antisemitic discourse in britain in 2010 · 2013-03-04 · 6 / cst antisemitic discourse report...

Antisemitic Discourse in Britain in 2010

This graphic shows “kill a jew day” page on facebook, but is taken from the anti-racistwebsite Modernity Blog that brought the story to public notice. This page and others like it,were subsequently removed.

Executive summary 5

Introduction 6

Antisemitic discourse and antisemitism 7

UK Jewish life: putting antisemitism into context 8

What is antisemitism? Background and concepts 10

Antisemitism: legal definitions 12

British Jews: relationship with Zionism and Israel 14

Anti-Zionism: “in effect antisemitic” 15

Multicultural identity: British Jews, Zionism and Israel 19

The Jewish conspiracy: money, power, control and intimidation 21• Jewish money power: Gerald Kaufman MP and Martin Linton MP

at Friends of Al Aqsa meeting, Parliament• The Independent: Jewish lobbies and grovelling American presidents• Middle East Monitor: modern UK Islamist conspiracy and ‘dual loyalty’ charges• Lord Phillips: Holocaust influence and the American Jewish lobby• Guardian Comment is Free: partial retraction of “global domination” claim• BBC Radio 4 broadcast: half a million Jews “who will help Mossad”• The Sunday Times: Oliver Stone alleges Jewish control of US media

and foreign policy

Anti-Israel rhetoric 28• John Pilger, the New Statesman: Jews “culpable...should their silence persist”

Facebook “kill a jew day” 30

Public comments on British antisemitism 31

Holocaust denial and minimisation 32

Holocaust abuse and anti-Israel activism 34• Socialist Workers Party (SWP): “Go back to Auschwitz” obfuscation• Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign• Lee Jasper at Islamic Human Rights Commission meeting• The Morning Star: Holocaust abuse in readers’ letters column• “Never again for anyone - Auschwitz to Gaza”

Campus: impacts of heated political debate 40• Antisemitic rhetoric and the London School of Economics

Far right groups, Jews, Israel and anti-Muslim politics 41• Jews reject BNP and EDL: anti-Zionists allege and fabricate collusion• The Observer corrects EDL “senior rabbi” claim

The Independent: article attacking Orthodox Jewish community 43

Antisemitism in UK-Saudi school texts 45

Prosecution for online comments in the Scotsman blog 46

Literary achievements 48

ISBN: 978-0-9548471-5-9The text and illustrations may only be reproduced with prior permission of CST.Published by the Community Security Trust. Registered Charity Number 1042391.Copyright © 2011 Community Security Trust.

Contents

The antisemitic accusation that Jews run the media is an old one. Here, Iranianbroadcaster, Press TV, updates the accusation in a global poll alleging “Zionistcontrol” of American broadcaster, CNN.

• Explicit antisemitism is rare in Britishpublic life and within mainstreampolitical and media discourse.

• Where explicit antisemitism doesexist, it tends to occur in circles thatexhibit racism against all minorities.Explicit antisemitism is also foundwithin the propaganda, ideology andinfluence of extreme Islamist groups.

• There was little overt antisemitismwithin mainstream 2010 GeneralElection campaigning or in relation to economic troubles. This was a welcome and important indicator of the marginal nature of overtantisemitism today. A notableexception was in remarks made by Labour MP Gerald Kaufman (who is Jewish), when he told a pro-Palestinian meeting that “right-wing Jewish millionaires”part-own the Conservative Party.

• Anti-Israel and anti-Zionist discourseare not significant features of Britishpublic life, but are increasinglyprevalent in some liberal-left sectionsof society, including activist groups,trade unions and mainstream media.

• The use of Holocaust analogies inanti-Zionist and anti-Israel discourseis antisemitic, as it is premised uponthe Jewish nature of thesephenomena, and carries direct hurt to Jews. In 2010, the official UKHolocaust Memorial Week was abusedfor anti-Zionist campaigning purposes,including in the House of Commonson Holocaust Memorial Day itself (inan event chaired by Labour MPJeremy Corbyn).

• Traditional antisemitic themes allegingJewish conspiracy, power, wealth,cunning and enmity against others,resonate within some examples of anti-Israel and (especially) anti-Zionistdiscourse, but are usually voicedagainst ‘Zionists’ or ‘pro-Israelis’, ratherthan explicitly against ‘Jews’ per se.

• Rhetoric against ‘Zionism’, ‘Zionists’ or‘pro-Israelis’ risks fostering reflexivehostility against British Jews and theirrepresentative bodies, including raciststereotyping and bias against Jewsdeemed ‘pro-Israel’ and the rejectionof Jewish concerns about antisemitismin Israel-related contexts.

• A poll by the Institute for Jewish PolicyResearch indicated that 72% of BritishJews self-identify as Zionists and 82%of British Jews regard Israel as playinga “central” or “important...role in theirJewish identities”. These statisticsindicate how so-called ‘anti-Zionist’campaigning may cause hurt to mostBritish Jews – by affecting their senseof well-being, and how others perceivethem.

• In Scotland, 2010 saw theinvestigation and prosecution of anEnglish man, for posting antisemiticstatements in the comments thread of an article on the website of theScotsman newspaper.

• Two notable books discussingantisemitism were published in 2010:Anthony Julius’ study of Englishantisemitism, Trials of the Diaspora,and Howard Jacobson’s novel, TheFinkler Question, winner of the 2010Man Booker literary prize.

Executive summary

CST Antisemitic Discourse Report 2009 / 5

6 / CST Antisemitic Discourse Report 2010

The report is not a survey of marginalor clandestine racist, extremist andradical circles, where antisemitism is much more common. Where suchmaterial is quoted within this report, it is usually for comparison with moremainstream sources.

CST distinguishes antisemitic discoursefrom actual antisemitic incidents3, whichare race hate attacks against Jews orJewish organisations and locations.

Racist or political violence is influencedby extremist discourse, particularly the manner in which perpetrators may be emboldened by support (real or imagined) from opinion leaders andsociety for their actions.

The 2006 Report of the All-PartyParliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism4

noted the importance and complexity ofantisemitic discourse and urged furtherstudy of it. By 2008, the Parliamentaryinquiry process had led to the issuing of the first progress report of theGovernment’s taskforce againstantisemitism. This stated of antisemiticdiscourse5:

“Antisemitism in discourse is, by itsnature, harder to identify and define

than a physical attack on a person orplace. It is more easily recognised bythose who experience it than by thosewho engage in it.

“Antisemitic discourse is also hard toidentify because the boundaries ofacceptable discourse have becomeblurred to the point that individuals andorganisations are not aware when theseboundaries have been crossed, andbecause the language used is moresubtle particularly in the contentiousarea of the dividing line betweenantisemitism and criticism of Israel or Zionism.”

Introduction

1 CST’s 2007, 2008 and2009 reports may beread athttp://www.thecst.org.uk/index.cfm?Content=7

2 Paul Iganski and AbeSweiry.“Understanding andAddressing the ‘Nazicard’ – InterveningAgainst AntisemiticDiscourse”. EuropeanInstitute for the Studyof ContemporaryAntisemitism, London.

3 CST’s annualAntisemitic IncidentsReports may be read athttp://www.thecst.org.uk/index.cfm?Content=7

4 Report of the All-PartyParliamentary Inquiryinto Antisemitism.Published September2006, London: TheStationery Office. Thereport may be viewedon the website of theParliamentaryCommittee AgainstAntisemitism:www.thepcaa.org

5 All-Party Inquiry intoAntisemitism:GovernmentResponse: One yearon Progress Report.Published 12 May2008, London: TheStationery Office. Alsoat http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7381/7381.pdf

This CST Antisemitic Discourse in Britain report analyses written and verbalcommunication, discussion and rhetoric about Jews and Jewish-related issuesin Britain during 2010. It is published annually by CST1.

Discourse is used in this report to mean ‘communicative action’:communication expressed in speech, written text, images and other forms of expression and propaganda2.

The report concentrates upon mainstream discourse. It cites numerousmainstream publications, groups and individuals, who are by no means antisemitic, but whose behaviour may impact upon attitudesconcerning Jews and antisemitism.


6 Shown repeatedly inCST’s annualAntisemitic IncidentsReports:http://www.thecst.org.uk/index.cfm?content=7.Also, Iganski, Kielinger,Paterson. “Hate CrimesAgainst London’s Jews”.Institute for JewishPolicy Research,London, 2005.

It can fuel antisemitic race hate attacksagainst Jews and Jewish institutions, and may leave Jews feeling isolated,vulnerable and hurt.

The purpose of this report is to helpreduce antisemitism, by furthering theunderstanding of antisemitic discourse and its negative impacts upon Jews andsociety as a whole.

Antisemitic impacts of legitimatedebate and mediaAntisemitic impacts may arise fromentirely legitimate situations that have no antisemitic intention.

Statistics show that perceived members of an ethnic or religious group can sufferhate crime attacks when public eventsrelated to that group occur. This dynamicis repeated in antisemitic incident levels6

rising in relation to public events involvingJews, Jewish institutions or Jewish-relatedsubjects such as Israel.

Media coverage of, or political commenton, such public events may be entirelylegitimate and overwhelmingly in thepublic interest. Nevertheless, thoseengaging in these debates also have aresponsibility to understand the potentialconsequences of their discourse, andshould avoid inflaming tense situations by the use of gratuitous language andinsinuation.

Antisemitic discourse and antisemitism

The notorious Protocols claims to reveal a

supposed secret Jewish conspiracy to take

over the world in this British version by the

Jewish snake circling the globe.

Championed by both far right and Islamist

extremists, it includes chapters on Jewish

control of war, politicians, finance and media.

The Protocols contains old antisemitic themes

that still resonate, impact and evolve

in modern politics, media and discourse.

Antisemitic discourse influences and reflects hostile attitudes to Jews andJewish-related issues.

OverviewJewish life in Britain today is diverseand extremely well integrated intowider society. Indeed, the Jewishcommunity is often referred to by Government and others as the benchmark of successful minority integration.

British Jews have full equal rights and protection in law, including againstantisemitic incitement and attack. Jews who wish to live a Jewish life have every opportunity to do so, be it educational, religious, cultural or political. Overt antisemitism is socially unacceptable.


UK Jewish life: putting antisemitism into contextBritish Jewry should be defined by its success and vibrancy, rather than byantisemitism. Nevertheless, antisemitic race hate attacks and antisemiticdiscourse are issues of considerable importance for British Jews.

Billboard in north Manchester during Chanukah, funded by the Home Office Victims Fund.

Despite their achievements, many Jewsregard themselves, and futuregenerations, as potentially vulnerable to antisemitic attitudes and impacts.The 2005–06 Report of the All-PartyParliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitismnoted “that there is much truth” in theapparent contradiction between theextremely positive situation of BritishJewry, and feelings of vulnerability and isolation7:

“In his oral evidence, the Chief Rabbistated: ‘If you were to ask me is Britainan antisemitic society, the answer ismanifestly and obviously no. It is oneof the least antisemitic societies in theworld.’

“However, the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews told us,‘There is probably a greater feeling ofdiscomfort, greater concerns, greaterfears now about antisemitism thanthere have been for many decades.’Having considered all of the evidencesubmitted, we are of the opinion thatthere is much truth in both of theseostensibly contradictory views.”

