Starmer’s War on Jews - by expelling Jewish anti-Zionists, the Labour Party has now become ‘institutionally anti-Semitic

An anti-Semite in today’s Labour Party is what a Communist was in McCarthy’s USA

 

It is becoming clear that suspensions & expulsions have increased exponentially under Keir Starmer’s new regime. There is no longer any pretext that the Labour Party is targeting ‘anti-Semitism’. Anyone who is critical of the Israeli state or Zionism is a target. Free speech and debate, which is essential in any party claiming to be socialist or democratic has been abolished.

Just this week a long-time friend, Becky Massey, a former member of Hove Labour Party Executive, an anti-racist and Palestine solidarity supporter, received a letter of suspension and under the new ‘fast-track’ rules was expelled just 15 days later.  No hearing, no dialogue. 

This was not the first time that Luciana Berger resigned over 'antisemitism' - whenever support for the Palestinians is too great Berger smells 'antisemitism'

Becky’s ‘offence’ was to tweet that “The 99% of people will have the best friend in Chris Williamson as an MP who, if reelected, will work for them. I resigned from Labour to spend more time fighting for socialism.'” However Starmer is in favour of readmitting Luciana Berger to the Labour Party despite standing against Labour for the Lib-Dems.  Indeed 4 of her critics have just been suspended for ‘anti-Semitism’. What Becky wrote is a valid and legitimate expression of an opinion.

All of this can be laid at the door of Jeremy Corbyn and Jennie Formby.  People need to get out of their heads that Corbyn was sacrificed on the altar of principle. On the contrary his continuous apologies to the racists and Zionists have paved the way for mass expulsions of socialists.

In his recent interview with Middle East Eye Corbyn stated that:

I also introduced a system where egregious cases could be dealt with very quickly, but still within the ambit of rules of natural justice. So I feel that the attacks on me have been extremely unfair on this.

This is a lie. The fast-track procedures, which were sold to the last Labour Party conference on the basis that they would only be used in the most ‘egregious’ cases, have been used in virtually every case.

I am now informed that every ‘anti-Semitism’ case is now being dealt under these procedures.  Only sexual harassment cases are going to the National Constitutional Committee (because as we know sexual harassment is far less serious than fake anti-Semitism).

This began under Corbyn. He is therefore lying by pretending otherwise.. Good anti-racists are being expelled at the behest of supporters of the Apartheid Israeli state and Corbyn has been the Zionists’ useful fool.

Not only did Corbyn prove a disastrous leader by refusing to stand up to an ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign that is being used to target Black, Jewish and Muslim anti-racists but he laid the basis for a witch-hunt which is likely to be the most draconian and ruthless in the history of the Labour Party.

Corbyn’s interview makes it clear that he still does not get it that the allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party had nothing to do with anti-Semitism.  Of course you could find a few, very few, genuine cases of anti-Semitism.  You could have done so any time in the last 100 years.  The question is why it only came to the surface under Corbyn and the answer is ‘Israel’.

Corbyn’s vanity was such that when he was accused of anti-Semitism he protested.  He didn’t protest when hundreds if not thousands of others were likewise accused. He didn’t even get it that because Zionists define anti-Semitism as opposition to racism and Zionism they were talking a different language.

Those who campaigned on Labour ‘anti-Semitism’ ranged from the Tory press, Theresa May and the various Zionist lobby groups, not least the racist Jewish Chronicle and the Board of Deputies, a group that has never campaigned against racism, or even anti-Semitism, in its history. That Corbyn didn’t understand where the campaign was coming from, despite having a plethora of well-paid advisers, shows how flawed and shallow were his politics.  He was a left social democrat out of his depth. For all his talk about US imperialism when it came down to it he did not recognise a state originated campaign aimed at destabilising the Labour Party.

Extract from letter that Labour's witchhunters call antisemitic

Who are the real victims of Starmer’s ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign

1.           The Wavertree Four

The Wavertree Four sent a letter to their MP Paula Barker, a member of the Campaign Group no less, as a result of an article in the local Jewish Telegraph. In that letter the four officers of Wavertree Constituency Labour Party - chair Nina Houghton, secretary Kevin Bean, women's officer Helen Dickson and BAME officer Hazuan Hashim were suspended.

According to the letter of suspension the principal objection is to their statement taking issue with Paul Barker’s article:

’Luciana leaving the Labour Party was a shock to many and I find it deeply regrettable that she felt she could no longer stay….’

Scab Labour MP Paula Barker

The 4 accused are alleged to have:

‘engaged in conduct prejudicial and / or grossly detrimental to the Party...’  in that they

1. may reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on race, religion or belief; and / or

2. may reasonably be seen to involve antisemitic actions, stereotypes and sentiments; and / or

3. undermines the Party’s ability to campaign against racism.

Article by scab Labour MP Paula Barker

What is the evidence that the 4 accused have engaged in ‘anti-Semitic actions’ and ‘demonstrated hostility or prejudice based on race, religion or belief’ such that the Labour Party’s ‘ability to campaign against racism’ has been undermined?  What tropes or memes have they engaged in? 

Remember that the person they are criticising, Paula Barker, is not even Jewish. In other words, even disagreeing with the received wisdom that Luciana Berger was a victim of Labour ‘anti-Semitism’ is itself anti-Semitic. This is in essence saying that someone accused of a crime who pleads innocence has, by his plea, proved that he is guilty!  It is the ‘logic’ and mentality of Nazi justice which incorporated the decisions on guilt or innocence to the Police in the Lodz ghetto.

The salient part of the Wavertree 4’s letter stated that:

We have to express our disappointment and hurt that someone we campaigned for so wholeheartedly appears to have reiterated the inaccurate and factionally motivated position on anti-Semitism which was used in order to personally attack and seriously undermine Labour’s socialist programme during the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.

There are a number of points made in the article that we would take issue with, but the most important is the statement that:

’Luciana leaving the Labour Party was a shock to many and I find it deeply regrettable that she felt she could no longer stay….’

