LONDON – The UK is already known as a hub for the delegitimization of Israel, but the situation is about to worsen. According to Ronnie Fraser, there is likely to be an upturn in anti-Israel activity on university campuses and among trade union activists
The reason is a landmark legal case, launched by Fraser himself, which he just lost. A freelance mathematics lecturer, Fraser took the University and College Union (UCU) to an employment tribunal for harassment, alleging that its anti-Zionist activity – including several votes on an academic boycott – crossed the line into anti-Semitism to the extent that the academics’ trade union was “institutionally anti-Semitic.” In a mammoth case heard over 20 days in late 2012, 10,000 documents were presented and 29 witnesses testified on Fraser’s behalf, including two members of Parliament. Booker Prize winner Howard Jacobson also submitted written evidence.
The stakes were clear: win, and anti-Israel activists would have to be much more careful about the language and tactics they used. Lose, and they would gain some legal protection.
On the eve of Passover, the employment tribunal rejected Fraser’s case in scathing terms, clearly seeing it as an attempt to shut down debate on Israel.
“At heart,” wrote the three judges, “it represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.”
While the law protects race and religion, it did not protect Zionist beliefs or ‘an attachment to Israel,’ because they were not ‘intrinsically a part of Jewishness’
While the law protects race and religion, the judges ruled, it did not protect Zionist beliefs or “an attachment to Israel,” because they were not “intrinsically a part of Jewishness,” and the litigation showed “a worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.” Calling the case a “sorry saga,” they regretted that the case was ever brought, and hoped it was never repeated.
For the leaders of Anglo-Jewry, several of whom testified on Fraser’s behalf, it was a considerable blow. In an interview with Times of Israel, Fraser says he was “saddened” by the decision, but three weeks on is stoical, buoyed by a stream of supportive messages from around the world.
He lost, he says, because the judges did not clearly understand what anti-Semitism is, particularly the “new anti-Semitism” which seeks to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state, not just the Jewish people.
Those who believe that Israel is not “intrinsically a part of Jewishness” probably do not understand Jewish heritage, he says. The problem is that there is no definition of anti-Semitism enshrined in British law.
“If I was to call you a dirty Jew, the police could take action. If I call you a Zionist and a racist, they won’t – it’s deemed to be political discourse. But Zionist is a substitute word for Jew.”
One lesson from the trial, he believes, is that the community must set, publicize and insist on its own definition of anti-Semitism – a challenge he is willing to take on himself. It must also reclaim the narrative of Israel being central to a Jewish identity.
“We have to define it as Jews, for ourselves. We can’t let other people define what Jews are,” he says.
Fraser, who founded and directs the Academic Friends of Israel group, was not always a campaigner. An amiable, mild-mannered son of Holocaust refugees in his mid-60s, he trained as an engineer and had no great interest in Israel until he joined the Board of Deputies, Anglo-Jewry’s representative organization, in 1984. He visited for the first time in 1990. In 2001, he became a math lecturer at Barnet College in the Jewish heartland of north London and the following year joined the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, which merged with another group to become UCU in 2006.
While the majority of the union’s membership had and has no interest in Israeli issues, “a small number of activists on the left took control of the executive and made life difficult,” he says.
Initially Fraser found many like-minded people on Middle Eastern issues, but he became increasingly isolated as successive Jewish members (and a few non-Jews) resigned in protest at what they saw as UCU’s unreasonable focus on Israel/Palestine. Among the issues raised in Fraser’s case were repeated resolutions promoting an academic boycott; 1,500 messages concerning the Middle East out of 7,000 on the activists’ email list between 2007-2011; the hosting of a South African trade unionist who was under investigation by the South African Human Rights Commission for making inflammatory comments about Jews; and allegations of bullying at union conferences and meetings.
In May 2011, the UCU annual congress voted on a proposal to reject the working definition of anti-Semitism formulated by the European Union Monitoring Centre (EUMC) on Racism and Xenophobia, which categorizes several anti-Zionist arguments as anti-Semitic, for example claiming that the state of Israel is a racist endeavor. For Fraser this was a turning point. He believed UCU was “legislating anti-Semitism out of existence” in order to stifle debate about its anti-Israel activity.