HistoryJews arrived in the British Isles inRoman times, but organised settlementfollowed the Norman conquest of 1066.Massacres of Jews occurred in manycities in 1190, most notably in York. In 1290, all Jews were expelled by King Edward I, but some converts to Christianity and secret adherents to Judaism remained.

Following the expulsion of Jews fromSpain in 1492, a covert Jewishcommunity became established inLondon. The present British Jewishcommunity, however, has existed since

1656, when Oliver Cromwell removedKing Edward’s 1290 expulsion.

By the early 19th century, Jews hadvirtually achieved economic and socialemancipation. By the end of the 19th century, Jews also enjoyedpolitical emancipation. From 1881 to 1914, the influx of Russian Jewishimmigrants saw the Jewishcommunity’s population rise fromc.60,000 to c.300,000. This met with antisemitic agitation from tradeunions, politicians and others.

DemographyThere are an estimated 300,000 to350,000 Jews in Britain, two-thirds of whom live in Greater London. Jewslive throughout Britain, predominatelyin urban areas. Other major Jewishcentres are in Manchester, Leeds,Brighton and Glasgow.

The religious composition of the Jewishcommunity is highly diverse, andranges from the strictly Orthodox tonon-practising. Many Jews can tracetheir British identity back to the mostsignificant influx of Jewish immigration,from Russia at the turn of the 20thcentury. Others can trace their Britishidentity considerably further. There isalso a considerable number of Jews ofother national origins who have arrivedin recent years and decades, fromcountries including South Africa, Israeland France.

The Jewish population is in decline due to low birth rate, intermarriage and emigration. The strictly orthodoxminority is experiencing sustainedgrowth due to larger family sizes andmay in future comprise the majority of the Jewish community.


7 Report of the All-PartyParliamentary Inquiryinto Antisemitism.Published September2006, London: TheStationery Office. Thereport may be viewedon the website of theParliamentaryCommittee AgainstAntisemitism:http://www.thepcaa.org/Report.pdf

Antisemitism: background History shows that antisemiticescalations are an early warning ofgrowing extremism within society as a whole. Antisemitism is a subject thatshould be of concern not only to Jews,but to all of society.

The near destruction of European Jewryin the Nazi Holocaust rendered openantisemitism taboo in public life, but it has led many to wrongly categoriseantisemitism as an exclusively far rightphenomenon that is essentially frozenin time.

Antisemitism predates Christianity andis referred to as “the Longest Hatred”8.Its persistence is not doubted, yetprecise definitions of antisemitism are heatedly debated.

Antisemitism repeatedly adapts tocontemporary circumstances andhistorically has taken many forms,including religious, nationalist,economic and racial-biological. Jews have been blamed for manyphenomena, including the death of Jesus; the Black Death; the adventof liberalism, democracy, communismand capitalism; and for incitingnumerous revolutions and wars.

A dominant antisemitic theme is theallegation that Jews are powerful andcunning manipulators, set against therest of society for their evil andtimeless purpose. The notion of Jewishpower – codified within the notoriousforgery The Protocols of the Elders of

Zion – distinguishes antisemitism fromother types of racism, which oftendepict their targets as ignorant andprimitive.

Today, antisemitic race hate attackshave approximately doubled since thelate 1990s. This phenomenon hasoccurred in most Jewish communitiesthroughout the world, and there is aclear global pattern whereby overseasevents (primarily, but not exclusively,involving Israel) trigger suddenescalations in local antisemitic incidentlevels. The situation is made far worseby ongoing attempts at mass casualtyterrorist attacks by global jihadistelements against their local Jewishcommunities.

Types of antisemitismAntisemitism is a global phenomenon,occurring even where there are noJews. Its manifestation and expressionmay range from violent thuggery andattempted genocide, to literary,philosophical and political discourse.Antisemitism has been described as anideology in its own right; but AnthonyJulius has argued that it is undeservingof such status and should rather beregarded as a polluter of ideologies.

Antisemitism as ideology The ideological component ofantisemitism was summarised by Steve Cohen, as follows:

“The peculiar and defining feature of anti-semitism is that it exists as anideology. It provides its adherents with


What is antisemitism? Background and conceptsIn essence, antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice or hostility against Jews.

The term ‘antisemitism’ is also used to describe all forms ofdiscrimination, prejudice or hostility towards Jews throughout history.

8 Edward H. Flannery.The Anguish of theJews: Twenty-ThreeCenturies ofAntisemitism. Firstpublished 1965.Reprinted: PaulistPress, 2004. See“Google books”. Also, Robert S. Wistrich. Anti-Semitism:The Longest Hatred.Methuen, 1991 andScreen Guides forThames Television: The Longest Hatred,1991.

a universal and generalisedinterpretation of the world. This is thetheory of the Jewish conspiracy, whichdepicts Jews as historically controllingand determining nature and humandestiny. Anti-semitism is an ideologywhich has influenced millions of peopleprecisely because it presents anexplanation of the world by attributingsuch extreme powers to its motiveforce – the Jews9.”

‘English antisemitisms’Anthony Julius has argued that anti-Jewish hostility today mixes “severalkinds of anti-Semitism”; and heidentifies four kinds of antisemitismthat wholly or substantially “have an English provenance”:

• “A radical anti-Semitism ofdefamation, expropriation, murder,and expulsion – that is, the anti-Semitism of medieval England,which completed itself in 1290, whenthere were no Jews left to torment.”

• “A literary anti-Semitism – that is, an anti-Semitic account of Jewscontinuously present in the discourseof English literature...through topresent times.”

• “A modern, quotidian anti-Semitism of insult and partial exclusion,pervasive but contained...everydayanti-Semitism experienced byJews...through to the late twentiethcentury.”

• “A new configuration of anti-Zionisms,emerging in the late 1960s and the1970s, which treats Zionism and theState of Israel as illegitimate Jewishenterprises. This perspective, heavilyindebted to anti-Semitic tropes, now

constitutes the greatest threat toAnglo-Jewish security and morale...By ‘tropes’ I mean those taken-for-granted utterances, those figures and metaphors through which moregeneral positions are intimated,without ever being argued for10.”

Antisemitic imagination: ‘The Jew’Brian Klug describes the importance ofthe imaginary ‘Jew’ (as distinct to thereality of Jews). He depicts theantisemitic caricature of this imaginary‘Jew’ as follows:

“The Jew belongs to a sinister peopleset apart from all others, not merely by its customs but by a collectivecharacter: arrogant yet obsequious;legalistic yet corrupt; flamboyant yetsecretive. Always looking to turn aprofit, Jews are as ruthless as they are tricky. Loyal only to their own,wherever they go they form a statewithin a state, preying upon thesocieties in whose midst they dwell.Their hidden hand controls the banks,the markets and the media. And whenrevolutions occur or nations go to war,it is the Jews – cohesive, powerful,clever and stubborn – who invariablypull the strings and reap the rewards11.”


9 Steve Cohen. That’sFunny, You Don’t LookAnti-Semitic. Beyondthe Pale Collective,Leeds, 1984.http://www.engageonline.org.uk/resources/funny/index.html

10 Anthony Julius. Trials of the Diaspora.Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford, 2010.

11 Brian Klug. The Concept ofAntisemitism. Speech,Oxford University,2009. Also,“Submission ofEvidence to the All-Party Inquiry intoAntisemitism”.December 2005.

Race Relations ActThe 2005–06 All-Party ParliamentaryInquiry into Antisemitism summarisedantisemitism by reference to the RaceRelations Act 1976 as follows12:

“Broadly, it is our view that anyremark, insult or act the purpose oreffect of which is to violate a Jewishperson’s dignity or create anintimidating, hostile, degrading,humiliating or offensive environment forhim is antisemitic.

“This reflects the definition ofharassment under the Race RelationsAct 1976. This definition can be appliedto individuals and to the Jewishcommunity as a whole.”

Stephen Lawrence InquiryThe Stephen Lawrence Inquirydefinition of a racist incident hassignificantly influenced societalinterpretations of what does and doesnot constitute racism, with the victim’sperception assuming paramountimportance.

The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism invoked the Lawrenceinquiry when it said of these issues:

“We take into account the viewexpressed in the Macpherson report ofthe Stephen Lawrence Inquiry that aracist act is defined by its victim. It isnot acceptable for an individual to say‘I am not a racist’ if his or her words oracts are perceived to be racist.

“We conclude that it is the Jewishcommunity itself that is best qualifiedto determine what does and does notconstitute antisemitism.”

The Government command response to the Parliamentary inquiry concurred,stating13:

“The Government currently uses theStephen Lawrence Inquiry definition of a racist incident which is an incidentthat is perceived as racist by the victimor any other person, and this wouldinclude antisemitism. This is a verywide and powerful definition as it clearly includes the ‘perception’ of the victim and others.”

European MonitoringCentre/Fundamental Rights AgencyThe European Monitoring Centre onRacism and Xenophobia, now renamedthe Fundamental Rights Agency, is the European Commission’s anti-racism watchdog group. In 2002–03,the centre conducted a study ofantisemitism in Europe that included a recommendation to “defineantisemitic acts”, as a necessaryprerequisite for European Police forcesto collect data about antisemitic racehate crimes.

Following this, the centre, assisted byJewish groups, developed a short“working definition” of antisemitismwhich “could, taking into account theoverall context”, indicate antisemitismin cases of crime and bias.


Antisemitism: legal definitionsLegislative definitions of antisemitism are primarily intended for Policeand judicial use in identifying antisemitic incidents and crimes, ratherthan for defining discourse. Nevertheless, these definitions provideimportant tools for helping consider what may, or may not, constituteantisemitic discourse.

12 Report of the All-PartyParliamentary Inquiryinto Antisemitism.Published September2006, London: The Stationery Office.The report may beviewed on the websiteof the ParliamentaryCommittee AgainstAntisemitism:www.thepcaa.orghttp://www.thepcaa.org/Report.pdf

13 All-Party Inquiry intoAntisemitism:GovernmentResponse: One yearon Progress Report.Published 12 May2008, London: TheStationery Office. Alsoat http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7381/7381.pdf

The “working definition” is primarilyintended for use by law enforcementwhen deciding whether crimes areantisemitic or not. It standardises theclassification and measurement ofantisemitism, and is an important andinnovative aid for the protection of Jewsin some European countries. Despitethis, it has been strenuously opposedby anti-Israel activists who wronglyclaim that its true goal is to suppressanti-Zionist and anti-Israel expression.

Cross-Government Hate CrimeAction Plan In law, the Lawrence inquiryrecommendations were built upon by new anti-hate-crime legislation,issued in 2009.


The Government’s official PowerPoint explanation of itsHate Crime Action Plan14.

14 www.gos.gov.uk/497417/docs/247610/882951/.../hatecrimeactionplan

In recent years, Israel has been subjectto repeated criticism and outright hostilityfrom relatively large sections of the liberalleft, including campaigning groups, tradeunions, politicians, journalists and theNGO sector. British Jews hold varyingperspectives on the legitimacy andmotivation of this behaviour: rangingfrom those who play a leading part in theanti-Israel activity, to those who regardactions against the world’s sole Jewishstate as antisemitic per se.

Antisemitism is a form of racist andpolitical activism. Because of its verynature, antisemitism can feed offcriticism of Jews, Israel or Zionism,regardless of how fair or unfair,antisemitic or legitimate, the criticismmay be.

