THREAD: This week's @JewishChron tells the story of how an anti-fascist informant codenamed 'Arthur', who infiltrated the far right for @CST_UK & Searchlight, identified the London nailbomber as BNP member David Copeland in 1999 thejc.com/news/uk/how-th…
'Arthur' did so much more than this: he spent a decade inside the far right, attending over 400 meetings, rallies and leafleting sessions, and told us all about everyone he met, everything he saw and everything that was being planned.
He was surrounded by vicious antisemitism, racism and misogyny, and a casual attitude to violence that was utterly chilling.
Arthur was a hero who took huge risks. My role was to meet him in random hotel bars in central London, get as much information out of him as I could and plan his next moves. It was a privilege to be involved.
This is an area of @CST_UK's work that we rarely talk about publicly, but intelligence-led anti-fascism has a long tradition in Jewish defence work and we are proud to take our place in that history.
David Miller, whose academic methodology is to identify funders of research he deems to be Islamophobic and then cherry-pick evidence about them to build a guilt-by-association case, was himself funded by the UK state & the EU. What if we apply his methodology here?
E.g. Victor Orban is an EU head of state and has said loads of antisemitic things in the past. By Miller's logic this arguably calls into question his ability to produce fair & balanced research about Jews, because that's how research funding works apparently 🤷🏻♂️
Ridiculous, isn't it? So is Miller and all his stupid so-called research. He cherry-picks bits of evidence to support preconceived conclusions and ignores anything that contradicts it. Here's an example from his latest paper exposed on @GuidoFawkes...
Conflict rages in Israel and antisemitism rises in the UK. It happens every time with wearying predictability. Here's a thread of top tips for people who want to support Palestinians in a non-antisemitic way:
Don't blame British Jews for what the Israeli government does. Don't demand that British Jews condemn the Israeli government. Don't deliberately take your Palestinian flags and banners to wave at Jews. It's antisemitic.
Be precise in your language. If you say "Jews", you mean all Jews around the world. If you say "Zionists", you mean everyone who thinks Israel should exist. If you say "Israelis", you mean all Israelis. How about "the Israeli government/army"?
I've spent two weeks waiting to see if any academics will speak out publicly about David Miller's antisemitic conspiracy theories and his targeting of Jewish students. Finally they have spoken... in his defence. This is the list of shame docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAI…
The letter itself is a masterpiece of euphemism, obfuscation and untruths. Miller was not "approached to provide a statement on Israel-Palestine". He gave a speech at a meeting in which he identified the Jewish Society at his own university as an enemy & a bunch of racists
Miller followed up that speech with another statement claiming that Jewish students at Bristol University who have complained about him are "directed by the State of Israel". This is antisemitism.
This thread is impressive in the way it gets so much wrong in so few tweets. There is no contradiction between having good security to protect Jews *and* reaching out to educate, support & build alliances to reduce antisemitism. Neither approach is exclusive to right or left.
Many Jewish community establishment orgs & leaders spend huge amounts of time & effort supporting other minorities in their struggles. The Board of Deputies' Uyghur campaign. CST's SAFE programme. Support for the Markaz in Golders Green. There are loads of examples over decades.
Meanwhile the radical left is proud of its tradition of beating up fascists. Maybe they got it wrong and should have tried working with them to raise their consciousness instead? Or maybe it is only certain types of antisemites that get this particular free pass.
What responsibility does @guardian have to ensure the letters they publish are accurate? Because today they have published a letter about @TheIHRA definition of antisemitism that includes a straightforward lie. theguardian.com/news/2021/jan/…
It is not true that "the majority" of examples in the IHRA definition "do not refer to Jews as such". In fact 9 of the 11 examples refer to Jews. It is simply dishonest to suggest otherwise.
It is true that some of these examples also mention Israel, and for good reason. If the signatories of this letter want to argue that (for example) it is not antisemitic to use the blood libel to characterise Israel or Israelis, be my guest. You won't get very far.
This thread is a ruthless dismemberment of a terrible @ObserverUK article about Covid vaccines in Israel & the Palestinian territories. It's also a case study of when inaccurate anti-Israel commentary *might* be antisemitic according to @TheIHRA definition of antisemitism /1
The most contentious line in @TheIHRA definition is the one that says it "could" be antisemitic to apply to Israel "double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation". Is that what this article is? holocaustremembrance.com/resources/work… /2
On the one hand, and as the thread by @ShMMor explains, the article implies expectations of Israel that are not expected or - or at least, met by - most other democratic nations; and it does so to make Israel look worse than it is /3