Though we accept that it was not explicitly stated that Luciana Berger was forced out of the Labour Party by anti-Semitic abuse from members of Wavertree CLP, Paula’s words will most certainly be taken to imply that we, as a CLP, were responsible. This accusation has been repeated by our political opponents, such as the anti-Corbyn Labour right and the Liberal Democrats on numerous occasions, culminating in Tom Watson’s calumny, under the protective cloak of parliamentary privilege, that Luciana Berger had been ‘forced out by racist thugs’ in Wavertree CLP. In the furore that followed, individual officers and members, such as our then chair, were subject to further abuse and false allegations in the

I defy anyone to find a trace or hint of racism or anti-Semitism in the above letter. What the 4 accused were doing was to challenge the narrative that Luciana Berger was forced out of the Labour Party by anti-Semitism.  This was  a lie but challenging Zionist lies is now evidence of ‘anti-Semitism’.

Luciana Berger has a history of resigning from organisations because of ‘anti-Semitism’.  According to an article ‘Why I had to resign’ in the Guardian of 15^th April 2005:

Last week I resigned from my position as a National Executive Committee member, because of a continued apathy within the National Union of Students to Jewish student suffering.

And what did this ‘suffering’ consist of? 

i.                   Gilad Atzmon’s statement at SOAS that burning down a synagogue was a ‘rational act’.  Atzmon is anti-Semitic.  Of that there is no doubt. However it is untrue that he was justifying arson against Jewish targets.  As he made clear in a letter to the Guardian, the statement he made was quoted inaccurately and taken out of context:

‘I claimed that since Israel presents itself as the 'state of the Jewish people', and bearing in mind the atrocities committed by the Jewish state against the Palestinians, any form of anti-Jewish activity may be seen as political retaliation. This does not make it right.’

There are many things that Atzmon has said which are anti-Semitic.  This was not one of them!

ii.                 Berger then equates anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism asking, in all innocence: ‘Many people claim that being anti-Israel/Zionist isn't being anti-semitic. But why does hatred of Israel lead them to turn a blind eye to the Protocols on a GUPS pamphlet?’

The obvious answer is that it doesn’t, except in Luciana’s mind.

iii.              Luciana then asks readers to ‘look at the Israeli boycott (sic!) motions put to this month's Association of University Teachers conference.’ Quite what the AUT, now UCU, has to do with ‘anti-Semitism’ in the NUS is not clear and what has Boycott to do with anti-Semitism?

The methodology is quite clear.  Luciana has spent her political life equating opposition to Zionism and the Israeli state with anti-Semitism. According to Wikipedia Luciana Berger was Director of Labour Friends of Israel, a propaganda group that is an extension of the Israeli Embassy from 2007 to 2010.  In other words Luciana is a fully fledged racist who uses ‘anti-Semitism’ as a means of justifying and defending Israel’s record.

The Israeli Labor Party, which LFI supports, is now in coalition with Netanyahu and has agreed to the annexation of 30% of the West Bank.  So much for their support for a 2 states solution. The same ILP also supports the proposal that none of the Palestinians in the area annexed will be Israeli citizens.  This is straight out of the South Africa apartheid playbook.

It is clear beyond doubt that the Wavertree Four have been suspended for their criticisms of Berger.  Unfortunately the Lansmanites in Wavertree Labour Party, instead of supporting their officers are doing their best to stab them in the back. As I have said previously, Lansman and his  cohorts were responsible for the defeat of Corbyn.  They are now actively aiding Starmer’s witchhunt.

Other offences that the Wavertree 4 are accused of include organising a meeting ‘Covid-19 and the crisis of capitalism: Can Modern Monetary Theory solve it?’ with speakers Chris Williamson and Michael Roberts, a Marxist economist.  Clearly anti-Semitic!

The third offence, I’m not sure whether this is an example of ‘anti-Semitism’, was advertising a Socialist Appeal meeting ‘Fighting for a Socialist Labour Movement.’ If like Starmer you believe that socialism is inherently anti-Semitic then I guess this too is an offence of race hatred!

What the attack on the Wavertree 4 demonstrates is that Free Speech in the Labour Party does not exist.  What makes this worse is that Paula Barker is a member of the useless Socialist Campaign Group of MPs. This snivelling apologist for the racist Berger, should have spoken out immediately about the attack on her constituency officers.  Instead, like the rest of the Campaign Group she has remained silent.

The scandalous nature of the accusations against the Wavertree 4 is highlighted by the article by David Rosenberg of the Jewish Socialists Group concerning one of the four – BAME officer Hazuan Hashim. Far from being a racist Hazuan is a long standing anti-racist activist.  It is a sad commentary on Starmer’s Labour that anti-racist activists are being suspended and expelled from the Labour Party at the instigation of Zionists and racists like Berger.

Screenshot of participants in meeting between the racist Jewish Labour Movement and the racist Starmer

Other Victims of the ‘Anti-Semitism Witchhunt

i.                   I understand that in his meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement Keir Starmer was handed a hit-list. Prominent amongst those included in it were the leadership of Jewish Voices for Labour.  It is no surprise that Jewish anti-Zionists should be prominent targets.  When Apartheid was the political system in South Africa, special anger was reserved for White opponents of Apartheid.  They were held to be ‘traitors’, a term that Zionists use against Jewish anti-Zionists. 

ii.                Mike Cushman of JVL’s Executive is understood to be under investigation and my understanding is that 25 Jewish members of the Labour Party are under ‘investigation’.  Mark Elf, who used to produce Jewssansfrontieres blog has also been suspended for ‘anti-Semitism’. I also suspect that Glynn Secker will be somewhere to the top of the JLM hitlist.

As I said at the time of my own expulsion, if you want to fight ‘anti-Semitism’ then what better than to expel anti-racist Jews.  It is understandable that the Zionist movement, many of whose leadership welcomed Hitler to power in 1933, should invest its energies in attacking anti-Zionist Jews.