As discussed elsewhere in this report,criticism of Zionism or Israel may notbe antisemitic per se, but it risksbecoming so when traditionalantisemitic themes are employed; when Jews are randomly targeted forits vitriol; when Jewish concerns aredisregarded or, worse, deliberatelymisrepresented as being fake cover forIsrael; and when Jewish historical andreligious ties with Israel are denied.

Hostility to the very notion of a Jewishstate, and calls for the actualdestruction of ‘Zionism’ or Israel,transcend mere criticism, and directlythreaten the morale and self-identity ofmost British Jews. (See page 5 of this

report, showing polling data in which82% of British Jews describe Israel as “important” to their self-identity.)

Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism andAnti-IsraelismAntisemitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Israelism are not the same as eachother. They can, however, be very hardto untangle and distinguish.

It is not necessarily antisemitic tocriticise Israel or Zionism, even if thecriticism is harsh or unfair. Gaugingantisemitic motives and impacts largelydepends upon:

• Motivation: To what extent is theenmity driven by the Jewish nature of Israel and/or Zionism?

• Content: Does the enmity useantisemitic or otherwise racistexclusivities, themes and motifs? The more deliberate and/or unfair the usage, the more antisemitic the criticism.

• Target: Are local Jews being singledout as recipients for criticism or bias that ostensibly derives from anti-Israel or anti-Zionist enmity?

• Response: Are local Jewish concernsabout the above sincerely engagedwith?


British Jews: relationship with Zionism and IsraelZionism and Israel are, in part, Jewish responses to the long and oftentragic history of antisemitism.

The multiple dynamics between antisemitism, anti-Israel activity and‘anti-Zionism’ are fundamental to the nature, content and impact ofcontemporary British antisemitism, and to the concerns of British Jews.

Encouraging antisemitism acrosspolitical extremes’Anti-Zionism’ is widely professed byactivists in far right, far left and extremeIslamist circles, including the variousantisemites who reside there. Thesedifferent political groupings employ’Zionism’ and ‘Zionist’ as a pejorativeterm, using it as desired againstwhatever, or whomever, they oppose.

The diverse developments andoverlapping contents of today’s ‘anti-Zionisms’ contain strikingsimilarities with traditional antisemiticthemes of Jews as the demonised‘Other’, and of Jews as being theconspiratorial power behind war, financialand political systems, and the media.

Masking the word ‘Jew’ with the word‘Zionist’ obscures both the antisemiticorigins and continuities of suchdiscourse, and enables a deepeningcycle of further refinement, obfuscationand ignorance on the part of itspropagators and users.

Employing the word ‘Zionist’ whereonce the word ‘Jew’ would haveappeared in open antisemitic discoursemay, or may not, be deliberate; but it essentially fulfils the samepsychological and political purpose as open antisemitism once did.

When mainstream journalists andpoliticians use the word ‘Zionism’ as a pejorative term, it reinforces theabove ‘anti-Zionist’ processes, furthercomplicates definitions of antisemitism,and makes it harder for Jews (andothers) to succinctly explain theirconcerns.

‘Anti-Zionism’, in its content, motivationand physical antisemitic impacts, can differ greatly across the varyingideological streams (e.g., far left, farright, Islamist, anti-globalisation) withinwhich it occurs. Nevertheless, ‘Zionist’resonates across these ideologies asdenoting a political, financial, militaryand media conspiracy that is centred in Washington and Jerusalem, andwhich opposes authentic local interests.

Furthermore, the prejudices ofconscious antisemites are reinforced bythe ever-evolving ‘anti-Zionist’ lexiconof words, phrases and charges. Thisdiscourse resonates with antisemites,who interpret terms such as ‘pro-Israel’or ‘well-financed’ as coded publicechoes of their own privately held (and publicly restricted) opinions.

‘Anti-Zionists’ in anti-Israel lobbygroups deem themselves to besincerely opposed to antisemitism; and such circles are extremelywelcoming to Jews. Nevertheless, when it suits their purpose, they will commonly ignore, misrepresent or attack concerns expressed by the bulk of the Jewish community.

The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism noted:

“One of the most difficult andcontentious issues about which we havereceived evidence is the dividing linebetween antisemitism and criticism of Israel or Zionism.

“...discourse has developed that is in effect antisemitic because it viewsZionism itself as a global force of


Anti-Zionism: “in effect antisemitic”A 2010 survey indicated that 72% of British Jews self-define as ‘Zionists’.

unlimited power and malevolencethroughout history. This definition ofZionism bears no relation to theunderstanding that most Jews have ofthe concept; that is, a movement ofJewish national liberation, born in thelate nineteenth century with ageographical focus limited to Israel.Having re-defined Zionism in this way,traditional antisemitic notions of Jewishconspiratorial power, manipulation andsubversion are then transferred fromJews (a racial and religious group) onto Zionism (a political movement). Thisis at the core of the ‘New Antisemitism’on which so much has been written.”

Lessons from anti-racismIsrael’s critics can reduce the antisemiticcontent and impact of their actions byutilising basic anti-racist principles. Theyshould avoid inflammatory catch-allterms such as ‘Israel’s supporters’ and‘Zionists’ – both of which can be easilyunderstood to mean most Jews, but arefrequently used in a demonising anddehumanising manner. They shouldavoid replicating older antisemiticnarratives and themes in modern form.Furthermore, anti-Israel actions such asboycotts should at least beacknowledged by their proponents asactivities that will genuinely concern andisolate many Jews.

Continuities between antisemitismand anti-ZionismThere are numerous continuitiesbetween historical antisemitic themesand modern anti-Zionism. These includethe following:

• Alleging that Jewish religion and/orculture promote Jewish supremacyand that this is the Jewish basis foralleged Zionist racism.

• The image of the shadowy, powerful‘Zionist’ repeats antisemitic chargesthat Jews are loyal only to each other,and that leading Jews conspire tocontrol media, economy andGovernment for their evil ends.

• Dehumanising and demonisingantisemitic language comparing Jewsto rats, cancer, plague and bacteria is now repeated in some depictions of Zionists and Israel. This reduces its target to a pest or disease,encouraging the notion that‘cleansing’ or ‘extermination’ must occur.

• Scapegoating Jews as the ‘Other’,blaming them for local and globalproblems, and demanding theirdestruction or conversion as a vitalstep in the building of a new, betterworld is echoed in the notion thatZionism is uniquely illegitimate, andthat its destruction is paradigmatic oftheological and political struggles forthe future of the world.

• The image of Jews as alien corruptorsof traditional, authentic society andestablished morality endures intoday’s portrayals of Zionists assomehow hijacking other peoples’true will and nature. In the UK, this is especially visible in mainstreamdepictions of American Zionists.

• Historically, Jewish-born adherents of other modes of identity, such as Christianity, nationalism orcommunism, had to show that theyhad cast off their ‘Jewishness’. Today,there are those (mainly on the anti-Israel left) who uniquely demand thatJews declare their attitude to Israel,before they will be decently treated.


Anti-Jewish-community andantisemitic impacts of anti-ZionismAnti-Israel and anti-Zionist discourserisk numerous negative impacts againstthe bulk of the Jewish community,despite the fact that such discourse,particularly from the liberal left, media,charities and trade unions, may not beinspired by antisemitism. Indeed, someactivists may specifically warn againstthe danger of antisemitic outcomesarising from their activities, becausethey understand that hostile discourseabout Israel and Zionism may –however inadvertently – have explicitlyantisemitic impacts.

Anti-Jewish-community and antisemiticimpacts arising from anti-Israel and, inparticular, anti-Zionist discourse includethe following:

• Heightening the likelihood of BritishJews and British Jewish organisationsfalling victim to antisemitic race hateattacks over controversies involvingIsrael and/or Zionists. These attackshave increased significantly since theyear 2000. Combined with the threatof antisemitic terrorism, they riskJewish safety and morale, and requirea security response that imposesfurther psychological and financialburdens upon Jews.

• Providing concealment,encouragement and self-legitimisationfor antisemites.

• Depicting the Jewish state as auniquely racist or imperialistenterprise. This serves to threaten,isolate and demonise all those whobelieve that Jews have a right tostatehood. Indeed, anyone showingsupport for Israel or Zionism risks

being defined and castigated for thisbehaviour, rather than being gaugedby any of their other actions andbeliefs.

• The fostering of a reflexive hatred,fear, suspicion or bias against Jewsper se, which leads to Jews andJewish organisations beingprejudicially treated due to thesupposed nature of their support for Israel or Zionism.

• Extreme hostility to mainstreamJewish representative bodies thatactively support Israel.

• The use of ‘Zionist’ as a pejorativedescription of any organised Jewish(or Jewish related) activity, such asthe ‘Zionist Jewish Chronicle’, or the‘Zionist CST’. These bodies are thenmaltreated for being allegedly Zionist,rather than properly engaged with.

• Antisemitism is not judged oropposed in its own right, but isreacted to according to its supposedrelationship with anti-Israel or anti-Zionist activism. No otherminority’s concerns about hate crimeare treated so partially and harshly by the self-professed anti-racismmovement. In particular,antisemitism from anti-Israel sources is often ignored, downplayed or flatly denied.

• Holocaust commemoration issometimes judged by its supposedutility to Zionism and is reacted to on that basis. This includesdenigrating Holocaust memorialdates and events by using them as opportunities for pro-Palestinianactivism.


• Employing anti-Israel rhetoric oractions specifically because they haveunique resonance for Jews. Forexample, comparing Israel to NaziGermany, or advocating an academicboycott of Israel on the basis thateducation is a particularly Jewish trait.

• Enacting anti-Israel activities,especially boycotts, that inevitablyimpact against local Jews far morethan on any other sector of society.


Overwhelmingly, British Jews do notderive from Israel and their familieshave been British for at least two ormore generations. Nevertheless, themulticultural comparison is instructive,as Israel plays an important role in theself-identity of many British Jews, in thepractical sense of physical, emotionaland family links that many Jews enjoywith Israel and Israeli citizens, as wellas the psychological sense of perceivingIsrael as representing Jewish self-definition, refuge and rebirth in the post-Holocaust age.

2010 Identity Survey: British Jews,Zionism and Israel In January and February 2010, theInstitute for Jewish Policy Researchconducted a survey of British Jewishattitudes to Israel and Zionism15.

The survey is highly important whenconsidering the (real and potential)impacts of anti-Zionist and anti-Israeldiscourse and activity. It shows thestrong self-identification of most BritishJews with Israel, and demonstrates how mistaken and malicious it is for anti-Zionists to depict Zionists aswarmongers, racists and the like.

Eleven per cent of respondents hadsuffered a recent “antisemitic insult or attack”; and just over half of thesevictims believed that this antisemiticincident (or crime) was related to theabuser/assailant’s “views on Israel”.

A total of 4,081 British Jews respondedto the survey, with their responsesbeing weighted for disproportionatebias (such as sex, religious affiliationand education) by the researchers.Findings included the following:

“British Jews and Israel and Zionism”

• “72% categorize themselves asZionists; 21% do not see themselvesas Zionists, and 7% are unsure.Generally speaking, the more religiousrespondents say they are, the morelikely they are to describe themselvesas Zionist.”

