The Palestine Solidarity Campaign has responds to the Home Affairs Select Committee report on antisemitism
PSC / Bethlehem/
Chair of Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Hugh Lanning, criticises its recommendations as it is “muddled and fails to differentiate between the actions rightfully needed to combat antisemitism and those which would clamp down on legitimate calls to end the abuses carried out by Israel”..”
“The report correctly asserts that antisemitism must be challenged wherever it is found – a commitment Palestine Solidarity Campaign fully endorses. We share the Committee’s assertion that antisemitism must be opposed in a way that maintains freedom of speech on Israel and Palestine. Therefore we find it very worrying that the report recommends adoption of a discredited definition of antisemitism that dangerously conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism.”
The modified form of the discredited ‘EUMC definition’ of antisemitism would, if adopted, render illegitimate, and potentially criminal, calls for action to address Israel’s persistent denial of Palestinian rights.
Despite noting that the Director of the University of London’s Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism regards the definition as having “largely fallen out of favour, in part due to continued controversy regarding its application to the State of Israel and its policies” , the Committee call on government to adopt it in a modified form.
“The definition explicitly incorporates criticisms of Israel as a category of antisemitism. The report suggests additional clarifications to the definition, which it asserts will protect legitimate criticism of Israel but these will, in our view, have a chilling effect on what can be said in opposition to Israel’s policies of discrimination and oppression towards the Palestinian people.” PSC said.
“We are concerned that the report lacks political objectivity in its characterisation of what constitutes legitimate debate about Israel and Palestine.”
It describes Israel as a liberal democracy in which the actions of the government are openly critiqued and debated by its citizens. This ignores the reality of the implementation of a range of laws and policies by the Israeli government in recent years which have stifled dissent and been described by a range of respected international observers as profoundly undemocratic. In April, for example, Amnesty International urged the Israeli government to cease its intimidation of human rights defenders in Israel and the West Bank.
The democratic nature of the Israeli state should be the subject of legitimate debate and scrutiny in the UK particularly within academic environments. Yet in its section on how debate should be conducted on campus the report cautions against what it defines as simplistic formulations. This would render illegitimate formulations which categorise the situation as one in which one party, Israel, exercises overarching power over Palestinian lives.
Most concerning, asking law enforcement officers to adopt a definition of antisemitism which incorporates criticism of Israel within its categories risks the policing of political debate.
PSCC said it believe this runs counter to everyone’s freedom of expression – a right guaranteed in European law.
PSCC said it believes that a recognition of the highly politicised and contested nature of the definition informed this decision , adding that “nothing in [PSCC’s] view has altered the context of that judgment and urge the Government to ignore the report’s recommendation to adopt the IHRA definition which is substantially the same. To do otherwise would deny people their basic right to challenge both the policies of the Israeli government as well as the doctrine which informs those policies. “It would as in our view undermine the struggle against racism. In the words of Dr Brian Klug “When every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing–the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance”