1/ I think the Geoffrey Robertson QC opinion makes some interesting points about free speech. I feel the opinion was let down by some serious factual errors, which bear on his points. Some have now been corrected, though not in the version on the JVL site which is the original.
2/ The (2nd) corrected version is linked, which corrects:
- AIPAC doesn't stand for American-Jewish Public Affairs Committee (the I stands for Israel) (21)
- Israel doesn't grant citizenship to every Jew in the world
- Hamas isn't just a political org (16) doughtystreet.co.uk/documents/uplo…
- AIPAC doesn't stand for American-Jewish Public Affairs Committee (the I stands for Israel) (21)
- Israel doesn't grant citizenship to every Jew in the world
- Hamas isn't just a political org (16) doughtystreet.co.uk/documents/uplo…
3/ - Israel wasn't established by the UN Security Council (though the point about it being to "compensate for the Holocaust" has been left in despite there being no reference to the Holocaust in the UN resolution as far as I'm aware - see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Na…)
4/ - "1.3 million Arabs and a small minority of Jewish settlers" (16) has been corrected to "31% of Jewish settlers"
- There aren't 9 million Arab Israelis (16)
I think that some of the conclusions are affected by the errors but the conclusions haven't change. e.g.
- There aren't 9 million Arab Israelis (16)
I think that some of the conclusions are affected by the errors but the conclusions haven't change. e.g.
5/ The error about AIPAC standing for "American Jewish" (it's American Israel) was used to support this para which appears to support the use of "Jewish Lobby" as a legitimate term of art. But the error was the basis of that proposition which is now hanging by a thread. 
6/ It is a standard (and insufficient) debating tactic to pick up on minor errors and disregard the whole argument as a result, but I think in this case the errors are important as many of them supported the main arguments, e.g. for use of "Jewish lobby" as free speech...
7/ ... and for Israel being a special case, liable for special treatment, because of its history. I think that Geoffrey raises some important points about free speech, but I also think that if you strip away the points he makes about the examples, which are not as good...
8/ ... you can address the free speech issue using the text of the IHRA and perhaps an additional free speech proviso. A second substantive point I would make against his argument is that the discussion of "intent" is lacking any reference to discrimination case law which...
7/ ... does not require intent to prove discrimination, and for a reason. I don't think you can reach any solid conclusions on that issue without examining the case law on intent in discrimination law.
8/ And the part about Israel granting citizenship to every Jew in the world (which it doesn't - you have to apply and the definition of Jewish is limited) is in a section about dual loyalties, but the new version hasn't altered the conclusion or the odd bit about military service