By then he felt so isolated that he requested that another Jewish member accompany him into the conference hall.
‘The Union’s policies had ethnically cleansed Congress of people like me, so as an Orthodox Jew I was on my own’
“The Union’s policies had ethnically cleansed Congress of people like me, so as an Orthodox Jew I was on my own,” he asserts.
During the meeting, Fraser challenged members to take complaints of anti-Semitism more seriously: “Instead of being listened to, I am routinely told that anyone who raises the issue of anti-Semitism is doing so in bad faith,” he said from the podium. “Congress, imagine how it feels when you say that you are experiencing racism, and your union responds: stop lying, stop trying to play the anti-Semitism card.”
Prefiguring his sentiments about the trial, he added, “You, a group of mainly white, non-Jewish trade unionists, do not have the right to tell me, a Jew, what feels like anti-Semitism and what does not.”
According to one observer, this was met with “stony silence.”
When the UCU vote took place, Fraser counted just four votes against including his own, compared to around 200 in favor.
“It was personal,” he says. “It was a huge defeat emotionally. I was so upset by it. I’m not a very emotional person really – that’s why I can do campaigning – but I was really upset for three days. I knew then that something had to be done.”
That is when he decided to sue, aided by superstar lawyer Anthony Julius of Mishcon de Reya, best known as Princess Diana’s divorce lawyer, but also an expert on anti-Semitism who had long been involved in the UCU issue and even previously threatened the union with legal action.
‘It is my way of saying “never again”‘
In fact, Fraser’s emotions were on display again during the trial, when he was visibly tearful while taking his oath, and then again broke down explaining why he had refused to leave the union even as he believed it mistreated him: “I continued to put up with hurt and humiliation because my parents were refugees from the Holocaust. My mother’s parents, we think, died in Auschwitz as a result of the Nazi extermination of Jews and anti-Semitism. It is my way of saying ‘never again’.”
Over two days of cross-examination, UCU’s lawyer pressed him, and later other witnesses, on one point: Is there or is there not, within the Jewish community, “a range of views” about Israel? The implication was that opposing Israel does not make one anti-Semitic.
At the time Fraser seemed to occasionally struggle to formulate his answers. He now agrees that there is a spectrum of opinions, but says it is wrong to award equal legitimacy to “the views of a minority of anti-Israel, anti-Zionist Jews and the views of the majority of the community” who do support the Jewish state, since a connection to Israel is a central part of Jewishness.
He denies, however, that he wanted to curtail anyone’s freedom of speech, as the judges alleged in their verdict.
“The debate about the conflict can continue until the cows come home,” he says. “I only care about the point at which it spills into anti-Semitism, and then it’s personal.”
This is why the tribunal was wrong to suspect him of trying to “achieve a political end,” he adds.
‘This is not political for me, it’s not about Israel and the Palestinians. It’s about anti-Semitism’
“This is not political for me, it’s not about Israel and the Palestinians,” he says. “It’s about anti-Semitism.”
Fraser seems outraged by the judges’ suggestion that his case was “gargantuan” in scale, “manifestly excessive and disproportionate,” and a waste of the court’s time and resources. He returns to the question he asked the UCU delegates when they rejected the EUMC definition: “Imagine how it feels when you say that you are experiencing racism,” and are told, “stop trying to play the anti-Semitism card.”
While Fraser is still getting legal advice about whether to appeal the verdict, he says he hopes the result does not dissuade others from taking similar action.
“It was a very harsh decision, but we are pioneers in this, claiming institutional anti-Semitism. Maybe others will be more successful.”
He is dismissive of those who now claim that his case should never have been launched in the first place, saying that they did not complain at the time and are just reluctant to make a fuss, and insists that he has “no regrets at all.”
In fact, he hopes that at least one positive may come out of his case: that even if the anti-Israel activists are emboldened, the trade unions’ managements will be more transparent and more professional in dealing with their Jewish members’ concerns.