Dr David Miller - suspended for writing a book that Zionists don't like

iii.             Professor David Miller of Bristol University.  David Miller was one of 5 academics who wrote Bad News for Labour, a book that looked at the evidence for Labour’s anti-Semitism allegations and found them wanting. This caused great annoyance to the Zionists in the Jewish Labour Movement.  The last thing they wanted was a serious academic study of their false allegations. 

iv.             The JLM therefore organised the volley of abuse, including threatening and abusive phone calls and social media attacks, on Waterstones in Brighton for hosting the book launch.  As a result Waterstones buckled and cancelled the book launch. After furious responses from their customers admitted their mistake.

The Bad News for Labour booklaunch which was relocated from Waterstones

Fortunately this was during Labour Party conference and as a group of us had organised a Free Speech venue in Brighton we put on the event ourselves at the Rialto Theatre.

As Pluto Press highlighted in their press release, it was Bad News for Academic Freedom. But this is what Starmer’s witchhunt is about.

The monster Momentum meeting which led to panic by the Labour Right and the fraudulent cancellation of election results at Labour's AGM

v.                Brighton and Hove Labour Parties have taken a particular toll.  We were at the forefront of the Corbyn revolution. In a massive AGM, which the Labour Party’s corrupt officers overturned, we evicted the old Right.  As my articles on the Leaked Report makes clear, corrupt Labour officials reversed the election results on wholly bogus premises. Not only has Becky Massey been expelled another comrade, Pam Page has been suspended.

Pam Page and Becky Massey (suspended/expelled) from Hove and Brighton Pavilion Labour Parties

vi.             I have also received information that a Labour Party member of over 50 years has also been suspended as part of Starmer’s McCarthyist witchhunt. He too is being dealt with under the fast-track procedures that Corbyn introduced.

Kat Buckingham, who was the 'investigator' had made up her mind long before - extract from leaked Report

vii.          Ella Downing has also been suspended.  Her offence?  Among other things posting a meme saying that ‘you can’t hold hands with god when you’re masturbating’ and referring to Jesus as a ‘sky Jew’.  Clearly anti-Semitic!

viii.         Dan Dowling was suspended for posting wholly anti-Zionist articles such as one graphic quoting the late Israeli Education Minister Shulamit Aloni, possibly the only anti-racist to have been an Israeli government minister, that ‘anti-Semitism is a trick we always use.’ Something which Starmer’s witchhunt demonstrates.

It is clear that the witchhunt that began under Corbyn and Formby, a witchhunt that never, not once, targeted anti-Palestinian racists like Luke Akehurst or Luke Stanger, which attempted to appease the unappeasable, the Israel Lobby and the Labour Right, has now been widened to engulf a major portion of the Left. 

What should we do?

The first thing is to join Labour Against the Witchhunt and also their Facebook Group. It is essential that there is a co-ordinated response to the current attacks.  This is the only specifically anti-witchhunt group. It is very understandable that people in such a situation should resign however I strongly urge people not to resign. That is what the Right wants and we should resist the temptation.

The Corbyn Project has been defeated thanks to the spinelessness of Corbyn and McDonnell and the treachery of people like Lansman.  However it would be tragic if the thousands of people who were attracted by a left-wing leader were to dissipate and go to the four winds.  There are a number of organisations that people should join nationally including Labour Left Alliance, Don’t Leave Organise and Chris Williamson’s Festival of Resistance.

If however you are expelled it is important both at the local and national level to keep in touch with and organise with fellow socialists. This is something I have tried to impress on the Labour Left Alliance. At present Don’t Leave Organise has not taken on board the thousands of Labour Party members resigning or being expelled and suspended.

What is most important is that you and others of a similar mind form local Socialist and Labour left groups that include members of the Labour Party and those who are unattached/ suspended/ expelled.

In short it is time that we fight back against the new racist leadership of the Labour Party led by Mogadon Man ‘Sir’ Keir Starmer. As the COVID-19 crisis demonstrates, the democratic organisation and control of society by those who live in it as opposed to the corrupt corporate lobbyists who knobble those in power is more urgent than ever.

Below I reprint an article from the JVL site by Murray Glickman.

Tony Greenstein

Jews accused of antisemitism

“Everyone should feel able to take part in discussion about our party, country and world.”

(Code of Conduct: Antisemitism and other forms of racism, Party Rulebook 2020, p.116)

The issue

A large number of Jewish Labour Party members have faced, or currently do face, formal investigation by the party on charges of antisemitism. JVL is aware of at least 25 such investigations: that is unlikely to be the full tally.

This number is far too high to be the result of chance or attributable to circumstances specific to individual cases. On the contrary, it suggests that Jewish party members are disproportionately exposed to being investigated for antisemitism.

No precendent

I am Jewish and reasonably well read in Jewish history. I am only too aware that my ancestors, near and remote, have been accused of all manner of hateful things over the centuries. But I don’t know of any precedent in which a group of Jews has been accused — institutionally accused — of antisemitism.

I know that I share a close Jewish identity with those accused so far. That makes me frankly fearful that it may be only a matter of time before my turn comes. In a sense it already has: I have now been the victim of slurs portraying me as antisemitic on several occasions, all pretty clear violations of the Party’s code of conduct on social media.

I am beginning to feel distinctly unwelcome as a Jew in the Labour Party.

Jewish emotional life and antisemitism

Just as much as members of other social groups, Jewish individuals vary enormously in outlook and mental attitudes.

In my experience, however, there is one constant: everyone raised in a Jewish family setting – hugely diverse though these are — grows up knowing what antisemitism is in the depth of their being. We all carry the fear of it with us through our lives. Knowing Jewishness from the inside as I do, I can honestly say that the idea of Jews being accused — virtually en masse — of antisemitism is something I cannot get my head around.

No reason to know

As JVL’s Support Officer, I have advised many distressed party members facing investigation. In the process I have looked in detail at a large number of individual NOIs [Notices of Investigation] issued by the party. Below I set out some observations on them that can, I believe, shine some light on why accusing Labour Jews of antisemitism has become so routine.

The Party does not go in for ethnic monitoring of members under investigation, and I am prepared to believe officials are actually unaware of the disproportionate number of Jewish members being investigated on the most implausible of grounds — antisemitism. This article is intended as a wake-up call. It is now time for the Party to act.