• 82% say Israel plays a “central” or “important but not central” role in their Jewish identities. 76% “feel that Israel is relevant to their day-to-day lives in Britain”.

• 95% have visited Israel. 90% regardIsrael as the “ancestral homeland”of the Jewish people. 87% say thatJews in Britain are part of a globalJewish “Diaspora”.

• 77% feel that Jews have a specialresponsibility for Israel’s survival(including 54% of non-Zionistrespondents). 31% agree that Israel has a responsibility for“ensuring the safety of Jews around the world”.


Multicultural identity:British Jews, Zionism and IsraelModern Britain is multicultural, with many citizens sharing a strong sense of pride in both their British identity and other familial, national or religious components that comprise their sense of self. This pertains to numerous shared identities, such as black West Indians, MuslimKashmirs, Sikh Punjabis, or Irish Catholics. These identities may be widely celebrated on occasions such as the Notting Hill Carnival, melas and St Patrick’s Day parades.

15 David Graham andJonathan Boyd.Committed, concernedand conciliatory: The attitudes of Jewsin Britain towardsIsrael. Jewish PolicyResearch, London,July 2010.http://www.jpr.org.uk/downloads/JPR%20Israel%20survey%20report%2015.pdf

• 67% do “not” feel any conflict ofloyalty regarding Britain and Israel.60% say that Israel is either “not” anissue or only “one of several” issuesthat influence their voting behaviour.

“British Jews: antisemitism and Israel”

• 23% had witnessed some form ofantisemitic incident in the previousyear. Of these, over half (56%)believed the incident “was ‘probably’or ‘definitely’ related to theabuser/assailant’s views on Israel.”

• 11% had been subjected to a verbalantisemitic insult or attack in the 12months leading up to the survey. Overhalf of these victims (56%) believedthe incident “was ‘probably’ or‘definitely’ related to theabuser/assailant’s views on Israel.”

• 26% “feel uncomfortable living inBritain because of events in Israel”.Respondents living in parts of thecountry with fewer Jews were themost likely to feel uncomfortable.

“British Jews: attitude to the Israel-Palestine conflict”

• 78% favour a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 56% feel that non-Jewish minorities in Israelsuffer discrimination. 55% considerIsrael “to be ‘an occupying power’ in the West Bank (Judea/Samaria)”(including 48% of Zionist respondents).

• 74% oppose the expansion of existingIsraeli settlements in the West Bank(including 70% of Zionistrespondents). 67% favour Israelexchanging land for peace (including62% of Zionist respondents).


In 2010, various conspiracy-typeallegations were expressed at publicpro-Palestinian meetings, includingMartin Linton MP referring to “longtentacles of Israel in this country” and Gerald Kaufman MP claiming “right-wing Jewish millionaires”part-own the Conservative Party.

In mainstream media, the Independentnewspaper (again) claimed that Americais subservient to “pro-Israel” activists,and described one such lobby group as “Jewish”. BBC Radio 4 failed tochallenge a supposed expert intervieweewho claimed that 500,000 Jews aroundthe world “will help the Mossad”.

Conspiracy accusations reinforce the notion that Jews and/or Zionists are disloyal to all but their own kind,thereby fostering mistrust andantagonism towards all Jews and/orthose who are assumed to be ‘Zionists’.Such statements are very rarelyrebuked by the organisers of anti-Israelevents; and subsequent apologies are often grudging and partial.

Background: Jewish power, dualloyalty and the conspiracy chargeNotions of Jewish power and conspiracyare central to antisemitic discourse and derive from the need to explainhow Jews had sufficient power to kill Jesus.

In more modern times, the allegationsbecame codified in the notorious hoaxThe Protocols of the Elders of Zion,influencing antisemitic discourse withinNazism and other ideologies.

The term ‘dual loyalty’ refers to thenotion that Jews are only really everloyal to each other. This underpins the conspiracy charge.

Today, the ‘Jewish power’ accusation is relatively rare. Accusations of ‘Zionistpower’ are, however, quite common.Those using such language may not beantisemitic, but the ‘Jewish’ and‘Zionist’ power discourses share strikingsimilarities in both their actual composition and theirscapegoating function.

Responsible behaviourThe risk of exciting antisemites shouldnot prevent media coverage or publiccomment on pro-Israel, Zionist orJewish lobbies. It does, however, meanthat politicians, journalists and othersshould recognise the risks in thesubject matter and behave responsibly,as they would in other sensitive areas.

Conspiracy theories and antisemitism The attraction of any conspiracy theory lies in its ability to coherently (if wrongly) explain how a complexworld works. It also has a strongscapegoat function that explains away any failures on the part of its proponent.

All of this renders its proponentsignorant. When media, politicians,academics and others propagateconspiracy charges, it renders theirreaders, viewers, followers andstudents similarly ignorant; and thecycle of ignorance and scapegoating is reinforced.


The Jewish conspiracy:money, power, control and intimidationThe charge of secret Jewish power distinguishes antisemitism from all other types of racism.

The ‘conspiracy charge’ and The ProtocolsThe ‘conspiracy charge’ contains one, or more, of the following allegations:

• Jews have great, hidden power. – intellectually– financially– politically– in media

• Jews conspire together.• Jews are disloyal, oppose all others

and cannot be trusted.• Jews manipulate others to do their

public bidding.

Today, The Protocols is in the officialcharter of the Palestinian-Islamist groupHamas, which is itself part of the globalMuslim Brotherhood movement. Thissignifies how embedded antisemiticconspiracy theory is within much Arab,Muslim and Islamist anti-Israeldiscourse (both popular and official).

Antisemitic conspiracy andAmerican policyIn mainstream circles, conspiracytheory is most commonly found (or insinuated) in discussion of howAmerican politics and media relate toIsrael. To a lesser extent, these chargesalso risk being raised in discussionabout UK politicians and media.

The following allegations are commonlymade:

• American (and UK) diplomacy towards Israel is dictated by the pro-Israel/Zionist lobby.

• American (and UK) media coverage of Israel is subservient to pro-Israel/Zionist interests.

• Any and all critics of Israel withinAmerican (and UK) politics or mediawill be denounced as antisemites andtheir careers will suffer terribly as aconsequence.

The assertion that a sovereign nation’sactions regarding Israel will, above allother considerations, be decided by the(largely covert) financial, political andmedia control of pro-Israelis/Zionists(or Jews) is both overly simplistic andhighly resonant with pre-Holocaustclaims about Jewish conspiracies.

Of course, some politicians, politicalparties, media figures and mediagroups may well be pro-Israel, but thisdoes not amount to the overarchingpower and prioritisation of goals thatthe conspiracy charge alleges.Furthermore, such allegations endureregardless of timescale and context,and largely regardless of whichGovernment is in place, or which mediafigures and groups hold influence.

The notion that any, and all, criticism of Israel will result in beingmeaningfully denounced as anantisemite is grotesquely exaggerated.

The unstated implication is that pro-Israeli/Zionist power is sooverwhelming, or intimidating, that one’s career will be terminated.However, few, if any, of the individualjournalists or politicians cited in thisCST discourse report faced sanction by media or party heads for theirbehaviour. This in itself shows the sheer nonsense of such claims.


Antisemitic consequences ofconspiracy charges When Jews and others point out theantisemitic root, or resonance, forrefined and ostensibly anti-Zionistconspiracy charges, they are oftendismissed as Zionist or pro-Israelfrauds. This further reinforces theconspiracy charge and its attendantperversion of the word ‘Zionism’, andfurther distances anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian circles from Jewish majorityperspectives and concerns.

Jewish money power: Gerald KaufmanMP and Martin Linton MP at Friends ofAl Aqsa meeting, ParliamentThe antisemitic conspiracy charge wasoriginally expressed in the Christianreligious context of Jews being inleague with the Devil, in order to killthe Son of G-d. In the Middle Ages, thisreligious notion was joined by thegrowing socio-economic association ofJews with money and finance. By theearly 20th century, Jews werenegatively associated with capitalismand global commerce.

Metaphors and imagery for theconspiracy charge can recur in manydifferent contexts (for example,symmetries between Nazi, Soviet andArab propaganda). Such memes maybe deliberate or ignorant on the part ofthe proponent, yet still reveal theenduring danger of antisemiticmythology. One such recurring word,used to depict Jewish or Zionistmultifaceted control, is “tentacles”16.

A meeting in Parliament on 23 March2010, organised by the Islamist pro-Palestinian group Friends of Al Aqsa, saw two Labour MPs repeatingthe notions of money power, one using

the word “tentacles”. Neither MP waschallenged on this at the meeting.

Gerald Kaufman MP stated:

“Just as Lord Ashcroft owns most of theConservative Party, right-wing Jewishmillionaires own the rest.”

Martin Linton MP stated:

“There are long tentacles of Israel inthis country who are funding electioncampaigns and putting money into theBritish political system for their ownends.”

Kaufman, who is Jewish, failed toapologise when subsequently asked todo so by the Jewish Chronicle. Linton,founding chair of Labour Friends ofPalestine, part-apologised, saying:

“I’m sorry if a word [tentacles] I usedcaused unintended offence because ofconnotations of which I was unaware,but completely understand andsympathise with.”

Nevertheless, Linton stood by his claimsabout “funding…for their own ends”,citing a 2009 Dispatches documentaryin his defence, but failing to cite itspresenter having warned that he hadnot found “anything resembling a conspiracy”.


16 http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/30211/labour-asked-withdraw-anti-zionist-mps

The Independent: Jewish lobbiesand grovelling American presidentsIn March 2010, the Independentnewspaper published two articles aboutthe annual Washington conference ofAmerica’s leading pro-Israel lobbygroup, AIPAC. The first of theseasserted that President Obama wouldbe in Indonesia to avoid having to“grovel” to AIPAC. Six days later, thesame commentator, Rupert Cornwell,described AIPAC as “the Jewish lobbygroup”17.

Cornwell’s initial article bemoanedPresident Obama’s supposed failure tostand up to Israel, implying that he waspowerless to do so18:

“In fact, his [Obama’s] greatest errorwas not to think through the clout ofAmerica’s pro-Israel lobby.”

Cornwell then cited the argumentsagainst a 2007 book that had claimedto reveal pro-Israeli influence over USGovernment foreign policy. He addedthat American support for Israel’s 2009conflict with Hamas proved that

“…power lies in the perception ofpower, and no organisation inWashington is perceived to wield morepower than AIPAC, the American IsraeliPublic Affairs Committee.”

The varying depictions of AIPAC as a“pro-Israel lobby” and as a “Jewishlobby group” show the ease with whichan anti-Israel accusation can becomean anti-Jewish one. Worse still, inMarch 2009, the Independent’scoverage of that year’s AIPACconference (also written by RupertCornwell) had made exactly the sameerror, as had yet another Independent

article in June 2009, by Washingtoncorrespondent David Usborne. On both2009 occasions, the paper publishedletters from CST in protest at thisconfusion of terminology. CST’s lattercorrespondence ended19:

“At root, the failure to distinguishbetween Israelis, pro-Israelis and Jewsis the same analytical meltdown thatoccurs in the minds of those whophysically attack and threaten BritishJews every time there is a flare-up inthe cycle of violence between Israelisand Palestinians. The Independentreally ought to do better.”

