Thread by @tonylerman

You can read my Independent op-ed on the flawed report on #antisemitism in the NUS by signing up for free. independent.co.uk/voices/new-ant… Here's a thread of takeaways from the piece.

Lawyer Rebecca Tuck KC was commissioned by the National Union of Students to report on allegations of #antisemitism in the NUS. Published last month, her report's findings are deeply flawed.1/14

I was interviewed in person by Tuck, and am quoted twice in the report. But I was dismayed by what I found. First, a woeful lack of transparency.2

There is no record or evidence of the submissions made, experts consulted, or testimony given. Where sensitivity and privacy are an issue, names can be redacted, but that piece of evidence must still be counted.3

The report is based on a contested redefined understanding of antisemitism—called “new antisemitism” or “antisemitic anti-Zionism”—that incorporates #anti-Zionism and various expressions of solidarity with Palestinians.4

This redefined understanding of antisemitism has been codified in the now infamous “working definition” of antisemitism produced by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (#IHRA).5

The IHRA text functions as a means of toxifying and restricting #Palestinian political expression, as well as those promoting Palestinian rights. And it permeates the judgments, conclusions and recommendations of the entire report.6

Its most obvious inclination to see pro-Palestinian activism as antisemitic is in relation to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (#BDS) Movement, a Palestinian-led, global civil society campaign to pressure Israel to end its violations of international law and human rights.7

In an example of apparent bias, Tuck calls BDS “specifically and unashamedly anti-Israel”, but an anti-BDS initiative by the Union of Jewish Students is “an informed and intelligent approach to the #Israel-#Palestine conflict”.8

Embracing the “new antisemitism” paradigm, the report makes no meaningful distinction between political offence and anti-Jewish bigotry. It falsely conflates “distress caused to Jewish students…when Israel/Palestine is the topic for debate or conversation” with inciting hate.9

But urging avoiding causing “distress” by calling for “nuanced” debate sounds to Palestinians like both-sidesing ethnic cleansing.10

The final flaw is the marginalisation and omission of Palestinians and Palestinian perspectives. As if there was no place for them in a report on antisemitism in the NUS.11

But when a 100-page plus report is dominated by issues pertaining to Palestine, excluding substantive Palestinian responses is a choice; and a revealing one.12

There is no engagement with what it means to face attacks on your freedom of expression while your family members are being bombed inside a fenced-in, occupied enclave.13

I, for one, hope that the Palestine solidarity movement amongst students and academia—which includes Palestinians, Jews, and many others—will go from strength to strength, unbowed by attempts to impose limitations on freedom of speech.14