If we want to understand how this situation has crept up on the Party, we need to look at the methodology it uses in its investigations. I highlight three areas of concern:

·         the contested terrain of Jewish political history

·         uncontextualised fragments used as evidence

• complainants’ identities and motivations, and the provenance of ‘evidence’

1. Jewish political history

Jewish political history is just as contested as, say, the British variety. There is, however, a key difference: whilst most party members will have some familiarity with the political history of our country, it has become clear to me that few have even a basic acquaintance with Jewish political history. Why should they?

NOIs typically come with lists of questions. I have seen a lot of them, and have given the questions a lot of thought. The conclusion I have come to is that, all too often, they have been drafted by people who have no background in the contested terrain of Jewish political history. Here is where I think we should start in order to understand why the Party has accused so many of its Jewish members of antisemitism,

As a Brit I am deeply interested in the history of my country. At the same time I am, as a socialist, no supporter of nationalistic narratives of British history. Some may call that ‘anti-British’, but I would never in a million years expect the Labour Party to agree. As a Jew, I am also deeply interested in the history of my ethnic group. But again, as a socialist, I am no supporter of nationalistic narratives of that history either. In no way does it make me ‘anti-Jewish’. But Jewish members like me stand accused of antisemitism by the Party for just this reason. It must stop.

2. Uncontextualised fragments

I have seen enough NOIs to be familiar with their format. This typically comprises ‘evidence’ in the form of one or more social media posts the member under investigation is alleged to have shared, coupled with a set of questions referring to them. These questions are predominantly brief and open-ended in the extreme — often no more than a demand for the member to ‘explain’ what he or she meant by a given post or their ‘reasons’ for sharing it.

What is striking is that these posts are presented without context. (I call them ‘uncontextualised fragments’). The onus to provide context is placed entirely on the member under investigation.

To judge by this way of treating members, the Party does not seem to accept any responsibility for making inquiries of its own, prior to issuing an NOI, into the context of a post — for example, by studying the political situation within which it appeared or the thread from which it derives its meaning.

I believe this format is inherently unfair, not least when used in the course of accusing Jewish members of antisemitism. When this happens, the Party’s failure to examine context for itself combines with deficient knowledge of the political terrain to produce a toxic mix.

3. Complainants’ identities and motivations, and the provenance of ‘evidence’

When one individual accuses another before a tribunal with the power to impose sanctions, the intentions of the accuser as well as those of the accused must be liable to scrutiny. The integrity of the process depends on it.

There is no indication in any NOI I have seen that the Party takes steps to gather information on the identities and motivations of complainants, or on how they came by the ‘evidence’ they have submitted. Based on what I have seen however, I think I can safely say that the complainant is hardly ever a Jewish person who has been subjected to antisemitic abuse personally directed at him or her. (Precisely this happened to me recently in a local shop. I know what it feels like.)

The vast majority of items alleged to be antisemitic that I have seen in NOIs are posts which have been shared in small social-media bubbles and then quickly forgotten by all concerned. They only come to light, often years afterwards, because a systematic trawling operation has been undertaken to seek them out. We have also now had it officially confirmed (in the recently leaked party report), that a very small number of complainants is responsible for a large number of complaints.

If a formal disciplinary process is to be fair, it must start with a serious attempt by the Party to bring together all the relevant information t can, whether that strengthens or weakens the case against the member under investigation. The identities and motivations of complainants may often be of critical importance to the case, as may the provenance of material complained about. It is worrying that the Party seems perfectly content to operate in a state of ignorance on these matters. The responsible way forward would be for it to make sure from now on that it gathers this information in advance of issuing NOIs. It might then see complaints in a clearer perspective and sometimes take a different view on whether a formal investigation is actually warranted. At the very least, the process of drafting investigation questions would be significantly better informed.

All this could go a long way towards rescuing the Party from the absurd position it has put itself into — in which, as a non-Jewish organisation, it accuses Jews of antisemitism and then delivers judgement on them.

Conclusion

I understand the external pressures the Party is under to appear macho on antisemitism. But I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that bowing to these pressures has put the Party in the invidious position of effectively targeting Jewish members for being the Jews they are. I call for a comradely dialogue on how to stop all this.

Some of the most vicious episodes in the history of antisemitism have occurred when powerful non-Jewish institutions have seen fit to persecute individual Jews who have for one reason or another come to their notice. The most notorious example is the Dreyfus affair, but the mediaeval Barcelona Disputations also come to mind. The treatment of Shylock in the Merchant Of Venice depicts the same in dramatic form. I hear faint but painful echoes of these in the way the Party is behaving. As a Jewish member, I should not find myself writing this.

I assert my right as a party member to post this critical reflection on party affairs. This right is confirmed in the passage from the party rulebook quoted at the beginning of the article. It is worth noting that it forms part of the Code of Conduct on Antisemitism.

The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism is an Exercise in Political Fraud

Theresa May’s antisemitism fraud

Conflating and confusing anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is the key to the defence of Israel

Theresa May has demonstrated total support for Zionism and Israel -  this is perfectly compatible with her support for supplying the Saudis with weaponry in order to perpetrate war crimes in the Yemen.  That makes May also a war criminal.

It is, after all, hard to defend the ongoing murder of Palestinian children, the theft of land, the apartheid economy and Zionism's other crimes other than by demonising critics of Israel and Zionism as ‘anti-Semitic’.  False accusations of anti-semitism are a staple of Israeli and Zionist propaganda. 

The reactionary and racist Eric Pickles, former Chair of Conservative Friends of Israel who was happy to exonerate the anti-Semitic Michal Kaminski whilst pontificating about false 'antisemitism'

That is why it is disappointing that Jeremy Corbyn followed in the footsteps of Theresa May when she adopted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.  Corbyn only adopted the short 39 word introduction to the IHRA, as opposed to the full 450 word versin, but nonetheless it was a mistake. The IHRA in its totality is poisonous. The whole purpose of the IHRA is to demonise criticism of Israel and Zionism. Why? Because Israel is a lynchpin of US and Western foreign policy.  The IHRA has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.  The reason why anti-Semitic world leaders such as the Poland and Hungarian governments support it is precisely because it is aimed at leftist criticism of a Israel – a key ally of western imperialism.

