When anti-Zionism becomes anti-Semitism

In Venezuela, here and here.

In Iceland, here

In Britain, here and here.

In South Africa, here

in Italy, here

Why did Egypt shelter Nazis? - here

Worst wave of hate for quarter of a century

From the Jewish Chronicle

Anglo-Jewry is in the middle of the worst outbreak of antisemitism in Britain since the Community Security Trust started keeping records a quarter of a century ago.

Since the start of the Israeli offensive into Gaza on December 27, more than 150 incidents across the country have been recorded.

CST director of communications Mark Gardner said: “Antisemites are using an overseas conflict as an excuse for their racism, and this should be clearly condemned by all sectors of society. In particular, we are seeing the inevitable antisemitic impact of many years of anti-Israel hysteria, in addition to an enraged response to TV and newspaper images of this conflict.”

There have been assaults on individuals, an arson attack on a synagogue, dozens of incidents involving hate mail, emails and threatening and abusive telephone calls and many daubings and graffiti.

Communal leaders have been involved in a flurry of political activities this week, meeting Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Monday and Communities and Local Government secretary Hazel Blears on Tuesday.

Jeremy Newmark of the Jewish Leadership Council and Jon Benjamin of the Board of Deputies, said: “The community should feel reassured that their concerns are being clearly and regularly articulated at the heart of government during these difficult times.”

One aim of the meetings was to persuade the government to speak out about the startling rise in antisemitism. The only mention by a minister had been a letter from Mr Miliband to Board of Deputies president Henry Grunwald last Friday, in which he said: “I am alarmed at the attempts of extremist voices in the UK to use the conflict to legitimise antisemitic sentiments. I remain concerned by reports of this rhetoric manifesting itself in violent acts and threats against UK synagogues and the Jewish community.”

On Tuesday, the CST, in a deputation with the Board and the Jewish Leadership Council, presented Ms Blears and junior minister Sadiq Khan with a dossier of the incidents. They outlined their concerns about security, particularly near schools and campuses.

After the meeting, Ms Blears said: “The government strongly condemns the increase in antisemitic incidents and understands the fears and concerns of the Jewish community in Britain. British Jews, like all communities, must be able to live their lives free from fear of verbal or physical attack.”

On Wednesday, Ms Blears sent a letter to all synagogues in Britain saying that the government would not “tolerate racists and trouble-makers disrupting our local communities” and that “international events, however distressing, provide no justification for violence”. She said it was “important to recognise, and to build on, the excellent interfaith work and dialogue that both the Muslim and Jewish communities have developed in recent years”.

A young Orthodox man was viciously beaten after last Wednesday’s pro-Israel rally in what is perhaps the most serious incident.

Daniel Lowe, from Hendon, a bearded Orthodox Jew who wears a kippah, was a founding member of MuJewz, the Muslim-Jewish dialogue group at Oxford University. He had attended last Wednesday night’s pro-Israel rally in Kensington and was on his way to visit friends nearby afterwards when he was attacked.

He said: “As I was about to knock on their door, someone behind me said hello.” He turned to find two men of Asian appearance, one wearing a Palestinian flag on his jacket, the other wearing a keffiyeh. “They asked me where I had been. When I told them it was none of their business, they punched me in the head, pushed me to the ground and kicked me.”

Mr Lowe said the attack made him even more determined to attend Sunday’s Trafalgar Square event: “Jews shouldn’t be attacked for expressing their views in public.”

On Tuesday, a gang of Palestinian supporters forced their way into the offices in central London of the Israel lobbying organisation Bicom after a man called saying he was delivering a parcel.

Eight men and women — one armed with a loudhailer — shouted at and intimidated staff, ripped out computer cables, cut telephone lines and threw leaflets out of the windows.

One staff member said: “They were very aggressive, and asked whether we were Jewish and why we were supporting Israel. It was very frightening.”

It is understood that detectives at Westminster are investigating the criminal damage and viewing CCTV footage of the incident.

Bicom chief executive Lorna Fitzsimons said: “The vandalism and thuggery at our offices and against my staff this morning was utterly reprehensible. Bicom is a pro-peace organisation that promotes understanding and dialogue, often promoting moderate Palestinian voices for the sake of a speedy and peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Middle East.”

Both Marks & Spencer and John Lewis contacted suppliers this week to ask whether goods they stocked originated from Israel.

But both companies insisted that they were regular routine calls and that the timing was coincidental.

On Saturday, three protestors were arrested after occupying an Israeli-owned cosmetics store in central London.

The protestors chained themselves to the door of the Ahava store in Covent Garden, forcing it to close for around five hours. They also hung a banner in the window accusing the company of “funding Israeli war crimes in Gaza”.