Despite everything that has passed, he intends to stick around UCU to find out. “I am going to be a UCU member for the foreseeable future,” he says. “If I give up, they’ve won.”
@ Robert:
Well said, welcome to Israpundit.
@ Michael Devolin:
Please don’t speak for others.
I don’t know if he is antisemitic or not.
To me he seems uninformed, but I have not yet spotted antisemitism.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Israeli leader never insisted on connecting state and religion. In they are about as connected as in Denmark, or Sweden.
@ vivarto:
As long as we are on the same side of the “fence!!!!!!” don’t worry.
You are a Jew-baiter, a Christian anti-Semite and a religious coward. That’s all you are. I’m twice the man you are.
You got some nerve.
Never once have I called for the destruction of Israel.
Never once have I asked for the division of Jerusalem.
Never once have I asked for Judea and Samaria to be cut off from Israel.
I recommended that Israel annex Judea and Samaria and either
1) enfranchise the Arabs slowly
-or-
2) Pay them to leave as MK Fieglin has suggested and Dr. Martin Sherman of Tel Aviv University.
I merely pointed out the inconsistencies of some of the posters here.
Yamit seems to think it is okay for Jews to support separation of religion and state in Christian lands, but not Israel.
This is hypocritical. Personally, I am in favor of separation of religion and state in all areas.
You are a foul mouthed bigot.
I’ll show you an eloquence you’ve not seen before, you fucking asshole. An eloquence you deserve. You’re an anti-Semite, and every Jew posting here knows it. Fuck off, and take your Christian anti-Semitism with you.
Such eloquence.
Not anti-semitic. Just asking questions.
So it is not about principle then, but only about what is good for the Jews.
“wasn’t it hypocritical for Jewish leadership to seek separation of state and religion in the West,
but somehow insist connecting state and religion in Israel?”
Why is this anti-Semitic asshole allowed on this site, Ted? There are tons of these anti-Zionist/antisemitic shit-heads all over the internet, so it’s not like he’ll be alone if he’s banned from this blog. He’s got lots of friends out there in the nether regions of the world.
“Now you goyim don’t have to like nor approve of what we do or how we think in our country and frankly we won’t ask you for your opinion or approval. Why should we?”
Tell the Good Doctor to kiss your ass, Yamit. Zionism, real Zionism, waits for no one, and especially not for the approval of the non-Jewish world. Real Zionism is not here to please the Western “courts of law.” Real Zionism is very much contrary to “Western courts of laws,” especially when it comes to Muslim squatters and the whims of the conquered. Such a fatuous and Jew-baiting remark. And I’m not saying what I’d really like to say about the Good Doctor as my comments will be removed.
If you believe that; if you believe that there is no separation of state and religion, then
wasn’t it hypocritical for Jewish leadership to seek separation of state and religion in the West,
but somehow insist connecting state and religion in Israel?
@ steven l:
Lost…
Don’t know longer know what we are talking about.
@ steven l:
OK, I get your point.
And you are right.
It is a matter of who goes last to the ovens…
@ vivarto:
U miss my point. Even for the “coward” it does not pay to be a coward. U get it?
@ vivarto:
I do not see the disagreement! I just said less than u but u agree with me.
I am not Chabad, but I think the Chabbadic interpretation of re-incarnation is not the same as Hindu.
I am Christian.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Interestingly Chabat, and possibly other Hassidic Jews believe in re-incarnation.
No, the ulitmate of ironies would be you coming back as a Christian.
I do not believe in re-incarnation. I am not a Hindu
steven l Said:
Renouncing faith does not equate to antisemitism, or even anti-Zionism.
steven l Said:
I beg to disagree.
Secularism not only embraces the unknown, but even the unknowable.
Secularism is not opposed to God, it is opposed to organized religion and superstition.
vivarto Said:
He/she will be the victim of antisemites. U know that thousands of Jews who even renounced their faith were killed (inquisition, Nazi).