If Theresa May was seriously interested in combating anti-Semitism there is a much shorter 21 word definition which Professor Brian Klug gave in a lecture at the Berlin Jewish Museum in 2014, on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, ‘What Do We Mean When We Say ‘Antisemitsm’? Echoes of shattering glass’ . he defined anti-Semitism thus:

‘antisemitism is a form of hostility to Jews as Jews, where Jews are perceived as something other than what they are.’

It is a 21 word definition, whereas the IHRA is 450 words.  Why?  Because you need 450 words in order to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

One of the key movers behind this false definition of anti-Semitism is the far-Right former Chairman of the Conservative Friends of Israel Sir Eric Pickles. Pickles it was who defended the tie up between the Tories and the far-Right European Conservative and Reform group in the European Parliament. The ECR group was chaired by Michal Kaminski, a Polish MEP who was the mainstay of the
Committee to Defend the Good Name of Jedwabne.  Jedwabne was a village where on 10^th July 1941, Poles supporting the Polish Nationalist Party herded up to 1600 Jews into a barn which they then set alight. Polish historians Jan Thomas Gross and Anna Bikont wrote Neighbours and The Crime and the Silence describing what happened.  On July 10^th 2001, on the 60th anniversary of the pogrom, Polish president Aleksander Kwaśniewski attended a ceremony at Jedwabne where he made a speech stating the murderers were Poles whose crime was both against the Jewish nation and against Poland.  A memorial to the murdered Jews was also erected.

Jan Thomas Grosz, the historian of Jedwabne, faces being stripped of Poland's Order of Merit by Poland's anti-Semitic and Zionist government

The person who led the campaign against this national apology was Kaminski. He went as far as to state that far from Poles apologising to Jews it was the Jews who owed the Poles an apology.  Presumably those Polish Jews who hadn’t been exterminated in the Holocaust since less than 10% of Poland’s 3.3 million survived World War II.  See Once no self-respecting politician would have gone near people such as Kaminski

The Polish government is currently considering whether to strip Gross of the Order of Merit, Poland’s highest award, from Gross for saying that the Poles killed more Jews than they killed Germans.

The Jewish Chronicle, which is so hot on 'antisemitism' in the Labour Party was remarkably supportive of an actual anti-semite

Another member of the ECR who Pickles defended is Roberts Zile, Latvian MEP for the National Alliance/LNNK. In March every year he marches with the veterans of the Latvian Waffen SS. [Jewish Chronicle March 8, 2012 Calls to ban Baltic neo-Nazi marches] Zile told the Latvian parliament that he was against the trial of Konrads Kalejs, a close assistant of Viktors Arajs, chief of the Arajs Commando, which participated in the killing of tens of thousands of Jews in Latvia and Belarus.  

Pickles told the BBC that ‘the Latvian Waffen-SS were only conscripts fighting for their country, and to say otherwise was a Soviet smear.’  Pickles omitted the fact, as Jonathan Freedland noted, that ‘a substantial minority of the Latvian Waffen-SS were eager volunteers, including veterans of pro-Nazi death squads who had already taken part in the first phase of the Holocaust.’

Despite confirming that only the short introduction has been adopted by the Labour Party, crooked Iain McNicol's monkeys in the Compliance Unit are using all of the definition

It is the Tories that should be attacked for their willingness to work with anti-Semites.  Indeed Theresa May has only just visited Poland to give comfort to their government in their battles against the European Union.  This has given the green light to Iain ‘Crooked’ McNicol and the Compliance Unit to apply the IHRA anti-Semitism definition inside the Labour Party, including its 11 examples of ‘anti-Semitism’, 7 of which relate to Israel.

The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is not only nonsense but is, by its own definition anti-Semitic!  One of the examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ is:

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

Leaving aside the fact that the Jews are not a nation and therefore have no right to self-determination, it begs the question why it is racist to oppose their self-determination anyway?  People oppose the right to self-determination of the Scots or the Catalans, is that racist?  All that self-determination means is the right to form a state.  

A memorial to the dead Jews of Jedwabne that the Zionist supporting Kaminski did his best to stop going up

What the IHRA is saying is that Israel is the national embodiment of all Jews.  That means all Jews, including me, owe their loyalty to Israel.  That in itself is anti-Semitic.  But according to another of the IHRA’s 11 examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ ‘Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel’ is anti-Semitic.  If Israel is the national state of all Jews then it is quite right to hold Jews responsible for it.  So according to one section of the IHRA, the IHRA itself is anti-Semitic!!

Sir Stephen Sedley, a Jewish former Court of Appeal Judge has written an excellent article Defining anti-Semitism for London Review of Books.  Sedley first homes on the introduction to the IHRA:

‘Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.’  Sedley notes that “‘A certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred’ invites a string of questions. Is anti-Semitism solely a matter of perception? What about discriminatory practices and policies? What about perceptions of Jews that are expressed otherwise than as hatred?”  Sedley observed that ‘These gaps are unlikely to be accidental. Their effect, whether or not it is their purpose, is to permit perceptions of Jews which fall short of expressions of racial hostility to be stigmatised as anti-Semitic.’

Hugh Tomlinson QC also gave an Opinion on the IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism.  He too attacked the introduction saying that

‘The phrase “a certain perception” is vague and unclear in the context of a definition. The use of the word “may” is also confusing. If it is understood in its usual sense of “possibility” then the definition is of little value: antisemitism “may be expressed as hatred towards Jews but may also be expressed in other (unspecified) ways”. This does not work as a definition.’

The reason that the definition is deliberately left vague, open-ended and unclear is because in order to define criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic it is necessary to make the definition as unclear as possible.  The lack of clarity is deliberate.