A protest in Belfast on Saturday by pro-Palestinian campaigners against a stall selling Israeli products is being investigated by police as a racially motivated incident. Video footage posted on the internet showed the Sea Spa stall, which sells Dead Sea cosmetics, being deluged with leaflets from a balcony above as demonstrators shouted “Boycott Israeli goods”.

In Bristol, one man was arrested after about 30 pro-Palestinian protestors entered a city centre branch of Marks & Spencer, filled their trollies with Israeli produce and then refused to pay.

Birmingham City Council failed to agree a statement on the Middle East crisis after a debate on Tuesday. Both the ruling Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition and the Labour opposition had released statements before the meeting supporting an immediate ceasefire, but could not resolve their differences. A discussion document supporting sanctions against Israel had been presented by four out of the 120 city councillors, from the Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative and Respect parties. But it was not tabled as a resolution, nor was any vote taken.

A speech by Muslim academic Azam Tamimi, who spoke at last Saturday’s anti-Israel rally, shouting: “We’re all Hamas now,” has been reported to the police.

A CST spokesman said it had taken “numerous enquiries” about whether the speech breached anti-terrorism legislation.

“The CST will do its utmost to ensure that the police are made aware of our community’s concerns. We have been asked about a speech at last Saturday’s anti-Israel rally that may breach glorification of terrorism legislation. This will be passed to police for their consideration and possible investigation.”

Israeli sources confirmed this week that a planned flying visit by Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu to London had been postponed after Downing Street failed to give him the opportunity of a meeting with Gordon Brown.

Playing with fire (again)

It is no great surprise that Stephen Sizer's blog, in recent days, has featured a series of posts stridently critical of Israel's campaign in Gaza. Nor is it any great surprise that there is little comparative criticism of Hamas, nor any great expression of compassion for the 1,000,000 Israelis now within range of Hamas rockets (not even the 2,000 Israeli Messianic Jews now within range). I have in the past blogged on Sizer's apparent blindness to Palestinian terrorism and to Israeli pain, and little on his blog persuades me to change this assessment.

I have also blogged and written in the past about Sizer's use of dubious sources and loose language. Sizer claims to take these criticisms on board, which makes this post of his surprising. I have reproduced Sizer's post in full, in bold, at the end.

Not only is Sizer relying on reports of a conversation which he himself admits is disputed, but notice how he introduces the post. "For all the speculation about the power of the Israel Lobby, the conversation between George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert is a candid insight into perceptions of power, if not their reality also." Not only is Sizer casual about introducing the classic antisemitic myth of "Jewish power" into the debate, but he is also linking to a highly dubious source, the article in the London Review of Books by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt on the alleged power of "The Israel Lobby". For those who are unfamiliar with this article, it was an edited version of a "Working Paper" which later became a full-length book. A collection of rebuttals can be accessed here. Particularly devastating is ALan Dershowitz's response, here.

Here is a key extract (emphasis added) from Dershowitz's well-referenced piece:

"This particular lobby – which the authors [like Sizer] ominously capitalize and reference with the definite article ("the Lobby") – uses the undue influence of Jews in America to get the United States to do the "fighting, dying … and paying" for wars that are not in its own interest, causing American soldiers to die for Israeli interests. It was "the Lobby" that, according to Walt and Mearsheimer, drove the United States into the war against Iraq, and threatens to drive us into a war against Iran. In other words, real Americans are being killed because other Americans, whose primary loyalty is to the Jewish nation, are manipulating America’s political, media, academic and cultural leaders, as well as ordinary American citizens. American Jews who support Israel – even in a critical way – are thus being disloyal to the United States by placing the interests of a foreign state above the interests of their own country.

If these charges sound familiar, it is because, as I will show, they can be found on the websites of extremists of the hard right, like David Duke, and the hard left, like Alexander Cockburn. They appear daily in the Arab and Muslim press. They are contemporary variations on old themes such as those promulgated in the notorious czarist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

, in the Nazi and America First literature of the 1930s and early ’40s, and in the propaganda pamphlets of the Soviet Union.

In essence, the working paper is little more than a compilation of old, false, and authoritatively discredited charges dressed up in academic garb. The only thing new about it is the imprimatur these recycled assertions have now been given by the prominence of its authors and their institutional affiliations. As David Duke observed: "The Harvard report contains little new information. I and a few other American commentators have for years been making the same assertions as this new paper." It "validates every major point I [Duke] have been making." It should have been easily predictable – especially to "realists" – that their "Harvard report" would be featured, as it has been, on neo-Nazi and extremist websites, and even by terrorist organizations, and that it would be used by overt anti-Semites to "validate" their paranoid claims of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy."

I would encourage LBF readers to read the whole of Dershowitz' piece to see how he substantiates this damning indictment of Mearsheimer and Walt.

This of course leads to the question of why Sizer is linking to M & W, without the slightest critical comment. Isn't Sizer supposed to be repudiating antisemitism? Most readers of his blog will be unfamiliar with the rebuttals of M & W and may not recognise the antisemitic undertones to their piece. But Sizer is regarded as a leading scholar on Christian Zionism, and insists that he "repudiates anti-Semitism". If he repudiates anti-Semitism, it follows that he recognises antisemitism and knows what it sounds like: he cannot play the naive innocent. So again, why the irresponsible language about the "power" of the "Israel Lobby"? Why the irresponsible link to Mearsheimer and Walt? Isn't Sizer supposed to be repudiating antisemitism?

The stakes are high. Anyone with half a brain can see that a strident anti-Zionism is increadingly fuelling antisemitic violence and incitement: see here, here and here for a few recent examples. It is also fuelling anti-Christian violence. It follows that Israel's critics need to be scrupulously careful about the language they use and the sources they cite. It seems to me that Sizer, once again, is not being careful enough. For shame.

(The text of Sizer's post follows.)

For all the speculation about the power of the Israel Lobby, the conversation between George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert is a candid insight into perceptions of power, if not their reality also.

The Independent Newspaper carried the story of Olmert's conversation with Bush on page 20 of their early edition today but then edited it out of the later edition.

Here is the version of the disputed conversation taken from today's Guardian

"Israel and US offer differing reports on UN resolution abstention

Israeli PM Ehud Olmert claimed he had called George Bush to override US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice.

by Ewen MacAskill in Washington guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 13 January 2009

The US and Israel offered conflicting accounts today over alleged Israeli intervention to prevent the US voting for a United Nations ceasefire resolution last week, a move that apparently left the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, humiliated.

The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, speaking at a meeting in Ashkelon in southern Israel last night, claimed that he had been forced to call George Bush, the US president, to override Rice. According to Olmert, Rice had been planning to vote with the other members of the security council for the resolution. But the resolution was passed with 14 votes for, and one abstention. Olmert, in a speech in Hebrew, is reported to have said:

"When we saw that the secretary of state, for reasons we did not really understand, wanted to vote in favour of the UN resolution ... I looked for President Bush and they told me he was in Philadelphia making a speech. "I said, 'I don't care. I have to talk to him now'. They got him off the podium, brought him to another room and I spoke to him. I told him, 'You can't vote in favour of this resolution.' He said, 'Listen, I don't know about it, I didn't see it, I'm not familiar with the phrasing.'"

Olmert said: "He gave an order to the secretary of state and she did not vote in favour of it - a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organised and manoeuvred for. She was left pretty shamed and abstained on a resolution she arranged."

Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said today: "I've seen these press reports. They are inaccurate." Olmert's version coincides with the one offered up by other members of the security council the day after the vote. It is also known that Rice had been planning a press conference before the vote but abruptly cancelled it to take a call from Bush."

Reuter's version of the conversation speaks of Olmert, "Pouring on political bravado in a speech late Monday..." Their article concludes: "Olmert, under police investigation over alleged corruption, resigned as prime minister in September but is serving in a caretaker capacity until a new government is formed after Israel's February 10 parliamentary election."

Enough said.

Double Standard Watch: Israel's actions are lawful and commendable

Must-read article by Alan Dershowitz, here

Israel launches ground offensive

This piece is from Harry's Place.

The IDF ground offensive into Gaza is more reminiscent of Jenin than Grozny.

If Israel wanted to do a Grozny (the city that was essentially leveled and turned into a ghost town by Russian bombing and artillery fire in the war against the Chechens), it could manage this fairly easily. After all, Gaza is a relatively small, compact, sealed-off strip of land. Of course this would be accomplished at the cost of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilian casualties, but it would likely put an end to the rocket attacks on southern Israel. However for the vast majority of Israelis this is morally unacceptable.

By contrast in 2002, as part of its operation against Palestinian fighters in the West Bank, Israel did not launch a massive and indiscriminate air assault. Instead it sent troops into Jenin. The result was between 50 and 60 Palestinian deaths, almost all of them fighters (not the massacre of 500 originally reported and eagerly believed by so many). But the Jenin operation also cost the lives of 23 Israeli soldiers.

That is to say, Israel sacrificed the lives of its own sons to avoid massive casualties among Palestinian non-combatants.

