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.
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.
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
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".
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".
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.
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/
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/
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/
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.