The Zionist EUMC definition of anti-Semitism was like the hydra Hercules faced.  No sooner had one head been killed than another grew

As Mike Cushman’s article on the Free Speech on Israel site explains, the IHRA definition is not new.  It arose originally as the so-called EUMC [European Union Monitoring Committee] Working Definition on Anti-Semitism in 2003.  It was drawn up by Kenneth Stern of the American Jewish Committee.  Its purpose was to confuse people by labelling criticism of Israel as ‘anti-Semitic’.  It had no other purpose.  In 2013, having been largely rejected by civil society groups like the lecturers union, UCU and the National Union of students, the successor group to the EUMC, Europe’s Fundamental Rights Agency, took it down from its website. Israel lobbyists finally concede that EU has ditched anti-Semitism “definition”  However no sooner had the EUMC definition of anti-Semitism died than the IHRA surfaced.  Like a many headed Hydra, the EUMC resurfaced as the IHRA.  Like Hercules, we need to kill it again and this time to make sure that it is dead and buried.

Theresa May’s antisemitism fraud

Mike Cushman

Theresa May misled the British public by pretending that the IHRA definition of antisemitism included the examples linking antisemitism to criticism of Israel and urging all public bodies to collude in this chilling of free speech.

A year ago, Theresa May urged all UK public bodies to adopt the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) document on antisemitism. The document contained a 39 word definition:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities

It also 11 illustrative examples of antisemitism, seven of them relating to Israel.

It has always seemed strange that the IHRA website contained no details of the document’s adoption and the only record of it is a press release from the Romanian chair. ECCP (European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine) has pressed hard to discover what lay behind this strange lack of documentation and has finally obtained confirmation from the IHRA secretariat that, while the 39 word definition was adopted, the examples were not.

While the Government press release announcing the Government’s adoption of the definition is ambiguous about its scope, the Government’s response to the Home Affairs Select Committee leaves no room for doubt. The Committee wished to add ‘without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent’ to three of the most contentious examples. The Government’s response makes clear that they, like the Committee,  assert the definition includes the examples.

Theresa May announced the adoption, not in Parliament where she might have been challenged, but at a meeting of Conservative Friends of Israel. At the meeting, she described Israel as a state that “guarantees the rights of people of all religions, races and sexualities”. Not only is that manifestly untrue in relation to both Palestinians and Jews of Ethiopian descent; it deliberately confuses criticism of Israel with antisemitism experienced by British Jews.

Robert Zile, MEP for Latvia's LNNK, marches every year with the veterans of the Latvian Waffen SS - he is part of the same political group in the European Parliament as the Tories

May must have known that only the short definition had been adopted but her Government has been rolling it out as including the eleven exemplars. The definition itself is poor: what is ‘a certain perception’; why is ‘hatred towards Jews’ reduced to a disposable extra; what is antisemitism towards non-Jews or their property? The exemplars, however, are beyond doubt an attack on the free expression guaranteed by UK and European law as demonstrated by Hugh Tomlinson QC. Use of them to restrict activity or speech would, in the QC’s opinion, be unlawful. May and her Government have not ceased urging public bodies to adopt the examples despite their dubious legality and fraudulent provenance.

Sajid Javid’s letter to Local Authorities urging IHRA adoption

In January 2017 Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, wrote to all local authorities urging them to adopt the definition and commending the examples, saying: ‘it gives examples of the kind of behaviours which depending on the circumstances could constitute anti-Semitism’.

Regrettably many Councils have responded to Javid’s call. All too often they have done this by forcing through adoption without consultation or debate and refused to respond to criticisms of their actions.

While some Councils such as Newham have amended and mitigated some of the worst aspects of the document, others have made it worse. The strident advocacy group We Believe in Israel —itself an offshoot of BICOM, the Israel promotion organisation from which leading members of Labour Friends of Israel graduated—promoted a doctored version. Their version omitted, silently, the qualifier ‘depending on context’ from the preamble to the examples. This more aggressive text, going beyond Javid’s encouragement, has been adopted by several councils.

Government minister Jo Johnson tells Universities to clamp down on free speech

In February 2017, Jo Johnson, Minister for Higher Education, urged the whole document on Universities, particularly in relation to Israel Apartheid Week activities. As a result, students and staff in several universities have had their rights to free expression curtailed for partisan reasons and risked disciplinary action.

In May the Zionist Federation urged all parliamentary candidates to back the definition.

When the Labour Party NEC discussed adoption they, singularly, restricted adoption to the 39 words.

The examples themselves are bad enough but they are marginally limited by their introduction: “Contemporary examples of antisemitism  … could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to…”. Even this constraint is too much for Israel’s more militant apologists. They have become fond of stating that an activity they disapprove of is, without qualification, antisemitic under the definition; urging churches, Local Authorities, universities, the police and others to take punitive action on this amplified interpretation. We have not noted any occasion on which a Government spokesperson has criticised them for this unmandated extension.

Labour Party bureaucrats, despite the Party’s restricted adoption of the IHRA definition, extended its reach still further in their action against Moshé Machover. They redefined the IHRA to include ‘pejorative language which may cause offence to Jewish people’.

The definition itself has a troubled history. It is a mildly revised version of a draft working definition circulated by, but never adopted by the European Union Monitoring Committee on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) in 2005. It was widely criticised and formally retired by the EUMC’s successor body. Despite that Israel’s defenders continued to promote it and use it and behind the scenes sought its revalidation by another body.

The EUMC definition was based on a draft by Kenneth Stern of the American Jewish Committee. In 2016 Stern testified to the US Congress that he opposed his definition being codified into law; it was only intended as an aid to diplomats.

May’s shameless fraud is achieving its desired result, the emboldening of all those who wish to suppress criticism of Israel. It is an attempt to allow only convenient historical analysis and anodyne commentary on the mistreatment of Palestinians. Early British assertion of the inclusion of the examples in the definition is being used in Europe and beyond by forces wishing to bolster Israel. The document is regularly cited by those who attempt to disrupt and close down public meetings on Palestine and Israel.

May has also energised those who wish to remove Zionist blinkers and freely debate Israel and Palestine. We will continue to speak out and defy those who would brand ethical campaigning as antisemitic.