That’s the aim of the ground assault: to destroy and secure Hamas positions that could not be struck from the air without a high risk of civilian casualties, even if it endangers the lives and safety of Israeli soldiers.

The case against boycotting Israel

David Hirsh of Engage, here and here. (I've posted the second one previously but not the first one.) Required viewing for anyone who thinks there is no connection whatsoever between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and those who subsume "demonisation" and "campaigns for boycott, divestment and sanctions" into the brave, virtuous category of "criticism".

The Longest Hatred 28

More than 60 years after the Holocaust, Jews are still being murdered simply for being Jews. Here.

The great embarrassment

Shhhh, keep this quiet, don't tell anyone, but Jesus was a (wait for it) Jew, who was born in (careful, is anyone listening?), Bethlehem. But don't say this too loudly, and certainly don't sing any songs about it, because it would be frighteningly embarrassing to have to acknowledge this when Palestinians are being persecuted by those horrible Jews. After all, that would complicate our relationships with the wider community (particularly the trendy anti-Zionist left) wouldn't it, and that has to be a higher priority than singing Biblical and historical truths, right? And, while we're at it, we'd better rip out all the references to Israel and Jews and Jewishness in the New Testament as well, there'll only be a page or so left but hey, it will be worth it so that we can show how relevant and with it we really are. In the process, we can rip out other bits of the Bible we don't like, and then people will really listen to us. Merry Christmas everyone!

Evangelicals Now, Israel, and "balance"

Following the frankly shocking article by David Rushworth-Smith in last month's Evangelicals Now, which I wrote about here, the latest edition contains an article by one Colin Nevin entitled "Should Christians support Israel?"

I'm not sure he actually answers the question, but it is certainly a good article. It contains much of what I would see as a solid Christian position on the question: an accurate summary of the reestablishment of the state of Israel and its subsequent struggle for survival; an acknowledgement of the terrible sufferings of the Jewish people throughout history, often at the hands of professing "Christians"; and an outline of a theological position which I believe it is possible even for amillenialist, non-dispensationalist, non-loony British conservative evangelicals to hold, namely that the state of Israel, for all of its flaws and challenges, is in fact a fulfilment of biblical prophecy and part of God's plans to save "all Israel".Given the strength of the evangelical anti-Zionist lobby in conservative circles, it is impressive that the editor has published Nevin's article and he deserves credit for this.

But does this mean that the editor has complied with the recommendation in paragraph 179 of the Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Committee on Anti-Semitism that the media should "show sensitivity and balance in their reporting of international events and recognise that the way in which they report the news has significant consequences on the interaction between communities in Britain." In printing the Nevin article, good though it is, has EN now achieved "balance" in its coverage of the Arab-Isareli conflict?

Well, no.

Let's revisit some of the most glaring errors, untruths and distortions from David Rushowrth-Smith's piece. Here they are:

- The false claim that the Palmach was a "jewish-zionist terrorist organisation"

- the convenient omission of any mention of Arab terrorism either between 1920 and 1948 or at any other point

- the failure to distinguish between "Israel", "Gaza" and "the West Bank" and the failure to blame the correct parties for any relative lack of freedom of religion in those places

- the ludicrously false claim that there were no Jews in the area between 70 AD and 1948

- the claim that in 1948 land was "stolen from the legal owners" and that the Palestinian refugees were "herded out": while that was true in some cases, it is also the case that many fled because they were encouraged to do so by their own leaders.

- the omission of any mention of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands

- the fact that Mr Rushworth-Smith sought to bolster his "arguments" by citing Ilan Pappe (known for his fraudulent scholarship and for granting an interview to a neo-Nazi newspaper), Norman Finkelstein (known as the 'neo-Nazis' favourite Jew' and also known for his fraudulent scholarship) and Jeff Halper (likewise known for his fraudulent scholarship and radical anti-Israel agenda).

It follows that, for EN to truly "balance" this piece it would require a truly horrible article which might say some or all of the following transparently false statements:

- "All Palestinians are terrorists"

- "All of Israel's problems are down to the Palestinians and none have ever been caused by the mistakes of her own leaders"

- "Prior to 1948, there were no Arabs in what became Israel"

- "During Israel's War of Independence, no Palestinians at all were forced to leave their homes by the Jewish forces"

- "Israel is a perfect state and has never done anything wrong"

- "The Palestinians have no right at all to a state of their own, however small, and ideally they should all be forced to leave their homes"

The author of such a piece might seek to bolster his "arguments" by citing, say, the racist Israeli settlers who referred to Arabs as "sand niggers", or perhaps the late Meir Kahane, who founded the Israeli Kach party. (His agenda was to induce Arabs in the West Bank to leave by offering them compensation, or alternatively by forcing them to leave. If you've not heard of Kahane or Kach, that might be because in 1985, the Knesset passed an amendment to Israel's Basic Law, barring "racist" candidates from election.The Israeli High Court declared Kahane to be unsuitable for election. That's one of many reasons why its wrong to describe Israel as an apartheid state.)

