Antisemitism Against Free Speech in Starmer’s Britain

 “Antisemitism is 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.”

There follows a key qualification about the ‘manifestations’, which

“might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

A major ambiguity appears. On the one hand, it cannot be antisemitic to criticise the Israeli state for its behaviour, as we may freely do to any other state. But on the other hand, such criticism could be antisemitic when the Israeli state is called ‘a Jewish collectivity’ (which it surely can be). It seems the IRHA definition is seeding the conflation of political speech with hate speech, right there.

In his online Opinion of the IRHA definition (a few points from which I borrow) Geoffrey Robertson QC notes another difficulty. Israel is actually unlike ‘any other country’. Uniquely, it was founded by resolution of the UN Security Council in 1947, to compensate for the Holocaust, and was granted over half of Palestine, which at the time contained 1.3 million Arabs and a small minority of Jewish settlers. That original indigenous population is now under military occupation. If critics cannot make ‘similar’ criticism of any other nation because Israel is unique, doesn’t this make it easy to accuse them of antisemitism? That’s a speech-chilling prospect.

However, 4 of the 11 following case examples are not chilling at all. These can be mentioned with little comment. The first states that antisemitism consists of “Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion”. The eleventh and last case is “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.” Clearly, anyone repeatedly slandering all Jews either as evil or as responsible for Netanyahu’s alleged crimes would be guilty of anti-Jewish bigotry, and perhaps unhinged as well. I frequently argue on this forum that calling all Muslims ‘savages’ and ‘pedos’ is bigotry and factually wrong, and this argument pertains to the third case of antisemitism: “Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrong-doing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.” The ninth case example also seems unobjectionable: “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.” Agreed; the accused must be held personally accountable for their actions today, not for those allegedly committed by distant ancestors. The collective punishment of innocent descendants is never morally acceptable.

One other case of antisemitism, the eighth, can be disregarded: “Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” Geoffrey Robertson explains that, without clarification of what ‘behaviour’ is being objected to and why, this case seems “too vague to be useful in defining anti-Semitism”.

However, case 2 is clearly problematic: “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.”

The problem again lies with ‘the power of Jews as collective”.  Robertson uses the ironic example of how rabbis, Jewish newspapers and organisations collectively condemned the Labour Party executive when it resisted adopting most of the IHRA definition, and their lobbying worked. But this success means legitimate political criticism of such collective action could now be antisemitic. So could widespread claims that AIPAC, top dog in a powerful collective of Jewish-American lobbying groups, controls the US Congress. Factual statements about the predominance of Jewish ownership in media, the corporate world and Hollywood could be endangered. To grasp the threat, imagine a ban on discussions criticising ‘the power of Muslims as collective’, for causing Islamophobic hate. No way can the wording in case 2 coexist with freedom of expression.

Case 7 has false logic and is another chilling attack on freedom of speech: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.”

Calling Israel a racist endeavour or ‘apartheid state’ does not entail denying Israeli Jews’ right to self-determination, nor mean that accusers are antisemitic. Of course, a few extremists might be motivated by hatred of Jews, but most, like Britain’s protesting pensioners and doctors, simply dream of the peaceful two-state solution. Moreover, protestors include many Israeli Jews and those from the Diaspora. Surely not antisemitic, they back a political proposal they believe would bring peace and end government racism against Palestinians. They are fighting hate, not spreading it. But as Starmer is doing, the IRHA definition can still be deployed to brand them as antisemitic. Various accusations against Israeli governments may be true, and have long been accepted as such by international courts. No matter; case 7 does political work to defame critics of Israeli leaders.

Antisemitism case 4 reflects the IRHA mission against ‘Holocaust Denial’: “Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).”

