double-standards by expecting from Israel a behavior not expected of any other state; applying the images and symbols of traditional antisemitism (e.g. the blood libel) to Israel; comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis; or holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel. It emphasizes that criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other state does not constitute a form of antisemitism. This makes the Definition, which is now referred to as the IHRA Definition, particularly suitable for deciding the question of contemporary antisemitism because, as The Select Committee Report stated, the Definition finds “an acceptable balance between condemning antisemitism in all its forms, and maintaining freedom of speech – particularly in relation to legitimate criticism of Israel.”9 However, the University refused to formally adopt the EUMC Definition of Antisemitism as Brian requested, even to help it decide the outcome of his complaint. It preferred instead to conclude that the formal adoption of the EUMC Definition was a “policy matter” that was beyond the scope of the student complaints procedure. This allowed the University’s decision to be based on the subjective views of the administrator who decided Brian’s case. Accordingly, despite an evidence file spanning 154 pages, the University found that evidence of antisemitism from Brian’s complaint was “not conclusive” and suggested that Brian was conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish prejudice. The University stated that: “[Brian’s] complaint reflects a tendency to think that those who oppose the policies and actions of Israel as a state or government are antisemitic and prejudiced against Jews [….] The complaint appears to conflate being antiIsrael with being anti-Jewish and opposition to Israel on political or moral grounds with hatred on religious and racial grounds.”10 This separation of hatred of Israel from hatred of Jews is a typical mode of denial of antisemitism for someone on the anti-Zionist left. The University’s claim that Brian appeared to be conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism ignores his careful attempt to distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemitism in his complaint and suggests that he brought his complaint in bad faith. In fact, the University insinuated that David Lewis and I, who (as non-practicing lawyers) had assisted Brian throughout the process, had used Brian to pursue our own political and campaigning agendas. This is a common response of the anti-Zionist left who tend to believe that the "purveyors" of antisemitism are mobilizing a discourse of power for a self-serving purpose. Accordingly, the University questioned Brian’s ownership of his complaint. This illustrates the practical application of "The Livingstone Formulation,"11 which is a contemporary trope that is frequently deployed by anti-Zionists in the UK.12 It is the allegation that those raising concerns about antisemitism are doing so in bad faith in order to silence criticism of Israel or for some other self-serving purpose. Its use allowed the University to refuse to engage with Brian’s allegation of antisemitism by responding with an ad hominem attack against him and his legal representatives. In effect, we were accused of playing "the antisemitism card" for an ulterior motive. The lack of a working definition of antisemitism also presented a major problem for the decision-making of Any University UK’s Students’ Union, to which Brian’s original complaint, filed in June 2014, had been referred for resolution. The complaint, although relatively short when compared to the later one of May 2015, also argued that the Palestine Society’s social media activity crossed the line from legitimate criticism of Israel into antisemitism and harassment. The Students’ Union, which had officially ratified the Palestine Society in September 2014, dismissed Brian’s complaint but gave no plausible reasons and no written decision was ever issued, despite Brian’s request for one. The decision-maker, who was Head of Student Engagement at the Students’ Union, merely said that she did not think the Palestine Society’s social media posts were antisemitic because she had seen similar statements on the internet. She admitted to having used no definition of antisemitism in coming to her decision. She was unable 10. Any University UK’s Complaint Response, 29 February 2016, para. 16. 11. David Hirsh, Accusations of Malicious Intent in Debates about the Palestine-Israel Conflict and about Antisemitism: The Livingstone Formulation, ‘Playing the Antisemitism Card’ and Contesting the Boundaries of Antiracist Discourse, TRANSVERSAL, 47- 76 (2010). 12. It is named after Ken Livingstone, the former Mayor of London, who in 2006 wrote in THE GUARDIAN, “[F]or far too long the accusation of antisemitism has been used against anyone who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government as I have been.” David Hirsh, How raising the issue of antisemitism puts you outside the community of the progressive: The Livingstone Formulation, available at https://engageonline.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/ livingstone-formulation-david-hirsh.pdf at 6 (last visited March 26, 2017).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=