Middle East Monitor: modern UK Islamist conspiracy and ‘dual loyalty’ charges“…Zionist-inspired narrative…swallowedto-date along with the no doubt verytasty kosher food…”

MEMO (Middle East Monitor) is led byformer senior Muslim Council of Britainfigure Daud Abdullah. It is anincreasingly important element in thoseBritish Islamist lobbying circles thatinclude Friends of Al Aqsa (see above:hosts of Kaufman and Linton) andPalestinian fundraisers Interpal.

In April 2010, MEMO’s website featuredan article by Islamist activist YvonneRidley, which also used “tentacles”,regarding (British) prosecutions of anti-Israel demonstrators20:

“For too long have we allowed the long,poisonous tentacles of Zionism andIslamaphobia [sic] to twist and weavetheir way into British courts. Ordinary,law-abiding citizens of faith and no faithhave had enough of seeing ourcourtrooms hijacked by those


17 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/peace-talks-could-be-delayed-for-a-year-warns-israel-1926177.html

18 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/rupert-cornwell/rupert-cornwell-obama-wont-restrain-israel--he-cant-1922958.html

19 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-the-northern-irish-educational-system-1644914.html

20 http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/europe?format=feed&type=rss

who believe some are more equal thanothers when it comes to freedoms andliberties.

“…there’s no place for Zionist meddlingin the judiciary…”

In September 2010, MEMO’s websiteevoked dual-loyalty charges,questioning Matthew Gould’s suitabilityto be British ambassador to Israel, onaccount of his being Jewish. It alsodepicted David Miliband as a member of“North London’s increasingly influentialJewish community”, and pondered ifDavid Cameron’s appointment of Gouldwas “playing the Jewish card”21:

“Can a Jewish ambassador to Israelever be truly objective when advisinghis home government on relations withthe Jewish state?...Despite MatthewGould’s claim to be ‘a career diplomat’,his previous service as the principalprivate secretary to Labour’s DavidMiliband (also a member of NorthLondon’s increasingly influential Jewishcommunity) when he was ForeignSecretary suggests that ConservativeMr. Cameron is indeed playing theJewish card with this appointment. Butfor whose benefit: Britain’s or Israel’s?

“…Mr. Gould is entitled to migrate to Israel, settle there and obtain‘automatic citizenship’ of the Jewishstate. He is, in all but name, a personwith dual citizenship rights, albeit withone set of rights pending until hisretirement from British governmentservice…[C]an he serve what are to all intents and purposes two masters at the same time?”

In November 2010, MEMO’s websitecarried an article by Interpal’s leader,Ibrahim Hewitt, that used ChancellorGeorge Osborne’s speech at the 250thanniversary dinner of the Board ofDeputies of British Jews, in order to hint at antisemitic conspiracy22.

The Hewitt article was stridently anti-Israel and anti-Zionist, but also wovenumerous Jewish-related referencesinto these criticisms, and depicted theBoard as an agent of Israel. It beganby implying that Jews have always been feted by senior politicians, who“almost...pay homage at the court”of the Board23:

“It is heartening that a senior Britishpolitician can still find the time toattend a minority community functionto offer praise and support for itscontribution to British society. Whatmade George Osborne’s [Board]speech…a bit different is that this wasnothing out of the ordinary. It is almostde rigueur for politicians to pay homageat the court of the Board of Deputiesand, in the process, pledge allegianceto, sorry, support for the State ofIsrael.”

The word “almost” softened Hewitt’sclaim and was followed by a depictionof the Board as:

“…an institution that stands as anexample for other minorities in Britainto admire[:] strong, active, wealthy andclose to those in power, regardless ofwhich party they happen to belong to.”

Hewitt then made an egregiouscomment about “rabbi-like” and impliedthat the Board was financiallycontrolling the chancellor:


21 http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/resources/commentary-and-analysis/1512-memo-comment-is-britains-new-ambassador-to-israel-really-going-to-be-objective

22 For many years, the Board has been a lightning rod forsuch allegations.Where once they were directed at theBoard for being‘Jewish’, they nowdepict it as ‘Zionist’.

23 http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/europe/1784-george-osborne-needs-a-reality-check

“Mr. Osborne’s opening remarksincluded rabbi-like humour…They wereprobably rolling in the aisles by thisstage. Osborne had the audience in hispocket. Or maybe it was the other wayround.”

Next, the article criticised Israel whilstalso repeating Osborne’s points aboutantisemitism and providing safety.Nevertheless, Hewitt then made a gratuitous reference to a “gas chamber”:

“The [tear gas] canisters’ labels wereexplicit that they should not be fired inconfined places otherwise they turn theroom into something akin to a gaschamber.”

The article ended with further anti-Israel and anti-Zionist comments,and yet another Jewish-related remark,this time concerning “kosher”:

“Mr. Osborne. Perhaps you need a visitto Gaza to see for yourself and come tothe table with a balanced and informedview instead of the Zionist-inspirednarrative that you have swallowed to-date along with the no doubt very tastykosher food at the dinner on Tuesday.”

Lord Phillips: Holocaust influenceand the American Jewish lobbyOn 3 November 2010, Lord Phillips ofSudbury spoke at a Palestine SolidarityCampaign event in the Palace ofWestminster. Bloggers reported himspeaking against Israel and saying24:

“Europe cannot think straight aboutIsrael because of the Holocaust andAmerica is in the grip of the well-organised Jewish lobby”.

Phillips replied, rebutting claims ofbeing anti-Israel25, but saying nothingof the reported Holocaust and Jewishlobby remarks.

Guardian Comment is Free: partialretraction of “global domination”claimOn 29 December 2010, the GuardianComment is Free website ran a pro-Palestinian article by John Whitbeck.The subheading summarised it as26:

“Nations covering 80–90% of theworld’s population recognise Palestineas a state. The US, subservient toIsrael, stands out.”

The article amplified the “subservient”accusation, stating that “rogue state”is applied to “any country that activelyresists Israeli-American globaldomination.” It then referred to America’s “slavish subservience to Israel”.

CST discussed the article with theGuardian, explaining why this languagewas redolent of antisemitic conspiracytheory. On 17 January 2011, it wasamended online, with “globaldomination” and “slavish” removed.Nevertheless, the core word“subservience” remained, both in thesubheading and the article.

BBC Radio 4 broadcast: half amillion Jews “who will help Mossad”The January 2010 assassination inDubai of a Hamas leader was widelyblamed on Israel’s Mossad intelligenceagency. Ensuing media attentionincluded BBC Radio 4’s PM programmeinterviewing Gordon Thomas, author ofGideon’s Spies, who stated27:


24 http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/lord-phillips-america-grip-well-organised-jewish-lobby

25 Phillips said that he “passionatelysupports” Israel’sexistence and hadvolunteered to fight on Israel’s behalf inthe 1973 war.

26 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/29/us-israel-palestine-independence

27 http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/28777/million-jews-aid-mossad-says-writer-radio-4

“…[Mossad] have a whole back-upsystem...These are people who arelocal residents, Jewish people who will help the Mossad and there areestimated to be in the world about halfa million, some people say a million, I tend to say half a million from whatI've learnt from the Mossad people."

Eight to nine million Jews live outsideIsrael, worldwide, so Thomas’ claimmeans that (at an absolute minimum)over one in twenty diaspora Jews maybe called upon by Mossad. It is,therefore, a very rare concretisation of the somewhat widespread Jewish-Israeli conspiracy and dual-loyaltycharges. The BBC did not challenge the assertion on air, later saying:

"The sentiments expressed by GordonThomas were clearly his own opinions.They came at the end of theinterview...and there was no time tocome back on them."

The Sunday Times: Oliver Stonealleges Jewish control of US mediaand foreign policy Controversy followed a Sunday Timesinterview with American film directorOliver Stone in which he repeated theantisemitic charge about Jews runningAmerican media, and echoed that ofJews running American foreign policy28.

Stone’s comments appeared at the endof an interview with Camilla Long andthey were not challenged in the article:

[Stone:] “Hitler did far more damage tothe Russians than [to] the Jewishpeople, 25 or 30m.”

[Long asks:] “Why such a focus on theHolocaust then? ‘The Jewish dominationof the media,’ he [Stone] says. ‘There’sa major lobby in the United States.They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the mostpowerful lobby in Washington. Israelhas f***** up United States foreignpolicy for years.’”

Following protests from Israeli andAmerican Jewish groups, Stoneapologised (via Jewish-owned PRcompany Rubenstein Communications)for his comments about Jews and themedia:

“In trying to make a broader historicalpoint about the range of atrocities theGermans committed against manypeople, I made a clumsy associationabout the Holocaust, for which I amsorry and I regret.

“Jews obviously do not control media or any other industry. The fact that theHolocaust is still a very important, vividand current matter today is, in fact, agreat credit to the very hard work of abroad coalition of people committed tothe remembrance of this atrocity – andit was an atrocity.”

The failure to mention his Americanforeign policy allegation led to furtherprotest, and another apology:

“…it was wrong of me to say that Israelor the pro-Israel lobby is to blame forAmerica’s flawed foreign policy...Ofcourse that’s not true, and I apologizethat my inappropriately glib remark hasplayed into that negative stereotype29.”


28 http://blog.thecst.org.uk/?p=1764

29 http://www.jpost.com/ArtsAndCulture/Entertainment/Article.aspx?id=182995

As stated elsewhere in this report, anti-Israel rhetoric is not necessarilyantisemitic; and the risk of fuellingantisemitism should not prevent itspropagation. It is neither CST’s purpose,nor intention, to argue the case forIsrael. Nevertheless, the risk ofantisemitism requires mainstreamfigures and media to behave responsiblywhen indulging in such rhetoric.

John Pilger, the New Statesman:Jews “culpable...should theirsilence persist”A New Statesman article by John Pilgerapprovingly cited the notorious GiladAtzmon, and said that Jews around the world would be “culpable” for the “murderous, racist toll ofZionism…should their silence persist”.

Atzmon is of Israeli-Jewish origin, but has renounced his past identity30

and is widely regarded as antisemitic(including within anti-Zionist circles suchas the Socialist Workers Party). Despitethis, Pilger’s article referred to Atzmon’s“fellow Jews” and described him asmerely an “expatriate Israeli musician”.

Pilger’s article was entitled “Listen tothe heroes of Israel” and was premisedupon his praise for Rami and NuritElhanan, the Israeli founders of ParentsCircle – Families Forum, a jointinitiative by Israelis and Palestinianswho have lost loved ones in the conflictbetween their respective peoples. Pilgerthen wrote31:

“…proof of the murderous, racist toll ofZionism has been an epiphany for manypeople; justice for the Palestinians,

wrote the expatriate Israeli musicianGilad Atzmon, is now ‘at the heart ofthe battle for a better world’.

“However, his fellow Jews in westerncountries, such as Britain and Australia,whose influence is critical, are stillmostly silent, still looking away, stillaccepting, as Nurit said, ‘thebrainwashing and reality distortion’.

“And yet the responsibility to speak outcould not be clearer, and the lessons ofhistory – family history for many –ensure that it renders them culpableshould their silence persist. Forinspiration, I recommend the moralcourage of Rami and Nurit.”

