Google+ Followers

Monday, 30 May 2011

University & College Union Rejects EUMC-Zionist Definition of Anti-Semitism

UCU Defies Threats and Blackmail

Wonderful news from UCU. The European Union Monitoring Committee Report on Anti-Semitism, which came from the American Jewish Committee, a group which opposed another Boycott in the 1930’s – the trade union & Jewish labour movement boycott of Nazi Germany - has repeatedly been used as a weapon deployed against all critics of Israel, including Jewish anti-Zionists.

It is no wonder that the Zionist Community Security Trust, presided over by Gerald Ronson, the far-right owner of Britain's biggest private company, Heron Ltd., David Hirsch, to say nothing of the EDL supporting, Muslim hating, Harry’s Place have complained so bitterly about this rejection.

What does the EUMC actually say? That 'antisemitism; includes:

'Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour'

Now this is strange. Accusing the Jews of being one people was always an anti-Semitic notion. It was the anti-Semites who held that a Jew might be Polish but s/he belonged elsewhere 'Jews to Palestine' was their favourite slogan. The idea that Chinese, British and Argentinian Jews, all of whom speak different languages and hold to different customs, are members of the same people was a shorthand for race.

So we have the absurd position whereby a definition of anti-Semitism is itself anti-Semitic!!

The EUMC definition goes on to hold that ‘Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.’ is also anti-Semitic. But who is it who regularly makes comparisons between Israel’s actions and the Nazis if not the Zionists. When Matan Vilnai, Israel’s Deputy Defence Minister promised a ‘bigger Shoah (Holocaust)’ for the Palestinians of Gaza he was as good as his word when a few months later1,400 civilians were murdered including 400 ‘terrorist’ children. But noone accused him of anti-Semitism.

The EUMC definition wasn’t deployed against Vilnai. It was used exclusively against Palestinians and their supporters who compared Israel’s actions to that of the Nazis, in particular the Warsaw Ghetto. In Brighton this included a Police attack on a demonstration.

When retired Israeli Judge Ben-Itto stated how 'We must learn from the Nazis'
I can’t remember the outcry about anti-Semitism. ‘Anti-Semitism’ is reserved solely for Palestinians and the victims of Israel’s barbarism, not against its perpetrators. The EUMC is merely a propaganda weapon in Israel’s arsenal. Even the hapless Richard Goldstone was accused of ‘anti-Semitism’ by Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz for his Report on the genocide in Gaza.

And the final irony of this absurd and pretentious report, beloved by cold war warriors and Zionists like Dennis McShane MP is ‘Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.’ Now who holds Jews responsible for Israel’s actions and labels those of us who are anti-Zionist Jews as ‘traitors’. Please do tell. Ah yes, those who helped formulate this report!

I can’t remember Zionists protesting when on 9th January 2009 the Jewish (read Zionist) Board of Deputies of British Jews decided to hold a demonstration in Trafalgar Square to back Israel’s War on Lebanon under the title "Community to Show Support for Israel at Trafalgar Square Rally." Strange that. A definition that is only partially applied is not a definition but a propaganda weapon. Today the EUMC has all but been dropped such is its obvious bias.

At a time when the fascist English Defence League demonstrates alongside Zionists in support of Israel and every far right party of significance in Europe, apart from the Hungarian Jobbik Party, supports Israel and Zionism, it is clear that whatever else its purpose, the EUMC definition isn't about anti-Semitism but defending Israel. No better supporters are there than Michel Kaminski of the Polish Justice and Freedom Party, who opposed the Polish state apologising for the massacre of hundreds of Jews in 1941 at Jedwabne, burnt alive in their synagogue and not forgetting Robert Ziles of the Latvian Freedom & Fatherland Party, which commemorates the butchers of the Latvian SS every yeaer. But the EUMC Definition of Anti-Semitism never seems to apply to these people!

Well done UCU and in particular Sue Blackwell, Mike Cushman, Tom Hickey and all the other stalwarts in Bricup who proposed this. Note how the Zionist threats that ‘Jews’ will resign now from UCU doesn’t ever seem to include anti-Zionist Jews! Zionists and racists are always welcome to resign when they can’t accept democracy.

Below is the resolution which was passed:

70 EUMC working definition of anti-semitism - National Executive Committee

Congress notes with concern that the so-called ‘EUMC working definition of antisemitism’, while not adopted by the EU or the UK government and having no official status, is being used by bodies such as the NUS and local student unions in relation to activities on campus.