Now, clearly, it would be deeply wrong for EN to commission or publish such a piece. So then, what should EN do to rectify the calumnies of David Rushworth-Smith? Clearly, it should acknowledge the various errors and distortions and apologize. This has not yet happened. Nor have any letters challenging David Rushworth-Smith been published.

Interestingly, a box in the letters page says that “the editorial policy of EN not to reply to abusive letters sent to the office”. This is probably a reference to strongly worded emails sent to the editor responding to the Rushworth-Smith article. Yet this stance has not stopped the editor from publishing a quite astonishingly aggressive (and abusive) letter from Jonathan Castro, entitled "Creationist idiots!", which attacks young age creationists with terms such as “nonsense”, “rubbish”, “quack” theories, incredible ignorance, “mind-boggling stupidity and wilful ignorance”, and the very serious charge that Ken Ham “and his ilk” are all liars! Is there a double standard at work here?

So where does this leave us? At present, EN has not apologized for, or acknowledged its error in publishing an article which encouraged Christians to apologize for the creation of the world's one Jewish state, replete with historical falsehoods and citations from fraudulent scholars and known antisemites.

And so, for the time being, my view of EN will remain sadly dim. At best, EN is promoting an unbalanced, one-sided view of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is one of several factors serving to alienate Messianic Jews from British evangelical churches. At worst, it is sadly representative of those British evangelicals who are not only embracing theological and political anti-Zionism, but are also, doubtless unwittingly, turning a blind eye to the evil of genuine antisemitism in their midst. For shame.

To argue that Palestine fuelled the massacre in Mumbai is preposterous

Howard Jacobson, with typical brilliance, here.

UCU drops proposed boycott of Israeli academics

This is good news. Here and here.

Harry's Place on Stephen Sizer

Here.

The case against boycotting Israel

David Hirsh of Engage speaks in typically impressive manner, here. It is about 7 minutes long and is required viewing for anyone who maintains that anti-Zionism is always entirely separate and distinct from anti-Semitism.

Stephen Sizer and Leeds University 2

I'm going to give this post of Stephen Sizer's a second fisking because, the more I read it, the more repellent it becomes. I can't improve on Bernard Harrison, but there are other points which need mentioning.

The first thing to notice is how Sizer describes the motion being considered by Leeds University Students' Union. According to Sizer, the motion will "label anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism and silence pro-Palestinian groups on campus". It won't. The motion is here, read it. It is a proposal that Leeds University adopts the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism, the full text of which is included in the motion.

Note that the Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Committee on Anti-Semitism ["the Report"] recommended that this definition be adopted and promoted by the government and law enforcement agencies so, in inveighing against this definition, Sizer is already putting himself beyond one widely-recognised boundary on thinking about antisemitism. Note too that Sizer is pleading on behalf of the Socialist Workers' Party, an organisation whose explanation of the Holocaust doesn't mention Jews and which has promoted the openly antisemitic Gilad Atzmon. I'm all in favour of free speech, but this is nevertheless concerning. For whom will Sizer plead next?

Now read the Working Definition again, noting how carefully nuanced it actually is.

The bit which Rev Sizer seems to have a problem with is the bit that suggests that there can be some occasions when criticism of Israel may in fact be antisemitic. Here is what it says, emphasis added:

"Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

• Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards b requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel."

"However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic."

Note how carefully nuanced it all is: "taking into account the overall context", "could include", and "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic."

This will leave plenty of scope for pro-Palestinian groups to criticise Israel without being anti--Semitic: if they level criticism against Israel similar to that which could be made against any other country in the world, if they are factually accurate, and if they are careful with the language they use. Stephen Sizer would have us believe, though, that the motion will label anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism and silence pro-Palestinian groups. This is not only a misrepresentation of the motion (which, incidentally, Sizer himself does not link to) but seems to indicate an unwillingness on Sizer's part to think through the issues. In a typical expression of the Livingstone Formulation, Sizer is claiming that the spectre of antisemitism is being raised disingenuously in order to silence criticism of Israel. He is either unwilling or unable to think through whether there might in fact be a genuine case that antisemitism is a problem which needs tackling. Rather than "Zionists" shouting "Antisemitism!" to stifle debate about Israel, what is actually happening here is that Stephen Sizer is shouting "Israel!" in order to avoid a genuine and necessary debate about antisemitism. Why?