Six Reasons why no one should adopt the so-called “EUMC” or IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism

– Posted on 18 décembre 2017

A policy advisory accompanying the fact sheet about the

IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) Working Definition of Antisemitism

ECCP and Free Speech on Israel,¹ December 2017

Antisemitism is commonly understood in accordance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) as racism or racial discrimination directed at persons or a group of persons because of their Jewish religion, origin or identity.

Governments, political parties and public and private institutions, however, are being approached to adopt so-called “new and universal working definitions of antisemitism” which have one common theme: all stipulate that not only Jews but also the State of Israel can be the target of antisemitism.

Formulated in almost identical language, these “working definitions of antisemitism” are promoted alternatively as official definitions of the EUMC (the EU’s European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia) or the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance). In the United States, a similar document is presented as the “State Department Working Definition of Antisemitism”.

None of these “working definitions” should be adopted by anyone, because:

1. The definition of antisemitism promoted in these “working definitions” has already been dismissed as invalid by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA). The EU has adopted neither the so-called “EUMC working definition” nor that of the IHRA. No one has any legal obligation to adopt either of these definitions.

The so-called “EUMC working definition” was never adopted by EUMC. In 2007, EUMC was closed down and replaced by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA). A document entitled “EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism” was removed from FRA’s website in 2013; FRA explained that it had never been viewed as a valid definition of antisemitism; that the Agency was not aware of any official EU definition of antisemitism; and that the document was removed in a clear-out of non-official documents.

Nevertheless, the “EUMC Working Definition” continues to be presented as if it were an official EU document. Since 2016 moreover, the same text has also been promoted as the “IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism”. No one is obliged to endorse either of these definitions which have indeed already been dismissed as invalid by the EU FRA. They have no legal force.

2. The so-called “IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism” hasn’t even been adopted by the IHRA itself.

The IHRA is an inter-governmental organization disseminating information about the holocaust. Established in 1998, it currently has 31 member states and a permanent office in Berlin.

The IHRA website features a press release publicising the adoption in Bucharest in May 2016 of a “ non-legally binding IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism” by the plenary of member states.

The content of the IHRA press release is identical with the language of the document falsely called the “EUMC Working Definition”. The entire press release has been cited publicly, including by the UK government and the European Parliament, as the IHRA definition. This is incorrect.

In response to enquiries, the IHRA’s Berlin office has clarified that the Working Definition of Antisemitism adopted by the IHRA at its meeting in May 2016 is the 40-word definition cited below in Section 3. See this document for further details. To be precise and clear – the Working Definition adopted formally by member states of IHRA is not the entire press release, but only the two sentences (which appear in a box in the press release).

The remainder of the press release repeats the guidance and ‘illustrative examples’ from the EUMC definition, most of which identify a range of criticisms of Israel as prima facie examples of antisemitism. For the avoidance of any uncertainty, the guidance and examples were not adopted by the IHRA. Naming the whole bundle (formal definition plus guidance and examples) as ‘‘the definition of the Holocaust Remembrance Alliance‘‘ has undoubtedly added to its apparent authority and emotional force, but we now know that this attribution is invalid.

3. The definition adopted by the IHRA is so vague and unspecified as to have no value for the fight against antisemitism.

The wording of the definition adopted by the IHRA is:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” [Emphasis added]

These two sentences and forty words are characterized by quite inappropriate and unnecessary vagueness, verging on obscurity, indicated above by the emphasised words and phrases. What is this certain perception? Why is it not explained in clear language? If antisemitism may – but doesn’t necessarily – express itself as hatred toward Jews, what are its other expressions? Under what circumstances and why would antisemitic acts be directed also toward non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, and who are these individuals?

We suggest (see point 4 below) that this vagueness and obscurity of wording can only be seen as deliberate. It is of no value in identifying antisemitic acts or statements. But it does provide an apparent necessity to accompany the definition with an interpretative explanation, that is, an opportunity for introducing concepts that would otherwise be unconnected with the understanding of antisemitism.

The illustrative examples circulated with the IHRA Working Definition suggest that antisemitism can be directed not only toward Jews but also toward the State of Israel and its supporters. This interpretation does appear to make sense of the otherwise obscure IHRA definition. However, the clarification now provided by the IHRA reveals that these examples and the extended interpretation of antisemitism were not adopted by the IHRA plenary.

4. All “working definition” documents suggest, through their ‘examples’, that antisemitism can be directed not only toward Jews but also toward the State of Israel (“a Jewish collectivity”) and its supporters. However, these examples and the extended interpretation of antisemitism were not adopted by the IHRA and have, indeed, no basis in international law.

Both the so-called “EUMC working definition” and the IHRA press release provide very similar examples to claim and illustrate that antisemitism can manifest itself as hatred against the State of Israel. The clarification provided by the IHRA now reveals that these examples were never adopted by the plenary of its members. However, they have been widely perceived and handled as if they were part of the “IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism.”

These illustrations begin by stipulating that the “State of Israel, which is perceived as a Jewish collectivity”, may be the target of antisemitism. This is followed by a list of examples of allegedly antisemitic attacks against the State of Israel, including, among others, “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor”, or, “applying double standards by requiring of the State of Israel a behavior not demanded of any other democratic nation”.

The assertion that the State of Israel must be viewed as a “Jewish collectivity” underlies all these ‘illustrations’. This assertion in fact reflects Israel’s discriminatory laws and Zionist ideology which define Israel as the state of a “Jewish nation”, a state that includes and represents Jews both in Israel and worldwide, and excludes its Palestinian population of citizens and refugees.

Under public international law, however, Israel, like any other state, represents all its citizens and not a “Jewish collectivity”. In fact, many Jews worldwide are not – and do not wish to be – represented by Israel. Under public international law, Israel is, moreover, bound by the prohibition on racial 

discrimination, and has to respect and protect the human rights of all its population. These include the fundamental rights to return, property and equality of its Palestinian refugees and citizens. There is no basis in international law for a right to self-determination of a “Jewish people” at the expense of these fundamental rights of Palestinians or of the UN- recognized right to self-determination of the Palestinian people; and no right for Israel as occupying power to carry out a policy of population transfer in order to colonize and annex occupied Palestinian territory. Accordingly, necessary criticism of Israel’s system of racial discrimination, segregation and apartheid does not constitute hatred toward Jews; nor do civil society campaigns and resolutions of the UN and EU apply double standards, demonize the State of Israel or pose threats to its existence, when they hold Israel accountable to the universal standards of international law.

