Sheffield and the weaponization of antisemitism.
Those of us who have opposed South African Apartheid, the various Nazi and fascist groups all our lives take an accusation of racism very seriously. Three cases have come up recently that highlight how accusations of antisemitism are used not to counter racism but to silence expressions of sympathy and support for the Palestinians and to restrict criticism of Israel. 

Case one: Sheffield University Palsoc used the word Holocaust.  They did not claim that it didn’t happen.  They did not state that it was not a crime, both of which would be grounds for an accusation of antisemitism.  Palsoc’s position is that it was a terrible thing and that they did not want genocide to be inflicted the on the Palestinians.  The placard was, in fact, not displayed but a complaint was made by a student. The Students Union’s disciplinary panel accepted that the placard did not intend hostility to Jews but, nevertheless, instructed Palsoc to make a public apology for it and for Palsoc members to go on an antisemitic awareness course.
Case two:  Shahd Abusalama was a PhD student at Sheffield Hallam.  We cannot go into the full details due to a non disclosure agreement. Three issues are in the public domain mainly as a result of a scurrilous article in the Jewish Chronicle.

1.        Shahd was accused of antisemitism and was found not guilty in February. She was subsequently, given a job as associate lecturer..
2.       “However, shortly afterwards she became the subject of a fresh complaint by a Jewish student, and the university commissioned a second investigation by human rights barrister Akua Reindorf.”

3.       The article does not reveal the outcome of the investigation, but tells us that Sheffield Hallam’s deputy vice chancellor, Richard Calvert said “She is no longer an employee of the university. She’s not worked for us for a number of months.”  Calvert and the paper did not mention the fact that she was cleared of antisemitism.  Thus, two failed accusations of antisemitism ended with her not having a job and a gagging clause.
Case three: Edward Sutherland, religious education teacher and ex-Convenor of the Confederation of Friends of Israel in Scotland (COFIS), used a pseudonym to post antisemitic material on Facebook in a fruitless attempt to insinuate that they came from  Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (SPSC). At Sutherland’s disciplinary hearing in front of the Scottish Teaching Council, Hallam law lecturer Lesley Klaff defended him circulating blatantly antisemitic material .  Clearly protecting a fellow Zionist was more important for Klaff than opposing antisemitism and she has not
been censured by Hallam for bringing the university into disrepute.

We are bombarded with fine sounding ideas. “NATO is a defensive Alliance and poses no threat to any country” and “We are united in our commitment to democracy, individual liberty, human rights, and the rule of law.  We adhere to international law and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.  We are committed to upholding the rules-based international order.”
So sad that these are based on lies. We could spend hours on the history of the dominant NATO country, the USA on the theme of “Deterring Democracy”. Let us look at NATO’s most recent efforts.
We are told that Russia was imperialist when it invaded Afghanistan. Yet when NATO did exactly the same thing and occupied Afghanistan with 100,000 soldiers, we are told it was defending democracy. If an organisation wants to help develop a country it sends in a mix of educators, engineers, and doctors not soldiers and bombs.
Nearly a year ago, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg met at NATO Headquarters with H.E. Yair Lapid of Israel. The following is from the NATO press release: “Israel has been an important partner to NATO for more than 20 years, as well as an active member of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue. NATO and Israel cooperate in different domains, including science and technology, civil emergencies preparedness and management, resilience, counter-terrorism, military medicine, countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and women, peace and security.”
Israel is an Apartheid state. NATO in its twenty years of cooperation with Israel has chosen to ignore the imposition of Apartheid on the Palestinians. So much for a rules based order and the rule of law (Apartheid is a crime against Humanity).
The press release goes on to say: “Furthermore, the NATO Secretary General restressed the Allies’ continued calls on Iran to uphold and fully implement all its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”
NATO closes its eyes to Israeli nuclear bombs just as it closes its eyes to Israeli Apartheid.
So much for beautiful words hiding ugly practices.

Sometimes a small incident shines a light on a huge issue.  Before I look at the incident, we need to look at the background.

The standard defence of Israel claims that Israel is a democracy, Israel believes in minority rights, Israel has the right to defend itself, Israel is threatened by its neighbours.

These have weakened over the years.  Israel won a war in 1967.  Since then, Israel has become a regional super power.  It is backed by the world’s only super power, the United States, and lesser powers like Germany and Britain.  Israel fully uses its economic, military and diplomatic power.  That solid base has enabled Israel to entrench its Apartheid practices.

The 280 pages of the Amnesty report show the mechanics and injustice of Israeli Apartheid, the land thefts, the ethnic cleansing, the theft of water, and so on.

To all of the key ideas that used to defend Israel, there are stronger counter arguments. 

Israel is a democracy is counterposed by the fact that Israel is an Apartheid regime.  There is no democracy where part of the population has no vote and is deprived of many civil rights, such as where and with whom they can enter into marriage. 

Israel has the right to defend itself is countered with the comment ‘it is not Israel that needs defence, it is the Palestinians’.  Was Israel defending itself when the Israeli military raided Jenin?  Was it defending itself when the military killed  Shireen Aby Akleh, a clearly identified journalist?

Israel gives its minorities full rights –  is countered by page after page of evidence of land and water thefts and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians.  This evidence is in the Amnesty report, the Human Rights Watch report, and many others.

So Israel has to use other methods to hide the truth.  Al Jazeera exposed how the Zionist lobby interferes with British Politics.  Electronic Intifada and others have exposed how the Zionist lobby worked with right wing Labour and the media to sack Corbyn. 

The key for Israeli apologists is to claim that everyone who is anti Zionist is anti Semitic.

Their problem is that the majority of Jews do not live in Israel, and many of them agree that Israel is an Apartheid state.  There are even strong religious Jews who believe that Israel is a blasphemy.  They believe that  Israel will be established only when the messiah returns.

The easiest way to provide evidence is to create it.  Take the case of Edward Sutherland.  He is a prominent member of Confederation of Friends of Israel.  He established a false persona as Stevie Harrison a pro Palestinian.  He then used an antisemitic trope and hinted at a criminal act. His co-conspirator promptly blamed Scottish PSC (for an incident that had not happened).

These Zionists’ actions show that they could not find convincing evidence of antisemitism within the PSC.  This is clear evidence that the two words are different because they have separate meaning.  Objection to a racist State, Israel, one that practices Apartheid, is anti-Zionism.  Hatred of an individual or group because they are Jews is Anti Semitism.  As the slogan says Anti Semitism is a crime – anti Zionism is a duty.

Al Jazeera “the lobby” is here.

Jewish voice for Labour is here on Corbyn is here