The piece on Sizer's blog goes on to say, sceptically, that "The motion claims, without providing any supporting evidence, that “Anti-semitism is increasing significantly both across the country and within universities and student unions.”

Perhaps Sizer hasn't read Section 6 of the Report, entitled "Antisemitism on Campus". Here's an extract from para 203:

"Tensions and incidents on campus often peak around students’ union votes concerning Israel and Zionism. In 2002 the University of Manchester Students’ Union proposed a motion that anti-Zionism or criticism of Israel was not antisemitism, and that Israeli goods should be boycotted. The Jewish Representative Council of Greater Manchester told us that a leaflet from the General Union of Palestinian Students, quoting from a neo-Nazi propaganda forgery entitled ‘Prophecy of Benjamin Franklin in Regard of the Jewish Race’, was distributed amongst students queuing up to vote. The leaflet reproduced historic antisemitic slander describing Jews as vampires, and warning that unless they

were expelled from the United States they would enslave the country and control its economy. Further incidents occurred following the defeat of the motion – a brick was thrown through the window of a Jewish student residence and a poster bearing the words “Slaughter the Jews” was pasted on its front door. A knife was stuck in the door of another Jewish student’s residence."

Or perhaps Sizer hasn't read pages 16-18 of the Community Security Trust's 2007 Report, which says this: "The 59 incidents recorded by CST in 2007 in which the victims were students, student bodies or academics represent a considerable rise from the 18 incidents recorded of that type in 2006, 11 in 2005 and 21 in 2004. It is most likely that this rise (228 per cent from the 2006 figure) is largely because of better reporting of incidents to CST."

Examples cited in the report include:

• A Jewish student was handing out leaflets outside a student union debate at Manchester University when an Arab student called him “You Jewish bastard.” When challenged, the Arab student and said: “Whoops, I mean you Israeli bastard” and walked off.
• Swastikas were drawn on posters advertising Jewish Book Week at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London.
• “Mossad caused 9/11” and “Fight the Jewish terrorists” were written on a desk at Leeds Metropolitan University.

Sizer would seemingly have us believe that this is illusory. Why? Perhaps its because the first and last examples I've cited above, like the extract from para 203 of the Report, give very clear examples of how there are times when anti-Zionism very definitely can spill over into antisemitism. But Stephen Sizer seems to believe that the two are always entirely distinct and we must fight any attempts to suggest otherwise. Why?

So what do we have? We have a representative of the state church, and a professing antiracist evangelical, doing the following:

- twisting the words of the motion to make it say something different to what it actually says

- rejecting a widely accepted definition of antisemitism

- pleading on behalf of an organisation whose track record on antisemitism is notoriously poor

- minimising the reality of ongoing and increasing antisemitism on British campuses.

- denying the fact that yes, sometimes anti-Zionism can very definitely be antisemitic.

This should shock us, but it doesn't surprise me. Despite his frequent claim that he repudiates antisemitism, Sizer uses antisemitic language to describe supporters of Israel, invokes antisemitic conspiracy theories, cites antisemitic sources, asks Holocaust Deniers to cooperate with him, sends out antisemitic material to others, and carries links to the far right on his website. And yet British evangelicals still laud and applaud him. For shame.

Stephen Sizer and Leeds University

Stephen Sizer is campaigning on his blog against Leeds University adopting the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism. He may have copied this piece from the Electronic Intifada website.

According to this motion there were 21 antisemitic incidents affecting Leeds students last year, and there have been more so far already this year, so for Stephen Sizer to be standing against a measure which seeks to counter this trend is disturbing at best. Why is an Anglican vicar campaigning against a measure which seeks to protective wellbeing of Leeds University's large Jewish student population? Isn't Rev Sizer supposed to be countering antisemitism? Doesn't he insist that he is antiracist? (Oh, and, if Rev Sizer is so concerned about freedom of speech, why did he disable comments on his blog when people criticised him?)

Bernard Harrison has answered the Electronic Intifada piece with devastating brilliance on the Engage website, here. I can't really do better than copy Harrison's piece, below. I've underlined or italicised my favourite bits.

On Friday November 28, the Leeds University student union will be considering a resolution to adopt the EUMC's working definition of anti-Semitism, in order to fight growing anti-Semitism at that university.

The Leeds student Palestinian support group has protested the motion, in a statement which has appeared on the Electronic Intifada, and has been picked up by other blogs.

The main claim made by this statement is that the definition of anti-Semitism arrived at by the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) is so unreasonably restrictive that, “if adopted, the motion will shut down debate on the extent to which Israel should label itself as a state for the Jewish people as opposed to a state for all its citizens, such as the Unitied Kingdom or other liberal democracies.”

One could object straight away that this “objection” is in the form of a complex question, that ancient logical trick of which the stock example is “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Israel is not a “Jewish state”, nor does it “label itself” as one, which is hardly surprising, since it is Israel’s many enemies who think it in their interest to so “label” it. Unlike many countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, Israel is neither a religious nor an ethnic monoculture. Its present population is 7,337,000, of which only 75.5% are Jewish. The reminder are Israeli Arabs (1447,000) or non-Jewish immigrants and their children (318,000). All these people enjoy full rights of citizenship.

Nor do the logical confusions implicit in this brief but brainless sentence end there. Even if Israel were to all intents and purposes a religious or ethnic monoculture, that in itself would not establish that it was not a liberal democracy. Since plenty of liberal democracies are, to all intents and purposes, monocultures of one type or the other, the two issues are not only separate, but have no bearing whatsoever on one another. And in any case, Israel is a liberal democracy.

But (leaving aside the demonstrable lousiness, as arguments, of the “arguments” in question), one would have thought, anyway, that someone who complains that the observance of a restriction on anti-Semitism will deprive him of his best arguments is more or less hanging a notice round his neck saying “Look at me! I am an anti-Semite!”

This thought has clearly filtered through to the authors of the Leeds PSG statement, who have accordingly looked around for some means of neutralizing it. One knows very well, speaking as a non-Jew with a beady eye for his fellow non-Jews, that the best way of clearing oneself of a charge of anti-Semitism is to get a Jew to do it for one (which is why, among other things, Hitler and his friends found the writings of Otto Weininger so convenient.) For whatever reasons (and many at least, are perfectly respectable ones, for which one should feel at least some sympathy) supportive Jewish voices are seldom lacking on these occasions, nor are they on the present one. The authors of the PSG statement abandon independent argument after their fourth paragraph, the heart of which I quoted above, and instead turn for succour to three Jewish organizations with well-run websites, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, European Jews for a Just Peace, and Jews Against Zionism.

Of these, the last is an organization of Orthodox Jews whose objections to Zionism are religious rather than political. Their stance on anti-Semitism is the traditional Orthodox one that it is a punishment imposed on Jews by (as they would write the word) G-d, for their faithlessness in falling away from strict observance of the Mitzvot, a faithlessness of which the establishment of the State of Israel is merely the most blatant instance. Whatever one might want to say about this position, one thing that is clear is that it has no bearing whatsoever on the adequacy or inadequacy of the EUMC definition. A voice from the interior of another moral universe, it simply has no business being cited in this debate.

Of the other two organizations, the best attack on the adequacy of the EUMC definition is mounted by Jews for justice for Palestinians, whose page on the subject can be accessed here.

The page contains a letter sent to the EUMC in 2005, raising various concerns about the definition. If any succour is to be found for the authors of the Leeds PSG statement, one would suppose, it will be here. But the level of argument operating here is, if anything, weaker than that in the PSG statement itself.

The letter opens with a complaint to the effect that EJJP was not among the Jewish organizations consulted by the EUMC in the lengthy process which resulted in the drawing up of its definition. Public bodies do tend to decide, however, and on the whole have a right so to decide, who they think it worthwhile to include in their consultations. What the EJJP has to show, therefore, is that the EUMC made a serious error in leaving them out. In order to show that, it must provide telling grounds for regarding the definition which emerged from these putatively defective consultations as itself defective. This the EJJP sets out to do in the second part of its letter, headed “On content”. Unfortunately the three main (bulleted) objections set out in this turn out all to be non-sequiturs of one sort and another. Here they are:

1. The definition asserts that it is anti-Semitic to deny Jews, alone of all the nations of the world, the right to self-determination. To this the EJJP replies that not all Jews “equate self-determination with Zionism”, citing the Orthodox tradition, Buber, and sections of the current Israeli left, as instances. This is clearly factually correct, but equally clearly irrelevant to the issue. Even if some members of a nation do not desire national self-determination, it is still an instance of prejudice to deny that nation a right to self-determination, unless one holds that no nation has a right to self-determination, which in practice no-one does.

