I agree with every word here.
The IHRA has become a symbol for the fight against antisemitism, which leads meany to underestimate its shortcomings.
The definition is especially wrong for universities, and will introduce confusion rather than clarity.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
The imposition of IHRA on universities will likely escalate campus wars, rather de-escalate them. We need to disaggregate the issue of antisemitism from Israel/Palestine, as much as possible. The EHRC report showed it can be done, but this move sends us in the wrong direction.
If you read Gavin Williamson's letter, the verb "demonstrate" repeats five times. This is the politics of symbolic gestures, rather that of substance. He makes no claim regarding the actual value of the IHRA for fighting antisemitism - because there is no such evidence.
Universities are not political parties and we should be careful not to make direct comparisons to the Labour party. But we know that Labour's adoption of the IHRA in 2018 made no difference whatsoever to the party's handling of antisemitism.
The government has not made IHRA legal, but it threatens universities which would not adopt it with sanctions. This is a very worrying intervention in academic freedom. But even when it is adopted, it has no legal status. This is a mess.
We need to think of antisemitism as a form of racism on campus, and treat it as such - not as some particular and unique predicament that requires a distinct handling. No other form of bigotry is tackled that way - and it would be impossible to issue definitions for all.
It is a problem that the recent disturbing report on racism in universities did not mention Antisemitism or Islamophobia. Bigotry and racism manifest differently but we know that the best way to tackle them is together.

universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-ana…
And finally, a word to Jewish students, who feel that their complaints are not listened to: the problem is real. Antisemitism exists on campuses. Universities should do better. But this is a step in the wrong direction.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Yair Wallach

Yair Wallach Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @YairWallach

3 Dec
Given its weaknesses, I can see two reasons to promote the IHRA. The first, primarily as a symbolic gesture; the second, because if its "edge" on defining anti-Israel discourse as antisemitic.
If your reason is the first, consider carefully the IHRA's weaknesses; the message that it sends, that antisemitism is substantially different from other racisms; and that it pits directly diaspora Jews against Palestinians and Palestine advocacy. theguardian.com/news/2020/nov/…
As for "anti-Israel discourse", this is what the Jewish Chronicle called "political antisemitism" in its famous front page editorial. The IHRA was needed because Labour would only address "racial antisemitism" but not "political antisemitism".
Read 6 tweets
3 Dec
Four reasons why imposing the IHRA definition on universities is bad for Jews:

(It's also bad for Palestinians and for academic freedom, but I'll focus on Jews)

holocaustremembrance.com/resources/work…
1. The core definition is poorly phrased and is very restrictive. It defines antisemitism as hatred - that is, an emotion - but does not mention discrimination, prejudice, or other forms of anti-Jewish racism which do not necessarily manifest as "hatred". Image
The CST website, in its page on Antisemitism definition, starts with the sentence

"Antisemitism is hatred, bigotry, prejudice or discrimination against Jews."

Three of these terms do not appear in the core IHRA definition.

cst.org.uk/antisemitism/d…
Read 9 tweets
3 Dec
By neo-Zionism I mean the current hegemonic political project in Israel. Explicit view of Israel as ethno-state over entire Israel/Palesine, Jewish-Israeli domination and rights for Israeli Jews, limited or no rights for Palestinians, ongoing colonisation, effective annexation 1/
Neo-Zionists are allied with the global populist right. Diaspora communities understood by neo-Zionists as extensions of Israel, they are not expected to immigrate to Israel. Welcome if they do, but a Jewish Trump supporter in the US is as-good as a settler in the West Bank. 2/
A significant share, probably plurality, of Israelis, support this model. Most diaspora Jews disagree with parts or all of this - including most of those identifying as Zionists. But there is a minority that supports this. 3/
Read 6 tweets
10 Nov
My Saeb Erekat story.
----------------------
In December 1998 I was a subtitles translator in the Israeli TV news department (channel one). Bill Clinton arrived to Israel (4th visit) and for the first ever presidential visit to the Palestinian Authority. Very busy 3-4 days 1/
Clinton's Gaza itinerary included meeting kids whose fathers were in Israeli prisons. Saeb Erekat did the simultaneous translation for the President. One boy (8yr?) recounted some bare details about his story. The boy was shy and subdued. 2/
Erikat translated the child's sad factual account and then added "we just want peace now". Which the child didn't say. I remember staring at the screen with amused admiration. Erikat's quickness of improvisation, the moulding of a feel-good Hollywood monologue 3/
Read 11 tweets
3 Nov
In July 2018, Britain's three Jewish newspapers published a joint editorial to speak against Labour antisemitism. With the conclusion of the EHRC enquiry, we can go back to that editorial and see if it bore out. Thread.
jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/voice-of-the-j…
The editorial used strong alarming tone, going far beyond previous condemnations of Labour. We can now say that the alarm was justified. According to the EHRC, Labour leadership "at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it". 2/
The EHRC found that Labour was responsible for discrimination and harassment against Jews. This is serious enough. Does it justify the newspapers' statement that a Labour government was "existential threat to Jewish life"? I didn't think so then and I don't think so now. 3/
Read 15 tweets
1 Nov
On the "dramatic overstatement" of Labour's problem, two points:
Firstly, "the assumption that the number of complaints dealt with by Labour’s disciplinary apparatus reflects the real level of antisemitic incidents in the party is not credible...
2/
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…
"The one thing we know about reported hate crime figures in general is that they represent the tip of an iceberg. It is special pleading to think that Labour’s data are in some way different." (Gidley, McGeever and Feldman, "Labour and Antisemitism: a Crisis Misunderstood") 2/
Secondly, the issue is not only the number of complaints but also the roles of the people involved.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!