1. A few comments on Jonathan Freedland's (@Freedland) often misleading piece on the antisemitism controversy and the Labour Party theguardian.com/commentisfree/… … #Antisemitism @medialens @MichaelRosenYes @tonylerman @CPMacL2008 @AaronBastani @michaeljswalker
2. Freedland says only people who say “Jews are Nazis” would contravene the IHRA definition. In fact, the IHRA definition is much broader, referring to “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” holocaustremembrance.com/working-defini…
3. Freedland says IHRA definition “explicitly says that if you criticise Israel the way you criticise other countries” it is not antisemitism. This ignores the testimony of Kenneth Stern, who drafted the definition that has morphed into the IHRA definition judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/upl…
4. It ignores the fact Mark Weitzman, the Director of Government Affairs for the Wiesenthal Center “who spearheaded the IHRA's adoption of the definition" stating, approvingly, the IHRA definition could block events like 'Israel Apartheid Week' wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlne…
5. It ignores the fact the University of Central Lancashire cited the IHRA definition it the cancelled an "Israel Apartheid Week" event in 2017 thejc.com/news/uk-news/u…
6. Freedland refers to the "near universally accepted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of antisemitism".
7. In contrast, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi from Jewish Voices For Labour explained on BBC News on 23 July 2018 that “There is no such thing as an agreed international code”
8. Freedland ignores the 41 Jewish organisations across the world recently urged organizations “to reject the IHRA definition” jewishvoiceforpeace.org/first-ever-40-…
9. Freedland ignores the 244 academics who signed a letter published in the Guardian that noted the IHRA definition “can be and is being read as extending to criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights… as prima facie evidence of antisemitism.” theguardian.com/education/2017…
10. Freedland ignores the fact the respected civil liberties NGO Liberty has endorsed a resolution at its AGM warning public bodies not to adopt the IHRA definition. libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/…
11. Freedland ignores the fact the cross-party House of Commons Home Affairs Committee has suggested amendments to the IHRA definition similar to what the Labour Party are now proposing publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cm…
12. Freedland refers to Jews facing “an online horde shouting in their faces, accusing them of dishonesty, of smears, of ulterior motives and hidden agendas, of shilling for an Israeli government many of them oppose”.
13. This, of course, ignores all the reasoned and polite criticism Freedland and others have received – e.g. Freedland has refused to engage with detailed criticisms of his position. I’ve repeatedly tweeted and emailed Freedland, as has @tonylerman and many others, I’m sure.
14. Freedland accuses @billybragg of “taking up a position antagonistic to Jews”. This assumes there is a uniformity of opinion among “Jews”. The reality, as I have set out above, and as this Guardian panel of Jewish writers shows, is far more complex theguardian.com/commentisfree/… ENDS