Secularism by definition does not encompass the unknown and there is plenty of it.
The left wants to replace Zionism with anything that negates “Jewish values”. That is going to be a hard one to find. Jewish values are everywhere. It started with the “Big Bang”.
Important point to consider.
The Biblical argument is good for the section of the population that believes in the bible.
The larger section of population is secular and need to hear a secular argument.
The leftist should support Zionism on the grounds of general support for national liberation movements. Also on the ground of solving world’s longest and most tragic refugee crisis.
We need to work on both fronts.
Just focusing on the Biblical argument, accomplishes very little more than preaching to the choir.
Shalom! I fully realize that my thoughts may not be totally welcome here, even though I agree with most that has been said by others. I am a Christian Zionist, and the Jewish Bible is all I need to tell me that Eretz Yisrael is definitely and eternally the rightful home of the Jewish people and no others. I’ve supported the Jewish people and the nation of Israel, as well as battling antisemitism, for all of my adult life, and I will not cease to continue the struggle. In my opinion, no “real” Christian can deny the righteousness of Zionism, any more than we/they can deny the fact that we owe the Jews far more that we could ever hope to repay. As Dr. Martin Luther King once said, antizionism is nothing more than antisemitism with another face. The greatest of shames is that antisemitism was promoted by the organized church as “gospel” for more than 1,700 years, under the guise of “supercession” (replacement theology), and the modern-day switch to support of the “fakestinian cause” and railing against the nonexistent Israeli apartheid is actually no more than a change in terms. I’ve long maintained, and still believe, that the true roots of antisemitism lie in the unrecognized and/or unconfessed hatred of the Jewish G-d and the moral absolutes He requires (bottom line: the Jews have been hated from the time when Moshe walked down from Horeb’s heights with those tablets of stone). No more “I’m okay, you’re okay”, and the gentile world still wants to live by that mantra. Their problem is that the Jews’ continued existence, in the face of odds that only G-d could permit them to overcome, is a constant prick of their collective “conscience”, and the rebirth of Israel amplified that “annoyance” in a most dramatic manner. For myself, and for more goys than you may realize, I will stand, as best I can, with G-d, and with those He chose as an eternal possession. Am Yisrael Chai! Baruch HaShem!
yamit82 Said:
Well for your information it is perfectly possible to be Jewish and have nothing to do with synagogues.
The reverse may at least partially be true.
I know some Christian idiots who are not Jews by birth who like to come to a synagogue. They think that they are some sort of messianic Jews, god knows what they think, I just know that to me there is something terribly phony about them and I can’t stand them.
steven l Said:
Well, he/she could just be a coward, not necessarily an antisemite.
@ CuriousAmerican:
This drives those believers like curious into fits.
Isaiah 33:20 “… The people dwelling therein is forgiven of sin.”
CuriousAmerican Said:
@ vivarto:
In Judaism there is no separation of Synagogue and State.
Jews have prayed 3 times a day for 2000years:
May Our Eyes Behold Your Return to Zion
Poster May Our Eyes Behold Your Return to Zion
http://www.palestineposterproject.org/sites/aod/files/imagecache/poster_images_full/e._m._lilien_5thzioncongress_pppa.jpg
Zion and Jerusalem are mentioned 5 times in the 18-blessing Amidah prayer, the central prayer of the Jewish liturgy, which calls for the restoration of Jerusalem to the Jewish nation. It is said while facing towards Jerusalem:
“And to Jerusalem your city may you return….Blessed are you, builder of Jerusalem.” “May our eyes behold your return to Zion…Blessed are you, who restores his presence to Zion.”
The Mussaf prayer states:
“But because of our sins we have been exiled from our land and sent far from our soil…Draw our scattered ones near from among the nations, and bring in our dispersions from the ends of the earth. Bring us to Zion your city in glad song, and to Jerusalem home of your sanctuary in eternal joy.
The Ya’a’le Ve-Yavo prayer mentions the “remembrance of Jerusalem, the city of your holiness.”