Congress believes that the EUMC definition confuses criticism of Israeli government policy and actions with genuine antisemitism, and is being used to silence debate about Israel and Palestine on campus.


Congress resolves:


1. that UCU will make no use of the EUMC definition (e.g. in educating members or dealing with internal complaints)

2. that UCU will dissociate itself from the EUMC definition in any public discussion on the matter in which UCU is involved

3. that UCU will campaign for open debate on campus concerning Israel’s past history and current policy, while continuing to combat all forms of racial or religious discrimination

10 comments:

Deborah Fink said...

Great stuff! First the Green party rejects it, and now this!

Yes, anti-Zionist Jews don't count in their eye...But the fact that anti-and non-Zionist Jews oppose this definition says it all: that the definition is about Zionism and Israel and has little to do with anti-semitism. (Actually, some Zionists oppose the definition too - Zionists who are critical of Israel).

Btw, I think you meant Gaza, not Lebanon, regarding the BoD rally for Israel in January 2009....

Levi9909 said...

A trick that was missed. On Engage, Dr Hirsh reports, apparently verbatim and from a text he was given in advance, Ronnie Fraser's speech against the motion.

Here's the first line:

"I, a Jewish member of this union, am telling you, that I feel an antisemitic mood in this union and even in this room."

Unless he wrote his speech in the room and then gave it to Hirsh prior to actually delivering the speech to the room, how did he know what the "mood...even in this room" was?

Tony Greenstein said...

Yes very good Mark. Which just goes to show that the fake synthetic tears of Hirsh and co. are just that

conchovor said...

'Yes, anti-Zionist Jews don't count in their eye'

It was TG that just said of UCU 'Zionists will leave but Jews remain' i.e. Zionist Jews aren't really Jews.

'...But the fact that anti-and non-Zionist Jews oppose this definition says it all:'


I'd like to see you evidence that 'non-Zionist Jews', howsoever you define that, oppose the definition.

'that the definition is about Zionism and Israel and has little to do with anti-semitism. (Actually, some Zionists oppose the definition too - Zionists who are critical of Israel)'


If some Zionists oppose the definition, that would make TG's calling Zionists racists etc potentially antisemitic.

i.e. showing precisely how some 'criticism' of Israel, Zionists, Zionism etc can be antisemitic i.e. what the definition was about in the first place.

The UCU NEC motion brings the union into disrepute, since its excluding a majority or consensual (certainly Jewish) academic specialist view of antisemitism, upon which the EUMC definition is based, is first and foremost a breach of academic standards. Is Sean Wallace an academic specialist on antisemitism? Or Sue Blackwell?

Also Blackwell's asserting the defintion has been 'dumped' by the FRA, successor to EUMC, is tosh. The definition remains on their website.

Again, congratulations, Tony, you have connived to bring your own brand of Trotskiist Stalinist antisemitism in UK academic life.

Also, Bundist Jews, to whom you pay homage with your lips, but not much else, would have seen denying national self-determination as unjust or discriminatory against Jews. And seen Eastern European Jews as a people. Albeit not one with which you or Fink would have had much in common.

conchovor said...

'Unless he wrote his speech in the room and then gave it to Hirsh prior to actually delivering the speech to the room, how did he know what the "mood...even in this room" was?'

You never heard of people making last minute changes to speeches before rendition? Probably cc'd to others by email?

Tony Greenstein said...

The problem Concho is that Zionists, having tested their skills at Harry's Place, lack something in the way of gray cells and any erudition. In fact the ability to understand English might be helpful.

Saying Zionists will leave but Jews remains doesn't mean that Zionists aren't in some cases Jews, though at the Ahava picket, the majority by the end seemed to be a Welsh pastor and his followers.

But Zionists are known to betray Jewish interests as happened in Hungary, Iraq and elsewhere. Building a racially pure state is more important to them.

The most prominent non-Zionists in Britain - academics Tony Lerman (who founded the Institute for Jewish Policy Research) and Brian Klug of Independent Jewish Voices and Oxford University both oppose it root and branch.

It's a fraud, a political definition aimed at smearing criticism of Israel. Anti-semitism is quite easy to define but they needed a torturous definition to encompass anti-Zionism and in the process accepted anti-Semitism as part of that definition!

I don't know of any Zionists who oppose the EUMC definition. Nor have I heard of the 'expert' Sean Wallace. I do know that when we were on the streets opposing the NF and then the BNP I didn't hear any mention of Wallace. Never came to our attention. Another Zionist academic who has never got his hands dirty in the fight against fascism, racism or anti-semitism.