The New Statesman subsequentlypublished a letter of complaint fromCST which explained the antisemiticdangers of Pilger’s article. The letterconcerned antisemitism, but washeadlined by the New Statesman as“On Israel”. It read32:

“Having correctly demanded publicdecency about Muslims and Islam (15 February), the NS keeps publishingJohn Pilger’s feverish rhetoric againstJews and Zionism (‘Listen to the heroesof Israel’, 1 March).

“Pilger lambasts ‘the murderous, racisttoll of Zionism’ and approves GiladAtzmon depicting the Israeli-Palestinianconflict in a recent essay as being ‘atthe heart of the battle for a betterworld’. Atzmon states: ‘ConsideringZionism is a murderous, racist,expansionist ideology, it is natural tostress that people who are affiliated


Anti-Israel rhetoric

30 http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/features/39I-thought-music-could-heal.3804991.jp?CommentPage=1&CommentPageLength=1000

31 http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/03/pilger-israel-rami-nurit

32 http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/03/march-labour-car-foot-atzmon

The risk of antisemitism requires mainstream figures and media to behaveresponsibly when indulging in such rhetoric.

with Israel and Zionism must beremoved immediately from anypolitical, government, military orstrategic posts and so on.’

“Nevertheless, Atzmon stresses that he doesn’t mean Jews, unlike Pilger,who asserts ‘[Atzmon's] fellow Jews in western countries…whose influence iscrucial, are still mostly silent…it rendersthem culpable should their silencepersist’. Pilger must know that Jewshave extensive and bloody experienceof their tiny number being collectivelyblamed for preventing the birth of abetter world. In any other context, NSeditors would recognise such claims of mass culpability as racist.”

Pilger responded, describing the letteras “a useful example of the moral andintellectual perversion that apologistsfor Israel now display with increasingdesperation”33. He also wrongly claimedthat the title of his article had beenomitted from CST’s letter so that itcould more easily castigate him. TheNew Statesman issued a subsequent“clarification” of this point, but refusedto apologise further for Pilger’s insultingdepiction of CST34.


33 Pilger’s responseappears to have beenremoved from theNew Statesman’swebsite.

34 http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/03/march-letter-american-john


Facebook “kill a jew day”

This graphic shows “kill a jew day” page on facebook, but is taken from the anti-racistwebsite Modernity Blog that brought the story to public notice. This page and others like it,were subsequently removed.

In 2010, there were two especiallynotable public comments regardingBritish levels of antisemitism and its relation to anti-Israel attitudes.

Interviewed by the journal The Tabletin July, Israeli President, Shimon Peres,noted “pro-Arab” and “anti-Israel”sentiment amongst the UKestablishment. Asked if this was due to antisemitism, Peres replied:

“Yes, there is also anti-Semitism. There is in England a saying that ananti-Semite is someone who hates theJews more than is necessary. But withGermany, [Israel’s] relations are prettygood, as with Italy and France.”

Peres quickly clarified his comments,saying that he had the “highest regard”for Britain’s opposition to NaziGermany35. His spokesman stated:

“President Peres never accused theBritish people of anti-Semitism…Thepresident does not believe that Britishgovernments are motivated by anti-Semitism, nor were they in the past.”

Interviewed by the Israeli newspaperHaaretz in November, writer MartinAmis stated36:

"I live in a mildly anti-Semitic country,and Europe is mildly anti-Semitic, and they hold Israel to a higher moralstandard than its neighbours. If youbring up Israel in a public meeting in England, the whole atmospherechanges. The standard left-wing personnever feels more comfortable thanwhen attacking Israel. Because they are the only foreigners you can attack.Everyone else is protected by havingdark skin, or colonial history,

or something. But you can attackIsrael. And the atmosphere becomesvery unpleasant. It is traditional,snobbish, British anti-Semitismcombined with present-daycircumstances."


Public comments on British antisemitism

35 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7921391/Shimon-Peres-denies-calling-British-anti-Semites.html

36 http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/writing-is-freedom-1.325599

British National Party (BNP):Holocaust denial and minimisation

The year 2010 saw the high point ofBNP electoral fortunes, with partyleader Nick Griffin and veteran activistAndrew Brons becoming the party’s firstelected Members of the EuropeanParliament. This brought much mediascrutiny upon Griffin and the BNP, withboth being accused of Holocaust denial– a subject that exemplified whether ornot the BNP should be regarded assomehow respectable. The BNP failedsuch scrutiny.

Despite the importance of the issue for his own, and the party’s, reputation,Griffin fell short of explicitlyacknowledging that approximately 6 million Jews were killed. Under closequestioning, he repeated a discreditedHolocaust minimisation claim, that(inflated) Soviet figures of 4 millionAuschwitz deaths were included inmainstream historians’ 6 million deathtoll. His comments included thefollowing37:

“…my doubts were, specifically with thesix million figure…used as a moral clubto prevent any sensible debate aboutimmigration…It’s nothing to do withanti-semitism or anything.

“…it emerged that the authorities ofAuschwitz downgraded the scale of the murders there from four million to a still shattering and appalling 1.1 million. So you’re 2.9 million short.

“…[intelligence records] makes it quitepossible to believe that a million peoplewere shot to death on anti-partisanwarfare…you are no longer missing the2.9. You are missing nearly twomillion…anyone who questions this [6 million] is held up as anti-semitic.Whereas, it’s nothing to do withantisemitism at all.”

He then continued, inferring that thepower of unspecified “interest groups”legally compelled him to accept the 6 million figure. (Note: Holocaust denialis illegal in some European states, butnot in Britain.) He said:

“It’s about the rights of free speech, orthe right of the states and powerfulvested interest groups, to prevent freespeech. That’s what it’s actually about.But because everyone’s misunderstoodor it leads one to jail, I have no doubtwhatsoever that the others, the missingones, must have been there so clearlythe six million figure is correct.”

BNP Councillor: “300,000” JewishHolocaust deathsSteve Batkin, a BNP councillor in Stokeand a governor at two schools, told alocal mainstream news blog38:

“I’ve always believed about 300,000people died in the Jewish Holocaust,not 6 million.”

When asked how he reached thisconclusion, Batkin replied:


Holocaust denial generally concentrates upon disputing the existence, or usage, of Nazi gas chambers and crematoria. Holocaust minimisationconcedes that Jews were murdered, but seeks to minimise the number ofJewish deaths. Holocaust denial and minimisation are widely regarded asillegitimate and essentially antisemitic (and are illegal in some countries).

Holocaust denial and minimisation

37 http://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/4093/in-conversation-with-nick-griffin.thtml

38 http://pitsnpots.co.uk/news/2010/05/stoke-bnp-councillor-responds-nazi-salute-photo

“I have read quite a lot about Europeanhistory, about the Second World War,and although I realise a lot of Jewsdied, in my opinion there’s no way therewas that many Jews in Europe at thatpoint in time which could have possiblysustained that amount of deaths.”

Richard Edmonds greets Holocaustdenier On 1 March 2010, veteran neo-NaziHolocaust denier Ernst Zundel wasreleased from a German prison afterfive years imprisonment for Holocaustdenial39. He was greeted by a small

group of supporters including RichardEdmonds, a member of the BNP’sAdvisory Council. Throughout the1980s, Edmonds (whilst deputy leaderof the BNP) had distributed thenotorious Holocaust denial broadsheetHolocaust News.


39 http://blog.thecst.org.uk/index.php?s=zundel

Still taken from YouTube video showing release from prison of Ernst Zundel, aHolocaust denier and author of The Hitler we Loved And Why.

The sheer scale, importance andcollective trauma of the Holocaustrenders it a subject of the highestsensitivity for Jews.

Acknowledging the Holocaust, but doingso in order to attack Jews, or Jewishprojects (in particular Zionism and Israel),is a grotesque abuse of Jewish history andmemory, capable of causing direct andsignificant emotional hurt to Jews.

Comparing the Holocaust, or NaziGermany, to Israel, is a deeply insidiousabuse that distorts the reality of boththe Holocaust and Middle East conflicts.It trivialises (and therefore implicitlydenies the essence of) the Holocaust,attempts to displace Jews as its victims(replacing them with Palestinians), and risks providing a retroactive part-justification, or part-rationalisation, of Nazi Jew-hatred.

The abuse and trivialisation of theHolocaust is relatively common in anti-Israel campaigning circles, where itis perpetrated, or willingly tolerated, byMembers of Parliament, journalists andhuman rights campaigners, amongstothers. This manifests primarily as:

• Repeatedly using, or repeatedlytolerating, expressions such as ‘Gazaequals the Warsaw Ghetto’.

• Holocaust memory abuse (such as theuse of Holocaust memorial dates andevents for pro-Palestinian activism).

• Acceptance of links to websites andactivists from far right, Islamist andIranian sources that deny, relativiseor minimise the Holocaust.

• Denying, distorting or ignoringconcerns about Holocaust denial,minimisation or abuse in Israel-related contexts.

Socialist Workers Party (SWP): “Go back to Auschwitz” obfuscation In June 2010, controversy surroundedIsrael’s killing of nine people aboard theMavi Marmara ship, as Israeli forcesprevented a Turkish-flagged flotilla ofboats from reaching Gaza. An editorial in the SWP weekly, Socialist Worker,reacted angrily to a BBC Panoramaprogramme that essentially acceptedIsrael’s version of events40. This includedthe BBC referring to the antisemiticcatcall “Shut up, go back to Auschwitz”,said in a radio transmission from one ofthe boats in response to the Israeli Navyhaving contacted the flotilla.

The initial Israeli release of radiotransmissions between the Israeli Navyand the flotilla had included the claimthat “Shut up, go back to Auschwitz”had been said from the Mavi Marmara.The recording’s validity was challenged,leading Israel to release the entire tapeand to state that it did not know whichboat had transmitted the antisemiticremark. The Israeli statement includedthe following41:

“…So to clarify: the audio was editeddown to cut out periods of silence overthe radio as well as incomprehensiblecomments so as to make it easier forpeople to listen to the exchange. Wehave now uploaded the entire segmentof 5 minutes and 58 seconds in whichthe exchange took place and thecomments were made.

“This transmission had originally citedthe Mavi Marmara ship as being thesource of these remarks, however, dueto an open channel, the specific ship or ships in the ‘Freedom Flotilla’responding to the Israeli Navy could not be identified…”


Holocaust abuse and anti-Israel activism

40 http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=22163

41 http://idfspokesperson.com/2010/06/05/clarificationcorrection-regarding-audio-transmission-between-israeli-navy-and-flotilla-on-31-may-2010-posted-on-5-june-2010/

The Socialist Worker editorial claimedthis clarification as “admitting that therecording had been doctored”. Itsattack implied (but did not explicitlystate) that “go back to Auschwitz” hadbeen faked:

“…Immediately after the [Marmara]attack the IDF said that its soldiers hadbeen shot, though it soon had towithdraw this allegation. It released arecording it claimed was broadcast fromthe flotilla, telling the Israelis, ‘Shut up,go back to Auschwitz.’

“The IDF soon backed off, admittingthat the recording had been doctored.But both these allegations wereincluded in the ‘evidence’ presented byPanorama…”


Scottish Palestine SolidarityCampaignThe Scottish Palestine SolidarityCampaign (SPSC) is a particularlyactive lobby group. It regularly indulgesin extreme anti-Israel rhetoric,including the linkage of Israel and NaziGermany.