This is both anti-free speech and anti-progress in knowledge. Insofar as historians use scientific methods in their research, they may always discover ways to improve current knowledge of past events. But their work can only advance in publications and fora free of censorship and repercussion. Because the facts of history cannot be decided and dictated by law, then frozen as eternal, unquestionable truths. Such ‘history’ befits only ‘1984’ or communist tyranny, in which truth-seeking is banned and knowledge is perverted into infallible dogma or faith, no longer human or scientific. In the free world, historians can revise and improve our knowledge of the past as new evidence is uncovered and superior reasoning occurs. Tomorrow’s understanding of yesterday won’t be like today’s in multiple respects, and the right to seek progress in knowledge must equally apply to hugely upsetting events like the Holocaust. Sadly for freedom of speech in the West, anyone questioning the official narrative about what exactly happened in the camps or how many died, where and how, now risks lengthy jail sentences in at least 17 nations across Europe and beyond. Merely questioning approved minor facts of the Holocaust, not denying it, may be a crime akin to blasphemy. Only foolish or very brave researchers accept this risk. Case 4 is antithetical to human inquiry and freedom; it weaponises antisemitism to dictate truth and kill debate.

Case 5 is “Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.”

This is as censorious as 4, but also slips in ‘Israel as a state’, whether or not the critic expresses hostility toward Jews. This is even more unacceptable because it again turns Israeli leaders, some of whom may be war criminals, into infallible, unimpeachable arbiters of historical truth.

Relatedly, the tenth case of antisemitism is “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

This is anti-free speech and political protectionism. Critics who perceive genocide in Gaza and compare it to the Holocaust (which I do) might be exaggerating or dramatic, but in no way necessarily antisemitic. Such critics are expressing fallible opinion about government crime, not hatred of all Jews. They may be mistaken, but not bigoted nor criminal. A less dramatic comparison by Robertson is useful here. The Nazis infamously adopted a policy of discrimination against German Jews, which made it very difficult for them to find employment or enter the professions. There is a very similar Israeli policy which Palestinians have suffered for many decades. Is it anti-Jewish to state these facts, so easily verifiable? To identify an obvious similarity? Surely not. But for case 10 it is. This is tyrannical because it removes the freedom to state what we believe and to draw fair comparison.

Lastly comes case 6: “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.”

The accusation that various Jewish-American congressmen put Israel’s interests first, above those of their land of birth, is commonplace and may be true. But case 6 again invites criminalisation of this legitimate criticism, wherever the IRHA definition becomes dominant. The same accusation is now levelled at the Starmer regime, with the concrete evidence being the persecuted protestors of Israeli policy themselves. Why arrest Britons who criticise another nation, ask the victims. If the UN and 67 nation states have declared Israel to be committing genocide, why are British citizens called terrorists for doing the same? Starmer must answer to the nation, but refuses to, suggesting his loyalty to a higher authority than the British people he is sworn to serve. He surely knows that the freedom to state truth (or error) is fundamental for democracy. That only when accusers have a proven record of hating all Jews is there a real need for the damaging charge of anti-semitism. But this Briton is not seeking truth and justice.

The conclusion is stark. The IRHA definition is a major assault on free speech in Britain and anywhere else; it is ‘not fit for purpose’, in Geoffrey Robertson’s words, being “imprecise, confusing and open to misinterpretation and even manipulation”. Once also a human rights lawyer, PM Starmer is now using ambiguous legalese to destroy the traditional British right to free speech, especially among the influential professional classes. He indeed conflates legitimate criticism of Israeli policy with hateful speech against all Jews, using a weapon built with the same fatal flaw. I urge any reader in agreement to sign the petition against what Dr Ellen Kriessels rightly describes as ‘abominable’ and which ‘must be revoked’.

Finally, signing the petition does not mean absolving Dr Kriessel of antisemitism. On the contrary, some of her posts do seem bigoted, particularly “Jews are committing gleeful genocide”. This might be literally true, since Israeli leaders are undeniably Jews, but omitting ‘leaders’ is a fatal error, or choice. The same may apply to the placard suggesting that all Jews rape, steal and kill. Similar false claims result when posters at FSB conflate the world’s innocent Muslims (and their religion) with Islamist killers or lump decent leftists with ‘the mad left’ and anti-white racists. My closing question is this: when British citizens express antisemitic or Islamophobic bigotry, perhaps unintentionally, what punishment befits their crime? Surely one much less serious than any imposed by tyrant Starmer, the enemy of the British people and their hallowed right to freedom of speech.

To sign the petition, go to https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/748450

This article (Antisemitism Against Free Speech in Starmer’s Britain) was created and published by Free Speech Backlash and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author I Left The Left

Featured image: Wikipedia