In the Grace After Meals which is recited after partaking of a meal eaten with bread, the following is said:
“Have mercy Lord, our God…on Jerusalem Your city, on Zion the resting place of Your glory…” and “Rebuild Jerusalem, the holy city, soon in our days. Blessed are you God who rebuilds Jerusalem in His mercy, Amen.”
After partaking of a light meal, the thanksgiving blessing states:
“Have mercy, Lord, our God…on Jerusalem, Your city; and on Zion, the resting place of Your glory… Rebuild Jerusalem, the city of holiness, speedily in our days. Bring us up into it and gladden us in its rebuilding and let us eat from its fruit and be satisfied with its goodness and bless You upon it in holiness and purity.”
On Tisha B’av the “Nachem” prayer is inserted to the Mincha Amidah in the Ashkenazic tradition. It asks G-d to comfort those who mourn the destruction of Zion and Jerusalem. The prayer begins with
“Comfort, Lord our God, the mourners of Zion and the mourners of Jerusalem…”
It concludes with “Blessed art Thou, Lord, who brings comfort to Zion and rebuilds Jerusalem.”
*In the “Hashkiveinu” prayer on the Sabbath eve, the conclusion of the blessing is changed to: “Blessed are You Lord, who spreads the shelter of peace over us, over His entire people Israel, and over Jerusalem.”
This is the true Zionism.
@ vivarto:
A Jew who does not support Israel is an antisemite. This may perhaps be a unique situation where a Jew does not have the opportunity to sit on the fence.
Antisemitism was born with the Big Bang and will not die.
Antisemitism predates the Big Bang and therefore will survive the death of humanity.
vivarto Said:
.
A Jew not supporting IL is an antisemite. This is a situation (perhaps unique) where no one can be sitting on the fence and wait.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Actually we can do what ever we choose. Being militantly in favor of separation of church and state was a logical result of religious persecution for over 15 centuries by christians. That was a reasonable reaction for Jews in the exile but certainly not for Jews who have returned to the borders of her homeland.
Now you goyim don’t have to like nor approve of what we do or how we think in our country and frankly we won’t ask you for your opinion or approval. Why should we?
I would though relish to see the still believing Christians and Muslims argue against us when we use the Jewish Bible as our authority of rights and ownership over the Land of Israel.
Care to argue against the Jewish Bible?
CuriousAmerican Said:
Tough Sh..!!!!
We are not selling! America is losing it’s christian ethos and foundation and I’m not unhappy about that. Europe has already. I think the only serious residue of christianity left in Europe is their hatred of Jews, what irony.
Your (the Wests ) days are numbered. Should we Jews care? Civilizations rise and fall some sooner some later. The only constant is the Jews we have seen them all come and go and will continue to do so. Not you though. Maybe when you are reincarnated you will return as a Jew? Naw that would be the ultimate of ironies. 😛
CuriousAmerican Said:
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding.
I am not suggesting that Zionism should be religious.
I am suggesting that we need to educate the public about their error in thinking that “Judaism is opposed to Zionism.”
You can’t changed the rules, now.
For about 200 years Jews have been working to remove all religious qualifications from Western countries.
Now to reassert religion will look like duplicitous hypocrisy. Anti-Semites will say “the only thing that Jews want is what is good for the Jews.”
You are boxed in by your own success in the West.
CuriousAmerican Said:
First of all it is not my variety of Zionism. Personally I am anti-religious, I just recognize the facts. Judaism unlike Christianity and Islam is not universal religion but rather a national religion of the Jewish PEOPLE.
Of course the West is not going to understand that, because they have hardly heard about it. It’s our job to educate them.
Equally importantly it is our job to educate the “reformed” Jews about this.
The Reformed Jews live in lies and denials. A Jew who is not supporting Israel is a traitor.
The present Western ethnic separates religion from politics.
It is Islam which conflates the two.
And, now, apparently, so does your variety of Zionism.
I understand your point. Zionism does come from the Bible.
But this will not sell in a Western court.
Opinion, now, is a war crime.
Get a sense of proportion!