The extent of SPSC’s animus towardsmajority Jewish perspectives on Israeland Zionism was keenly illustrated in its19 September depiction42 of the JewishTelegraph newspaper as “a mainstreamZionist publication” (after the Jewishnewspaper ran a reader’s letter thatasked why Mossad had not been“ordered to eliminate” a prominentJewish Israeli journalist whom SPSChad hosted).

SPSC used this cartoon43 showing the tracks of the death camp atAuschwitz-Birkenau superimposed upon Israel’s security barrier. Thecartoon sprang to prominence afterwinning first prize in the notoriousIranian cartoon competition of 2006that denigrated the Holocaust.

SPSC’s caption for the cartoon used theword “solution”, evoking the Nazi finalsolution:

“Israel's filthy Wall – what is Israel'ssolution to 'too many Palestinians' inPalestine?”

This cartoon, using Stars of David anda tank to construct an image of Hitler,featured on SPSC’s website alongsidean article about a UK arms factory andIsrael44.


42 http://williambowles.info/2010/09/19/zionist-incitement-to-violence-against-spsc-speakers-gideon-levy-and-ben-white/

43 SPSC used the cartoonto (approvingly)illustrate a pressrelease from an Israelipeace group.http://www.scottishpsc.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3536:dutch-police-move-against-company-servicing-illegal-israeli-west-bank-occupation&catid=573:news&Itemid=200549

44 http://scottishpsc.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3466:zionist-leader-attacks-judge-who-acknowledged-murderous-nature-of-israels-gaza-massacres&catid=502:news&Itemid=200435

These cartoons, abusing the Holocaust and Nazi Germany for anti-Israelcampaigning, featured on the website of the Scottish Palestine Campaign.

Lee Jasper at Islamic Human RightsCommission meetingFor many years, Lee Jasper was one ofBritain’s best known anti-racismactivists, culminating in his work asDirector for Policing and Equalities45 forthen-London Mayor Ken Livingstone.

On 17 January 2010 (10 days beforeHolocaust Memorial Day), Jasper spokeat the Genocide Memorial Day event ofthe pro-Iranian-regime group the IslamicHuman Rights Commission (IHRC).

Jasper gave a detailed analysis of theslave trade, colonialism and racism, butalso stated:

“We are one year on from Gaza, itseems to me almost unimaginable thata people such as the Jewish communitywho suffered so grievously under theyoke of Nazism and fascism shouldforget the fundamental lesson of thatoppression and the state ofIsrael…around Palestine…seeks to do toothers exactly that which was done tothem by the Nazis46.”

The content of these comments,especially on this date and within thebroader context of an otherwise serioustheoretical presentation on racism, wasa significant betrayal of principles by aman of Jasper’s standing.

The Morning Star: Holocaust abusein readers’ letters column The Morning Star has long beenassociated with British communism47

and describes itself as “still the onlyEnglish-language socialist dailynewspaper published in the world”. It isfiercely anti-Israel, but an exchange ofletters in November 2010, including theheadlines given them by the paper,

displayed intensifying Holocaust abusein the service of anti-Israel sentiment.

The controversy began when GeorgeAbendstern (who came to Britain as aJewish refugee from Nazi Germany)objected to a prior letter that had calledfor states for Israelis and Palestinians.He stated:

“…[Zionist Jewish immigrants] have noregard for the indigenous people ofPalestine and may yet turn to the ‘finalsolution’. This the world has toprevent48.”

When author Phil Katz objected to “finalsolution” being used49, Abendstern’s(Jewish) partner, Linda Clare, thenreplied:

“…If knowingly bombing populatedareas with white phosphorus does notstem from the same mentality as thegas chambers did I would like to knowthe difference. Methods of mass killinghave moved on since 1945. The effectis the same.”

The Morning Star entitled Clare’s letteras “Israeli road could lead to aholocaust”, despite it not featuring theword ‘holocaust’50.

The arguments continued in the letterscolumn, with one writer stating:“Zionism aims to exterminate thePalestinian people”, and another letterfrom Abendstern referring directly tothe Holocaust:

“...Finally Mr Katz has a problem withthe term ‘final solution’.

“Fine by me – shall we call it a‘holocaust’ instead?”


45 This included Jasperworking with CST onoccasion.

46 http://www.inminds.com/genocideday2010.php

47 Currently linked to the(UK) CommunistParty; seehttp://www.communist-party.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=89&Itemid=150

48 http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/97249



The newspaper headlined this finalletter as:

“Israel is happy to exterminatePalestinians”51.

“Never again for anyone –Auschwitz to Gaza”Dr Hajo Meyer toured Britain allegingparallels between Israel and NaziGermany. Entitled “Never again foranyone – Auschwitz to Gaza”52, the tourpart-coincided with official UK Holocaustmemorial events, and included ameeting at the House of Commons(chaired by Jeremy Corbyn MP) onHolocaust Memorial Day itself, and a meeting at Goldsmiths, University of London, the night before.

Meyer is a Holocaust survivor, and an activist in the International Jewishanti-Zionist Network, co-organisers of the tour along with the ScottishPalestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC).His extreme stance was summarised by the Glasgow Herald headline53:

“Auschwitz survivor: ‘Israel acts likeNazis’”.

Meyer’s actual presentation54 includedhis describing the leading Holocaustauthor, Elie Wiesel, as the “high priest”of Zionists’ “Holocaust Religion”55:

"Judaism in Israel has been substitutedby the Holocaust Religion whose highpriest is Elie Wesel…

“…Its content [Holocaust Religion] isthat 'we Jews have the monopoly onsuffering', 'nobody has suffered or everwill suffer like the Jews have thereforewhat ever we do to the Palestinians isless than what we suffered, and can be

done without feeling guilty’”.Meyer spoke alongside a video linkfrom Gaza by Dr Haidar Eid, a leadingPalestinian activist in the internationalcampaign to boycott Israeli academia.Eid’s presentation included the claimthat Nazism had “won”, because its“victims” had now essentially becomethe new Nazis:

"If there is something to learn fromGaza 2009, it is that the world wasabsolutely wrong to think that Nazismwas defeated in 1945. Nazism has wonbecause it has finally managed toNazify the consciousness of its ownvictims..."

SPSC objected to the HolocaustMemorial Day Trust’s refusal toadvertise the tour, stating56:

“...We call upon the HMD website toimmediately publicise these importantevents: otherwise the impression willspread that the memory of theHolocaust is being selectively used tofurther an agenda in support of Britishand Israeli militarism.”


51 http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/content/view/full/97785

52 http://www.scottishpsc.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3172:2010-jan-20th-holocaust-survivor-starts-uk-tour-at-edinburgh-sheriff-court&catid=255&Itemid=100345

53 http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/auschwitz-survivor-israel-acts-like-nazis-1.1000918

54 Entitled "The misuseof the Holocaust forpolitical purposes".

55 http://www.inminds.com/never-again.php

56 http://www.scottishpsc.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3164:hmd-trust-refuses-to-publicise-meeting-with-auschwitz-survivor&catid=459:the-case-against-israel&Itemid=200377

Jewish student bodies and Jewishcommunal representative groups haverepeatedly expressed concern about thiscontinuing situation. These concernshave been supported by Government,largely acknowledged by national andlocal student unions, but are resolutelydenied by many anti-Israel academics.The response of university authoritieshas been varied. Some have striven tocalm student tensions, whilst others citefreedom of speech yet care little whensuch freedoms are abused.

One constructive attempt to balancefreedom of speech with protection fromhate speech and tension was a proposalby the Union of Jewish Students (UJS)whereby university authorities wouldagree to video student meetings in caseanything arose that required possiblelegal or disciplinary actions. This wasadopted by some campuses.

Antisemitic rhetoric and the LondonSchool of Economics (LSE)A talk at LSE’s Palestine Society (8 December 2010) by Arab mediacommentator Abdel Bari Atwanepitomised the complex nature ofcampus antisemitism, its tolerancewithin anti-Israel circles and its impactupon student welfare57.

The talk’s title, “How much influence doesthe Zionist Lobby exert on US & UKForeign Policy?”, had led Israeli and Jewishstudent groups to fear antisemitic content,and the Students’ Union agreed to monitorthe event. Nevertheless, Bari Atwan

referred four times to the “Jewish lobby”(rather than the Zionist or pro-Israellobby) and shouted at Jewish students,“You bombed Gaza”. Other students calledtheir Jewish counterparts “Nazis”58.

The event was chaired by senior LSElecturer Professor Martha Mundy, co-convenor of the British Committee forthe Universities of Palestine. Pro-Israelistudents (with whom Mundy disagreed)complained that she treated themunfairly. Subsequent complaints by Jewishstudents revealed that the meeting hadbeen filmed, but by the Palestine Societyrather than the Students’ Union. ThePolice investigated Bari Atwan’s remarks,but no arrests were made.

Carly McKenzie, UJS campaignsdirector, said59:

“We support freedom of speech, but thatfreedom also comes with responsibility.Those involved with the organisation andregulation of this event have failed to liveup to that responsibility, despite priorassurances to the contrary. The commentsmade by Atwan and others tapped intoclassic antisemitic tropes of ‘Elders of Zion’conspiracy, accusations of Jewish dualloyalty, equation of Jews with Nazis andblaming Jews in general for particularactions of the Israeli government.

“Universities should be safe spaces forstudents, free from hatred. Theseshocking incidents highlight theimportance of better regulation ofextremist speakers on our campuses.”


Campus: impacts of heated political debateFor decades, university campuses have been a microcosm of wider politicalargument over the Middle East. Now, anti-Israel boycotts are threatened bysome lecturers and students alike; and on occasion, Jewish students canperceive themselves to be especially isolated and vulnerable on theircampuses.

57 http://www.ujs.org.uk/news/582/ujs-chair-alex-dwek-s-speech-on-tackling-hate-speech-on-campus/

58 http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/42342/police-probe-antisemitic-speech-lse

59 http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/national/c-15406/jewish-students-called-nazis-at-lse-debate/

Since the 1980s, many British andEuropean far right groups have adoptedpolicies that render them less open tocharges of Nazism and indiscriminateracism. This includes these groupswelcoming Jewish, black and homosexualmembers, and focussing upon Muslimsand Islam as their primary target. The anti-Muslim policies range fromlegitimate debate to Islamophobia andrandom hate crimes against Muslims.

British Jews overwhelmingly rejectedovertures from the British NationalParty and the English Defence League.Media coverage of both groups’supposed pro-Jewish and pro-Israelactivities vastly exceeded the reality ofthe situation.

In some cases, far right shiftsgenuinely reflect generational andcultural change. In others, they areopportunistic attempts at rebrandingdiscredited ideologies, leaders andgroups. In particular, support for Israelis professed because it is seen as abulwark against Islam and becausesupport for the Jewish state enables far right groups to not only denyaccusations of antisemitism but to claimto Jews that they are the only oneswilling to stand and defend Israel.

Such policies pose serious political risksfor British and European Jews (and, ofcourse, for Muslims also). In particular,Jews are portrayed as being naturalallies for crass anti-Muslim racism.There are, indeed, many Jews who havedeep concerns about Muslimcommunities’ overall attitudes to Israel,Zionism and Jews, but inter-communalrelations can only be further worsened ifJews are regarded as somehownaturally allied to racist far right politics.

Jews reject BNP and EDL: anti-Zionistsallege and fabricate collusion In Britain, 2010 saw two distinct groups– the British National Party (BNP) andthe English Defence League (EDL) –laying claim to somehow being pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. Jewsoverwhelmingly rejected both groups60,and CST and other leading UK Jewishbodies repeatedly urged that there be nocompromise with anti-Muslim racism61.

Despite Jewish communal rejection ofboth the BNP and EDL, some anti-Zionistgroups excitedly claimed that there wereideological and activist links betweenmainstream Zionism and Islamophobia.This gross misrepresentation was aidedby widespread media photographs ofEDL members using Israeli flags asprovocations at their demonstrations inMuslim neighbourhoods.

In October 2010, the Jewish Chroniclewas forced to cancel a readers poll,“Should Rabbis work with the EDL?”,after Boycott Israel Network activistsstarted voting “yes” in order tomaliciously embarrass Zionists and theChronicle’s (Jewish) readership62.

Terry Gallogly, chairman of YorkPalestine Solidarity Campaign, urged:“People might like to vote in this poll if only to embarass [sic]...the ZionistFederation”.

Tony Greenstein (a Jewish anti-Zionistactivist) replied to Gallogly:“Done so and voted – in favour ofcourse. Please try to make sure thatpeople on BIN [Boycott Israel Network]vote and to vote yes. It will be quitegood for us that a JC [Jewish Chronicle]poll comes out in favour of workingwith the EDL!!!”


Far right groups, Jews, Israel and anti-Muslim politics

60 http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/30876/jewish-organisations-team-fight-political-racism

61 http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/39434/the-english-defence-league-and-surfing-rabbi

62 http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/anti-zionists-urge-rabbis-work-edl

The Observer corrects EDL “seniorrabbi” claimMedia hype about Jewish activismwithin EDL peaked when Rabbi NachumShifren of California spoke to an EDLdemonstration outside London’s Israeliembassy in October 2010.

Rabbi Shifren, a former activist inIsrael’s extremist Kach movement, waswrongly described in an Observernewspaper piece as “a senior US rabbi”.Following intervention by CST andothers, the newspaper published acorrection, stating: “Rabbi Shifren holdsno office and should not be regarded as‘senior’ within the US rabbinate”63.


63 http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2010/dec/12/for-the-record?INTCMP=SRCH

Independent columnist ChristinaPatterson sparked outrage with herarticle of 28 July 2010, “The limits ofmulti-culturalism”64. Jewish Chroniclewriter Miriam Shaviv described it as65:

“…one of the ugliest, most vile piecesever published in the British press.”

The article appealed for Stamford Hill’sJews to integrate more with othercommunities in this diverse Londonneighbourhood. There is nothingintrinsically illegitimate in such anappeal, but the article was a thoroughlyinsensitive polemic against Jews, andalso against Muslims (whom it attackedat length for genital mutilation).

The Independent extracted thefollowing to highlight the article’scontent:

“When I moved to Stamford Hill, Ididn’t realise that goyim were about aswelcome in the Hasidic Jewish shops asMartin Luther King at a Ku Klux Klanconvention.”

The word ‘goyim’ is a Yiddish term thattranslates as ‘nations’ and refers tonon-Jews. It is often wrongly believedto translate as ‘cattle’ and is used toallege that Jews hold non-Jews incontempt. Patterson utilised “goyim” injuxtaposition with scornful references toJews supposedly behaving as if theywere “chosen by God”:

“I didn’t realise that a purchase by agoy was a crime to be punished withmonosyllabic terseness, or that busseats were a potential source ofcontamination, or that road signs, andparking restrictions, were for peoplewho hadn’t been chosen by God.”

There then followed a lengthy attackupon female genital mutilation inMuslim communities, before Pattersonresumed the “goy” theme:

“There is, I’m sure, nothing in theKoran to indicate that hacking off agirl’s labia is an all-round great idea,just as there’s nothing in the Torah tosay that Volvos should always be drivenwith a mobile phone in hand, andgoyim should be treated withcontempt.”

Amongst other rhetorical attacks,Patterson wrote that she is made “sad”by Jewish eight-year-old boys who have“presumably…been taught” that “anormal-looking woman” (i.e., Patterson)“is dirty, or dangerous, or, heavenforbid, dripping with menstrual blood”.

The next week, the Independent carriedanother article by Patterson, concerningthe reaction to her piece66. It was trailedon the front page of the newspaper as:

“Christina Patterson: I’ve been called abitch, a racist and an anti-Semite”.

The article itself put these reactionsinto a wider context, explaining: “...ofthe literally hundreds of emails I’vereceived, only about a dozen have beennegative”. It then explained why shehad written the previous article, butincluded sections that gave cause forfurther concern. One sentence could betaken to imply that Stamford Hill’s Jewsmay turn violent against others(despite that community’s past andcurrent behaviour and morality):


The Independent:article attacking Orthodox Jewish community

64 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/christina-patterson/christina-patterson-the-limits-of-multiculturalism-2036861.html

65 http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/the-limits-multi-culturalism

66 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/christina-patterson/christina-patterson-we-need-to-talk-about-integration-2042312.html

“Where it [multiculturalism] doesn’twork is…in these cultures that peoplelearn to be suspicious of everythingthat’s different. And it isn’t a longjourney from suspicion to hate toattack.”

Patterson’s closing sentence could betaken to imply that those whocomplained about her previous articleare not as British as she is:

“You can call me what you like. Butdon’t let’s call the Brits a bunch ofcowards.”

On 5 August, the Independentpublished three letters about thearticles. These included the followingallegations67:

“…the evidence from these two articlescan lead to no other conclusion thanthat Ms Patterson is anti-semitic andislamophobic…”

“…I am seriously concerned that herirrationality arises from an unexaminedprejudice against orthodox Jews.”

“…her stigmatisation of entire culturalniches, based on the activities of thefew, goes well beyond badmanners…you have demonstrated thetyranny of liberalism for all to see.”


67 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-perspectives-on-pakistan-and-taliban-2043381.html

BBC’s Panorama revealed the use ofSaudi Arabian antisemitic text bookswithin a network of over 40 BritishSaudi-linked part-time educationalestablishments, attended byapproximately 5,000 Muslim children68.

This included schoolchildren beingasked to list the “reprehensiblequalities” of Jews and statements thatJews are “cursed by G-d” and resemble“monkeys and pigs”. Fifteen-year-oldswere taught:

“Zionists want to establish worlddomination for Jews by inciting worldconflict.”

Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove condemned the teachingsand stated that Ofsted schoolinspectors would report upon suchschools in future.


Antisemitism in UK-Saudi school texts

68 “British schools,Islamic rules”.Panorama, BBC TV, 22 November 2010.

In recent years, CST and other Jewishorganisations have repeatedly voicedconcern about hateful readers’comments in the comments chainsections of mainstream media blogs.

An important and potentially precedent-setting legal case ended in November 201069 with the convictionin Scotland of Mohammed Sandia forantisemitic remarks in the commentschain of an article on the website of therespected Scotsman newspaper.

The case also demonstrated politicaland judicial backing for the localScottish Jewish community’s concerns.

The offending remarks had included:

"[Jews are a] genetically mutatedinbred tribe. Jews are not fit to breatheour air and should be attackedwherever you see them; throw rocks attheir ugly, hook-nosed women andmentally ill children, and light up theREAL ovens.”

Sandia’s defence lawyer described himas “a man with a great interest in worldaffairs and politics, and an ardentsupporter of the Palestinian cause, as many people are today”. Sandiaadmitted breaching the 1986 PublicOrder Act but denied any intention to incite antisemitic violence. This was rejected by Sheriff Gordon Liddell,who asked how Sandia’s words “couldbe suggestive of anything other thanviolence...” Sheriff Liddell deferredsentence for 12 months, saying:

"You clearly have hate in your heartand I pity you for that. I'm concernedto protect the public from your

activities – and a fine is out of thequestion given what you have done."

The case had been instigated bySCOJEC (the Scottish Council of JewishCommunities) in March 2008, when the offending comments had appeared.SCOJEC brought comments in both the Glasgow Herald and the Scotsmanto the attention of both the Police andthe Press Complaints Commission.

The commission declined involvementon the grounds that the comments had not involved editorial discretion.SCOJEC wrote to all Members of theScottish Parliament (MSPs) andreceived supportive replies from overhalf of them; and many MSP’s wrotedirectly to the editors of the Herald andScotsman in protest at the commentshaving appeared. Furthermore,Scotland’s first minister and lordadvocate “both wrote to editors toremind them of their responsibility to monitor their websites.”

The investigation and prosecution of the case is also worthy of note, as70:

“Sandia was charged with publishing hiscomments at the newspaper's addressin Edinburgh, despite the fact that heposted his comments from London andthe offence they caused was reported in Glasgow”.


Prosecution for online comments in the Scotsman blog

69 http://www.scojec.org/news/2010/10xi_sandia.html

70 http://www.scojec.org/news/2010/10xi_sandia.html

"These filthy Goyim-hating Kikes steal another peoples'land, and then beat the complainers into submission.

“They have cut off life-giving river water, poisonedtheir wells, shot their women and childrenrandomly in the street, bulldozed their olive farms,bulldozed every house raided, expandedsettlements, shut the highways, turned off theelectric power, built a wall so no one can go towork, and zionist scum have even skinnedPalestinians ALIVE.

“And, of course, they have fired rockets into Gazathe same as they complain the Palestinians do tothem.

“It is high time the entire world stand up againstthis genetically mutated, inbred Tribe and end theirreign of Goyim-terror once and for all.

“Jews are not fit to breathe our air. They must beattacked wherever you see them; throw rocks attheir ugly, hooked-nosed women and mentally illchildren, and light up the REAL ovens."

This comment was posted on the blog section of the Scotsman newspaper and ledto an unprecedented legal case against the sender, Mohammed Sandia.

The year 2010 saw the publication oftwo important and critically acclaimedbooks dealing with the subject ofantisemitism.

Trials of the Diaspora, by AnthonyJulius71, is a detailed and lengthy studyof the history of English antisemitismfrom medieval times to the modernday. (Part of its content is on p11 of this report, under the title ‘EnglishAntisemitisms’.)

The Finkler Question, by HowardJacobson72, was awarded the 2010 Man Booker literary prize. It is a darklycomic tale that includes muchdiscussion of the nature of Jewishness,antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment.The “final sections” have beendescribed as:

“...a series of fairly transparent author’smessages warning about theuncomfortably close links between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, andsavaging the glib parallels drawn byIsrael’s critics between the Holocaustand the events in Gaza73.”


Literary achievements

71 Anthony Julius. Trials of the Diaspora.Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford, 2010.

72 Howard Jacobson. The Finkler Question.Bloomsbury, 2010.

73 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/7916464/The-Finkler-Question-by-Howard-Jacobson-review.html

This graphic shows a typical page of CST's blog. The blog is regularly updated

and is a valuable resource for those seeking news, commentary and analysis

of contemporary antisemitism and related issues. It may be accessed via CST's website

www.thecst.org.uk, or directly at http://thecst.org.uk/blog

CST reports

CST publications

Books

These publications and more are available on www.thecst.org.ukFor hard copies, please contact the CST office.

Other CST publications

antisemitic discourse in britain in 2010 · 2013-03-04 · 6 / cst antisemitic discourse report...

Documents