5. In practice, adoption of the “EUMC” or IHRA Working Definition tends to undermine:

• respect for the right to freedom of expression;
• respect for international law related to Israel and the Palestinian people, and
• the fight against antisemitism.

European local, regional and central governments and authorities, parliaments and public institutions have a legal duty under their respective domestic laws and constitutions, EU law and international customary and treaty law to:

• Respect and protect the right to freedom of expression in their country;
• Uphold international humanitarian and human rights law including with regard to Israel and the Palestinians. This includes, at least, the duty to give no recognition, aid or assistance to Israeli policies or practices which violate the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people and/or the universal prohibitions on racial discrimination and on permanent acquisition of occupied Palestinian territory.

On this basis, more than 200 legal scholars have called on European governments to recognize that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is a legitimate movement for Palestinian human rights, independent of whether they themselves support it. In fact, the EU, as well as the governments of the Netherlands, Ireland and Sweden and the Spanish parliament have publicly confirmed that, while not in support of boycotts or sanctions against Israel, they consider non-violent BDS campaigning to be a guaranteed right of citizens that falls under freedom of expression.

In the same vein, legal experts (Dubuisson, 2005; Tomlinson, 2017) have alerted decision makers to the flaws in the “EUMC” and IHRA Working Definitions of Antisemitism, in particular the conflation of political criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism. Their analyses and legal opinions have warned of the risk that adoption and application of these definitions could undermine legitimate criticism of, and freedom of expression and democratic debate about, the State of Israel and its policies.

Practical experience meanwhile shows that these “working definitions” are being used almost exclusively to restrict the freedom of expression of European individuals, groups and organizations that criticize Israel and/or work for Palestinian rights.In Germany, for example, political parties are tabling policy motions for adoption by city governments – based on the IHRA Working Definition and under the pretext of the fight against antisemitism – which would prevent German cities from granting public space and subsidies to groups, organizations and events deemed supportive of the “antisemitic BDS movement.” Everyone who speaks out against Israeli policies that violate 

Palestinian rights or criticizes Israel’s self-definition as “state of the Jewish people”, including Jewish citizens of Germany and Holocaust survivors, is liable to be smeared and targeted as antisemitic. In the UK, France, Austria, Switzerland and Denmark also the IHRA Working Definition has been used by governments, authorities, political parties, parliaments and universities in an attempt to discredit as antisemitism, or to restrict or criminalize, legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and support of Palestinian rights.

Adoption and application of the “EUMC” or IHRA Working Definition also undermines the fight against antisemitism itself. By muddying the waters about what antisemitism is, these fabricated definitions encourage false allegations and entail a risk that genuine claims of attacks motivated by anti-Jewish sentiments are not taken seriously. Moreover, the claim that Israel and all Jews are one and the same obstructs recognition of the diversity among Jewish communities and of the many Jews who support efforts for Palestinian rights; it also encourages the perception that all Jews are responsible and accountable for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians. Finally, the conflation in these “working definitions” of political criticism of Israel with antisemitism supports the converse (and erroneous) notion that uncritical support of the State of Israel is an indicator of commitment to the fight against antisemitism. In this way it gives legitimacy to and encourages alliances with political forces that express support of Israel’s policies against the Palestinian people while pursuing a racist or even anti-Semitic agenda. One example is the increasing public tolerance and legitimacy in the United States of the racism of white supremacists who are also staunch supporters of the State of Israel.

These and other related issues are discussed by the renowned political philosopher and activist with Jewish Voice for Peace Judith Butler in this video about BDS and the fight against antisemitism.

6. The “EUMC” or IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism is a tool for an Israeli political agenda that should be rejected by everyone

The “working definition” was developed in the context of Israeli debate in the early 2000s about a “grand strategy toward the European Union” that would strengthen EU-Israel relations, while also allowing Israel to maintain its illegal settlement enterprise and thwart EU pressure for a two-state solution and respect of the rights of its Palestinian citizens. Israeli and US-based Zionist Jewish charities, think tanks and lobbyists adopted a propagandistic initiative aimed at silencing criticism of Israel’s policies by branding it as “new antisemitism”. They claimed that “new antisemitism” among European civil society, the EU and the United Nations takes the form of “double standards” and the “demonization and de-legitimization” of the State of Israel. The “EUMC” or IHRA “Working Definition of Antisemitism” is a tool of this initiative.

Drafting of the “working definition” was completed in 2004. Since then, it has been promoted by the 

Israeli government and, among others, the American Jewish Committee (AJC), Simon Wiesenthal Center, European Jewish Committee (ECJ), NGO Monitor and UN Watch in particular, but not only, in their fight against the growing, Palestinian civil society-led BDS movement.

Meanwhile, the willing governments of Romania, the UK and Austria have adopted what is now called the “IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism”, while the European Parliament has undermined the EU’s principled position by passing a resolution calling on member states to adopt and apply the definition, despite its dismissal as invalid by the EU’s own Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) .

Efforts to achieve official endorsement of the “working definition” have been spearheaded by individuals affiliated with these Israel-lobby groups who also serve as “experts on antisemitism” in the Organization of Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the IHRA and/or the European Union, including its Commission, Parliament and, formerly, EUMC. Since neither the OSCE nor the EU has so far been willing to adopt the fabricated definition, the inter-governmental IHRA was selected as the body that would give it some official standing.

PDF

GERMAN/ 

1* ECCP (European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine) is a network of 42 European committees, organizations, NGOs, unions and international solidarity movements from 19 European countries, dedicated to the struggle of the Palestinian people for freedom, justice and equality.

Please also see Blake Alcott's

The Antisemitism Fallacy; Let’s Focus on Palestinians

* Free Speech on Israelis a Jewish-led UK organisation which was founded to counter the use of claims of antisemitism to suppress legitimate criticism of Israel.