@ Shy Guy:
Shy Guy Said:
And which part of Zionism is not part of Judaism?
@ Dean:
Judaism is Zionism
Well, that’s our job to educate the public.
The Bible,is the primary Zionist source, and Judaism unlike Islam and Christianity is a national and nationalistic religion. The idiots who claim that Judaism is about loving your neighbor and doing good, have not read the Bible.
Most Jewish religious holidays are in fact celebrations of nationalistic victories:
Passover – Victory over Egyptions
Purim – Victory over Persian Nazis
Hanukkah – Victory over Seleucid Greek occupiers and their Jewish collaborators.
Now hypocritical rabbis hijacked Hanukkah with some fake “miracle” of a candle burning longer than it was supposed to. That’s just such an idiocy. They did that in order to hijack nationalistic celebration into the realm of their religious superstition.
In reality this is not even a miracle worth bragging about. If someone wants to make up a miracle they could at least use some imagination, like parting the Red Sea, or at least donkey talking. But a candle burning a bit longer, is plain embarrassing. Anyway, my point is that under the thin layer of mystification caused by the rabbinical hijack, Judaism is pure nationalism, Zionism.
vivarto Said:
No. A subset of Zionism is a part of Judaism.
@ vivarto:
Not in the minds of the public.
@ Dean:
Judaism is Zionism
Actually, this is a relevant question because there is no consensus and, unfortunately, Jews in the Diaspora have to work on becoming more unified and to work on marginalizing the equivocators in the same way the equivocators and Israel bashers have marginalized those who feel a strong connection with their fellow Jews in Israel.
Every time I look around there is some Jewish lawyer defending an Islamist against terror charges. Every time I open a paper there is an article by some “liberal” Jewish academic, professor, politician, media person or professional wanting to ingratiate himself with the wider community at the expense of his/her support for Israel. Every time I look at what leaders of Jewish groups are saying, I am stunned by their disconnectedness to Israel and their concern for the “poor Palestinians” and other leftist causes.
This suit was brilliant and necessary as it brought into sharp focus the true antisemitism at the institutional and judicial levels in Europe and Britain. It shows that we can no longer depend on the security blanket that the courts once provided to everyone in an equal manner. Now Jews who classify themselves as supporters or inhabitants of Israel will not get justice from a British court – they are suspect as “Zionists” and the courts connect Zionism with those who want the destruction of “free speech” in a democratic European context to save themselves from scorn and derision. The scorn against Zionists has been deemed to be acceptable. This is trouble and it is also a clarion call that we must heed and then make a greater effort to connect Zionism with Judaism in a unified way and educate others what it means to us and the world.
Do to the fact that the US president has surrounded himself with muslim and muslim sympathizers, no wonder Europe has taken up the call to join in and show their hate for Jews and Israel. What would the unions position be the tables were reversed?
And that’s why Jews for the last 2000 years have been saying “Next year in” where?
Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Britain and elsewhere. Indeed, one of the most powerful bigots has usurped the American Presidency, and surrounded himself with Muslims, Israel-haters, and friends of terrorism.
@ Eric R.:
I agree that it would be wise and beneficial for Israel to keep track of these activists and deny them entry into her borders. This would not be so hard to do but I wonder if the spine is there to undertake what political correctness would deny. Israel has to stand tall and recognize the enemy for who he or she is and keep the security of the nation as a paramount objective.
I applaud the brave efforts of Ronnie Fraser and fervently hope he and other valiant defenders of Israel will continue the battle, in spite of setbacks like this in the UK.
Israel should be taking names, and making sure that scum like these trade unionists are banned from Israel, and if they try to enter, then arrested and tried for war crimes against the Jewish people.
Come to think of it, they should do that for most European (and some American)”journalists”.
Anti-Semitism today is fashionable again. Why are people surprised? And what do they expect will happen differently in the future.
The upside of Ronnie Fraser’s losing his case is it shows what the moral and intellectual climate is like in Europe today – to say its not in the least friendly towards the Jews and Israel is the understatement of our time.