On July 7th, Professor and Brandeis Center Academic Advisory Board Member Lesley Klaff and Rabbi Dr. Mark Goldfeder continued the Brandeis Center’s Summer Speaker Series with a discussion about “Law and Jewish Identity.” Klaff and Goldfeder provided insightful legal analyses as part of a discussion about two age-old questions with regard to Jewish identity: are Jews a religious group or an ethnic group? And, is Zionism an inherent Jewish value? Klaff kicked off the webinar by explaining the legal framework in the UK that protects Jews from discrimination on the basis of race and religion. She first addressed the Race Relations Act of 1976, which made it unlawful to discriminate against someone based on their membership in a racial group. But it was not until the case of Mandla vs. Dowell-Lee in 1982 that Jews were understood to be a racial group protected under the statute. Although the Dowell-Lee case concerned the racial status of a Sikh-complainant, Lord Denning stated in obiter dictum in his Court of Appeals ruling that Jews constituted a racial group, explaining that he had “no doubt that in using the words ‘ethnic origins’ in the statutory definition of racial group, parliament had in mind primarily the Jews.” In 2010, the Equality Act officially expanded the definition of characteristics protected under law to include religion in addition to race, making anti-Semitism illegal in the UK on multiple bases. But the question still remained as to whether the law recognized Zionism as a Jewish – and thus protected – characteristic. Klaff referenced multiple legal cases that were lost on the grounds that an attachment to Israel was not viewed as an intrinsically Jewish characteristic. In contrast to those cases, following an investigation into anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission seemed to recognize Zionism as a core aspect of Jewish identity for some Jews, but since the Commission’s determination was not made in a court of law it could not be used to set a legal precedent. Goldfeder explained that the lack of legal protection for Jews with a strong connection to Israel actually follows one of the popular manifestations of anti-Semitism. “One of the main unchanging symptoms [of anti-Semitism],” he said, “is the attempt by anti-Semites to redefine Jewishness as something… not worthy of protection.” Today, the problem is two-fold: first, all Jews are assumed to be Zionists – a vast generalization of Jewish identity – and second, Zionists are viewed as unworthy of protection. There was a 438 percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the ten days following the most recent hostilities between Israel and Gaza, including violence against Jews who made known that they do not support Israel. Jews are consistently assumed to be Zionists but rarely given the space to define for themselves what Jewish Zionism means. So how is Zionism related to Jewish identity? Goldfeder answered this question by sharing his favorite quote by Brandeis Center President Alyza Lewin: “Zionism is as integral to Judaism as observing the Jewish Sabbath or maintaining a kosher diet. Not all Jews observe Shabbat or kashrut, but those who do, do so as an expression of their Jewish identity.” At the end of the webinar, Lewin further elaborated that “you do not yourself have to be a Sabbath observer to recognize discrimination against Sabbath observers.” She argued that the same logic translates to Zionism: people do not need to be Zionists themselves in order to recognize when anti-Zionism manifests as unlawful discrimination against an inherent aspect of Jewish identity. Watch the full webinar here.
Review of David Hirsh, Contemporary Left Antisemitism (Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2017) The United Kingdom’s Labour party and its trade unions, like the University College Union (UCU), consider themselves progressive and “antiracist” spaces. As such, these arenas pride themselves on being free of prejudice in the form of sexism, racism, or otherwise. And, yet, these same institutions have come to tolerate, and perhaps promote, hatred in the form of anti-Semitism. David Hirsh set out to write his book, Contemporary Left Antisemitism, as a former member of the UCU and a leading activist, speaking out against the anti-Semitism present within this realm and current editor of the online journal, Engage. In the book, Hirsh explores how these “antiracist” spaces in the UK allowed for institutional racism to foster, and why it continues. While this book focuses primarily on anti-Semitism in the contemporary left of the UK, it draws a relation to the rise in the anti-Semitism from the left on a global scale. On the left, individuals engage in anti-Semitism most when they talk about Israel – they do so in ways that demonize, delegitimize, or hold Israel to a double standard. Singling Israel out is, to many progressives, well-founded and not anti-Semitic; it is excused as ‘criticism’ against Israel and its policies. Should anybody speak out and call it what it is, anti-Semitic, the accuser is then discredited and accused of ‘bad faith’ and trying to ‘silence criticism against Israel.’ Herein lies the “Livingstone Formulation,” a term which Hirsh coined to explain the ways in which progressives deflect allegations of anti-Semitism. And, so, antisemitism is tolerated. Progressive institutions went beyond tolerating it, though. They served as incubators for anti-Semitism to flourish. Because the so-called antiracist and progressivist left supposedly stands up against all forms of hatred, they see themselves as the warriors for the oppressed in the fight against oppressors. Such a mentality arose from what Hirsh calls a ‘campist mentality’ wherein we now engage in politics of position, regarding your position in the world, rather than a politics of reason. In terms of position, Israel and Zionists are thrown into the oppressor camp, as allegedly part of a larger white imperialist spirit that can be accused of all that is wrong in the world. Antizionism, then, becomes legitimized as a fight against the white oppressor. Hirsh concedes that while some criticism of Israel is indeed wholly legitimate and not anti-Semitic, much of the hostility to Israel is anti-Semitic. Hirsh explains how people have come to conflate ‘Jew’ with ‘Israeli’ and ‘Zionist’ such that criticizing Israel and Zionism is a route to target Jews. Individuals on the left (among others) will distinguish between antizionism and anti-Semitism, but Hirsh does not believe it is valid to distinguish them absolutely – there is some crossover. He draws upon historical tropes and stereotypes used against Jews throughout history, primarily medieval blood libel and conspiracy theories, and highlights how they are now being re-appropriated towards ‘Zionists.’ (more…)
Videos from the Second Bristol-Sheffield Hallam Colloquium on Contemporary Anti-Semitism, chaired by Lesley Klaff and J.G. Campbell, are now available here. Heart of the Campus Building at Sheffield Hallam University This past fall, LDB President and General Counsel Kenneth L. Marcus spoke at the Second Bristol-Sheffield Hallam Colloquium on Contemporary Anti-Semitism. The theme of the colloquium was “Anti-Semitism in the Media: The Old and The New.” Panelists spoke about a diversity of topics, ranging from anti-Semitic language in German liberal web discourse to Palestinian liberation theology as a medium for contemporary anti-Semitism. Marcus presented a talk entitled “The Ideology of Jihadi Digital Mass Media,” in which he discussed the prevalence of anti-Semitism in online magazines of Jihadi organizations. Marcus explained how criticism of Jews—previously lumped together with criticism of Christians or Westerners in general—has grown more pointed, especially in Dabiq, an online periodical of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Jihadi mass media is featuring an increasingly specific stereotype of Jewish people. Their use of anti-Semitism, according to Marcus, serves four main functions: to market their organizations, inspire conversion, explain their worldview, and motivate action from their followers. Jihadi organizations, both those which appeal to the notion of a “near enemy” in Middle Eastern regimes, as well as those which oppose a “far enemy” in the United States and the West, seek to justify their global ambitions through a discriminatory perception of Jewish people. The Second Bristol-Sheffield Hallam Colloquium on Contemporary Anti-Semitism is an annual joint venture between Bristol University’s Department of Religion & Theology and Sheffield Hallam University’s Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice. Speakers are invited from the UK, Europe, Israel, and the United States to share their work and research on anti-Semitism in the modern world. At September’s colloquium, President Marcus was joined by numerous scholars and activists, including Ben Cohen, Director of Coalitions at the Israel Project; Peter Wells, Professor of Public Policy Analysis at Sheffield Hallam University; Sital Dhillon, Head of the Department for Law and Criminology at Sheffield Hallam University; and Bernard Harrison, Emeritus E.E. Ericksen Professor of Philosophy at the University of Utah. The conference was held on September 13-15, 2016 at Sheffield Hallam University.
Defining anti-Semitism has again proven its importance – this time, in the UK. Last week, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA), the UK’s leading universities regulator, ruled in favor of a disabled Jewish student’s complaint of campus anti-Semitism. The decision cited the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia’s Working Definition of Anti-Semitism (“Working Definition”) in determining that the anti-Israel incidents had crossed the line into anti-Semitism. This is an important case for Americans to follow, because the OIA adopted a definition that is substantially similar to the definition that LDB advocates in the United States and throughout the world. LDB’s Kenneth L. Marcus urged this approach at a meeting of the UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) just last month in London. The UKLFI, an outstanding legal organization, is continuing to score important victories. UKLFI Member and LDB Advisory Board Member Lesley Klaff The student, assisted by UKLFI members Lesley Klaff and David Lewis, initially brought a complaint against England’s Sheffield Hallam University for tolerating anti-Israel activity on campus that crossed the line from legitimate criticism of Israel into anti-Semitism and harassment. (Klaff is also a member of LDB’s Legal Advisory Board.) This appalling activity, as explained by Klaff, included Facebook posts and tweets, which “inter alia, accused Israel and Israelis of genocide, deliberately killing Palestinian children, deliberately killing other Palestinian civilians, war crimes, atrocities, using chemical weapons, ethnic cleansing, inhumanity, cruelty, behaving like Nazis, sexual and other abuse of Palestinian children (including abduction and human trafficking), stealing Palestinian organs, being racists and fascists, and rejoicing in Palestinian deaths.” Furthermore, according to Ben Cohen’s article in The Tower, the student added that he “felt ‘vulnerable’ on campus. Whenever he wore a Star of David or a kippah, he said, he felt that “people were giving me dirty looks or trying to block my wheelchair.” The University took nine months to consider his complaint before rejecting it, stating that the student was wrongly conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish prejudice and strongly suggested that this was merely an effort to get the University to adopt the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, which had been a requested outcome of his complaint. Following the University’s rejection, the student took his case to the OIA to review the University’s decision. The OIA ruled differently, finding that the materials circulated by the Palestine Society indeed crossed the line from acceptable criticism of Israel into anti-Semitism. Importantly, the OIA cited the Working Definition in making this determination, identifying it as of particular relevance to the question of whether material which criticized Israel “crossed the line.” The Working Definition defines anti-Semitism as “A certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” It is an exemplar definition in that it also provides examples of the new anti-Semitism we see on campuses today, or “antisemitism [that] manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context.” These examples include: Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. The Working Definition is one of several definitions – including the definition adopted by the U.S. Department of State, and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) Working Definition – that includes examples of “coded anti-Semitism” (or crypto-racism) in the form of anti-Semitism relative to Israel. In their decision, the OIA criticized the University for failing to address this complaint with seriousness, and ordered the University to compensate the student £3,000 for the stress and inconvenience caused to him by failing to adequately consider his complaint. Interestingly, Sheffield Hallem is the same English university that hosted an outstanding international conference on anti-Semitism just last month. LDB’s Kenneth L. Marcus participated in the conference. This is a victory in the battle against campus anti-Semitism, and demonstrates the importance for universities – in the U.K. and U.S. and worldwide – to define anti-Semitism.
Our colleagues at the Academic Studies Press have recently announced a Call For Papers for the new issue of The Journal of Contemporary European Antisemitism (JCEA), set to publish in spring 2017. Lesley Klaff, senior lecturer of law at Sheffield Hallam University, serves as an editor for JCEA and is also a member of LDB’s Academic Advisory Board. We are happy to share this announcement with our readers who may be interested in contributing. The deadline for submissions to the first issue is August 1, 2016. (more…)
The Louis D. Brandeis Center would like to announce to Brandeis Blog readers that the August edition of the Brandeis Brief is coming soon. Each edition of the Brandeis Brief features a compilation of the month’s best blog entries, along with detailed and up to date information regarding the Brandeis Center’s campaign against campus anti-Semitism. As the Brandeis Center continues to expand, both as it relates to its legal initiatives and to its online presence, the Brandeis Brief has emerged as an exciting way to keep updated on the Brandeis Center’s activities as well as the Brandeis Blog’s most relevant articles. Just recently, the Brandeis Center Blog gained another writer, Polish legal scholar Dr. Aleksandra Gliszczyńska–Grabias, who joined the long list of impressive legal and historical minds that regularly contribute to the Brandeis Blog. This list of contributors has included Gil Troy, Greg Lukianoff, Alyza Lewin, Harold Brackman, Andre Oboler, Lesley Klaff and Rafael Medoff. Subscribing to the Brandeis Brief is an easy way to keep updated on these scholars’ most recent blog postings, and the Center encourages its blog readers to subscribe to the Brandeis Brief so as not to miss any of these interesting and informational pieces.
David Hirsh David Hirsh, the English sociologist, has just circulated a “preliminary response” to the UK Employment Tribunal’s controversial decision in the academic anti-Semitism case, Fraser vs. UCU. Hirsh’s piece was initially posted to the Engage website, an important English online journal which opposes the BDS movement. Hirsh, who occupies a politically interesting position as both a left-wing critic of Israeli policy and also as a defender of Israel against anti-Semitic boycott efforts, thought that our readers might also be interested in his latest thoughts. We agree, and we are x-posting his blog here. We have also recently run excellent essays on the same case by Lesley Klaff (“Employment Tribunal Sanctions Antisemitism”) and Harold Brackman (“Which is the Englishman Here, and Which the Jew? Or Is It the Zionist?”) Hirsh’s response follows right after the jump. (more…)
We’re delighted to welcome English legal scholar Lesley Klaff to the Louis D. Brandeis Center Blog. Klaff, who is also a member of the Louis D. Brandeis Center’s Legal Advisory Board, will give an international perspective to the Blog, which thus far has featured bloggers from the United States and Canada. Klaff’s expertise ranges from legal and social theory to the English legal system to anti-Semitism in higher education. She is one of the pioneers in England of legal approaches to address anti-Jewish hatred, especially on university campuses, and we are very pleased to have her with us.