I am well aware of what the Bund said and their views on East European Jews as constituting a national minority. They were however vigorously opposed to Zionism as they saw first hand the treachery of Herzl and others who parleyed with anti-Semites like von Plehve, the RUssian Minister of the Interior who sponsored the Black Hundreds. Yes von Plehve was also in favour of Zionism and the movement, uniquely, was legal in Czarist RUssia.

Just face it Conchover old chap. Zionists were always collaborators or kapos, with anti-Semites and now you draw up a duff definition of 'anti-Semitism' to defend your collaboration and perpetration of racism against the Palestinians.

The only conclusion you draw from the holocaust is that the Jews must be the perpetrators of racism rather than its victims.

As for the EUMC being 'consensual'. Well until 1897 there was a concensus that Dreyfuss was guilty. One of the reasons why it is a myth that Herzl became a Zionist because of the Affair (in fact he had nothing ot say at the time and sought a favourable review from Eduard Drumont, the key anti-Semite and anti-Dreyfusard, for his 'Der Judenstaat'.

So just accept it Concho old chap. Zionists having collaborated and worked with Zionists for so long are understandably miffed when the concensus breaks down.

And yes, of course the bit about the 'mood in this room being anti-Semitic' was communicated by e-mail, except that Hirsh wrote the whole speech in advance! Even your tears are synthetic

Levi9909 said...

Conchover - there's an update to this "atmosphere" business.

In his point 1504, Hirsh says, "The atmosphere in conference is calm, quiet relaxed. Nobody is cheering or booing. Just doing business in a normal kind of way. See if the atmosphere changes for motion 70 on the EUMC defiinition?"

But clearly from Ronnie Fraser's speech and from Hirsh's comment "explaining" how he knew about the atmosphere in advance, Hirsh and Fraser had decided there would be a bad atmosphere and yet they provide no evidence save for Hirsh's claim that Fraser's speech was greeted with "stoney silence".

Deborah Fink said...

I can think of a Zionist, well, she calls herself a post Zionist, and she opposes this definition. Why wouldn't some soft Zionists or left-wing Zionists oppose it? You know, JfJfP types, excluding infiltrators like Hirsh.

RichardHutton said...

Hi Tony.

I thought I was the only person angry about the phony 'EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semitism'.

I'm glad students had the sense to renounce it. I wrote about this in detail last year:


http://www.scribd.com/doc/39251215/1-11-The-New-Left-The-New-Anti-Semitism-And-The-New-Right-Appendix-1-The-European-Monitoring-Centre-On-Racism-And-Xenophobia-%E2%80%98Manifestations-Of

see also: http://www.scribd.com/doc/47963185/Engaging-With-Engage-Online

I got a fair bit of grief for writing about this. I couldn't care less: it's important to renounce the kind of nonsense being peddled by Engage et al.
It's not just bad for Palestinian claims, nor just for students that they should be silenced; but when you have Jewish individuals and groups aligning themselves
with neo-Nazi twonks like the EDL/Geert Wilders et al, then something is seriously awry.

Best wishes.

Tony Greenstein said...

Thanks Richard,

I've 'tinied' your links to make them more manageable!

http://tinyurl.com/6dn7aqp
http://tinyurl.com/5r9vmhv

Zionist activists have plenty of form collaborating with anti-Semites. That was Theodor Herzl's whole strategy. At the very time he was apparently so moved by the Dreyfuss Affair, about which he never managed to say anything useful (i.e. other than how it 'proved' that Jews did not belong in non-Jewish societies.

Indeed at the very time Eduard Drumont, editor of the anti-Semitic daily La Libre Parole, was fulminating againt Dreyfuss and whipping up anti-Semitism, Herzl was seeking him out to get him to do a favourable review in his paper!

'Herzl lobbied for Drumont to review his pamphlet in their paper, which he did on 15th January 1897, and he was delighted with the result. Drumont ‘praises the Zionists of Herzl’s persuasion for not seeing in us fanatics… but citizens who exercise the right of self-defence.’ [Desmond Stewart, Herzl, p.251] Praise indeed!

Likewise his deputy, Max Nordau, wrote in La Libre Parole that Herzl accepted in his Jewish State, many of the accusations levelled at the Jews by those such as himself. [Herzl, Desmond Stewart, p.25]

So when the Zionists wax lyrical about the EUMC you can rest assured they are not concerned about anti-Semitism!