2. The definition says that one form of anti-Semitism consists in “applying double standards by requiring of it behaviour nor expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” The EJJC retort is that “This is a formulation that allows any criticism of Israel to be dismissed on the grounds that it is not applied to every other defaulting nation at the same time.” This seems simply to misunderstand the force of the EUMC’s point. That point is not that it is prejudicial to criticize a nation for a criminal act unless one simultaneously mentions every other nation whose record is so stained. It is, rather, that it is prejudicial to criticize a nation for acts which in the case of any other nation would not be considered criminal. Clearly this formulation places no restraint whatsoever on any deserved and non-prejudicial criticism of Israel.

[contrary to the claim in the piece copied by Sizer that "the motion will shut down an area of perfectly legitimate debate."]3. The EUMC definition says that it is anti-Semitic to hold Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel. The EJJP replies that “This is the flipside of a position frequently expressed by Prime Minister Sharon and many Zionists, that refuses to make any distinction between the interests of Israel and those of Jews worldwide.“ This reply is vitiated by the difficulty of attaching a clear meaning to the phrase “is the flipside of”. If it means that Sharon and some unnamed collection of Zionists are guilty of the conduct identified as anti-Semitic by the EUMC in this clause, then plainly it is false. Saying that the existence of Israel serves the interests of Jews worldwide is clearly not the same thing as saying that Jews worldwide share responsibility for the actions of the state of Israel. The first claim is very possibly true; the second is not so much false as conceptually incoherent: one might as well argue that because I am British I share responsibility for Gordon Brown’s recent nationalization of two British banks, and am therefore liable to be sued by the shareholders. One cannot conduct any intelligible politics on the basis of this kind of inane drivel.

Given the feebleness of the arguments brought against it by people very anxious to discredit it, in short, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the EUMC definition deserves to be adopted by the Leeds student union, not least in view of the level of anti-semitic incidents and intimidation of Jewish students on campus recorded by its supporters. Let us hope that the vote goes in favour of Motion 4.

[This piece was written for Engage by Bernard Harrison, E. E. Erickson Professor Emeritus at the University of Utah, formerly a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, and author of The Resurgence of Anti-semitism: Jews, Israel and Liberal Opinion.]

More people who don't check Stephen Sizer's sources or scholarship

Here and here. This is a real shame, since both John Stott and Rico Tice are good people who have given great leadership to British churches.

Some of Stephen Sizer's fans: do they not check his sources and scholarship?

Here and here, see my concerns here and here. Sizer quotes known antisemites in his writings and rewrites history to a degree that is simply ludicrous. Why do otherwise intelligent people take him so seriously?

The obscene Israel-Nazi analogy

Two really good pieces:

David Hirsh on the abuse of Kristallnacht memory (by a bishop), here

The (obscene) analogy between Gaza and the Warsaw Ghetto - Petra Marquardt-Bigman - I loved this quote:

"it's a safe bet to predict that the planned three-day fact finding tour will avoid finding some important facts, such as the fact that, with the help of Iran and Syria, Hamas has organized some 20,000 armed forces and accumulated a formidable arsenal including long-range rockets, advanced anti-tank weapons, and some 80 tons of explosives."

Extracts from email to Stephen Sizer

Dear Rev Sizer

I have just read your latest blogspot: http://stephensizer.blogspot.com/2008/11/weird-and-wacky-theology-israel-and.html

For your information, my Large Blue Footballs blog has never been anonymous, my name "James" appears on the right hand side. My surname can be found by clicking through some of the links. By the way, thanks for the free publicity, I often worry that not enough people read my posts.

Both the BMJA website and the LMF website have criticisms of you which are public and not anonymous. The only person who seems to have any interest in hiding anything is you: you would really prefer that people didn't know about your email contact with Israel Shamir or those antisemitic articles you sent out to the Palestinian Orthodoxy group, or your use of openly antisemitic language ("people in the shadows") in a national newspaper. Shouldn't you be apologizing and repenting for this, not trying to stifle those who happen to disagree with you? Sorry Stephen, but the language you use, the sources you cite and the company you keep leave me very far from convinced that you are not antisemitic....

If you are going to put controversial material into the public domain, you have to accept that you will be criticised in the public domain. It seems to me that you are trying to stifle free speech. If you don't want to be criticised, stop writing.

I really don't care if you name me on your blog. I am proud to be a Messianic Jew, and I am proud to be someone who loves my own people, my Messiah and the State of Israel. I am not a dispensationalist, I do not support Israel uncritically, and I contribute to relief projects for Palestinian Christians. I would be proud to be named by you as someone who stands against what in my opinion is your flawed theology, your rewriting of history, your callous indifference to Israeli pain, and your use of classic antisemitic tropes under the cover of "anti-Zionism".

Regards

James

Who is silencing whom?

"Powerful Zionist lobby" stifled, here.