In landmark case on Israel and Jewish identity, British tribunal says anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism

*** Fundraising:   We wish to take this time to thank those that donated to reduce our deficit and to wish them the very best Christmas season ever. Our deficit is currently down to $90, and with 5 days remaining til the first of the month and New Year.  We seriously need a big effort to make the first of the mo. deadline or we will have to either stop or seriously reduce what we can do.  We would like to thank those that have contributed so far and to acknowledge what a sacrifice we know it was on such a holiday season.  We hope you had a wonderful Christmas day with family and friends.  

If you have benefited in anyway from our blog and our work, we hope  you will contribute, so we can stay on the net, by clicking on the pay pal button off to the right of the blog.  Bless you all for your support over these almost 4 years.  No matter how it turns out, I truly believe we have all made a difference.  Bless you all, this Christmas and New Years season.

Vatic Note:  Anti-semitism is used as directed in the Protocols written by the Zionists back in 1897, to deflect any  attempt to expose the truth of the agenda of the Zionists as they declared in those protocols, which was to dominate the globe.  All that they suggested using to achieve that end,  required using deception and lies as well as manipulation to get the billions of people to go along with it so it would be done by subversion rather than overt action militarily.

Their first time implementing the process was in 1917 when they financed and trained those that over threw the Russian Czar and created a Communist state using a false flag created revolution.  We proved on this blog that Shiff of Wall Street, gave $20 million to "Trotsky" also known as "Bronstein", to recruit the others and over throw the Czar.  Why?  Because he would not cooperate in the fiat currency Rothschild system being promoted.

We did a blog early on about this event and also proved that the US military intelligence, in concert with Congress, conducted  a comprehensive study to try and determine if the Zionists (they called them "international Jewry") was a serious threat to the United STates and if so, what to do about.  The results of that study was a decision that the answer was "yes, they are a direct threat to the United States" and that report landed in the Library of Congress for anyone to view if they so desired.

That report also states that the protocols were real and being implemented.  Unfortunately Wilson was blackmailed by an illicit affair he was having and thus was forced to classify the report as "Top Secret" and it was buried until 1972, when General Jones declassified the report.  He was subsequently relieved of Duty.  That was when Kissinger was running the country. 

In landmark case on Israel and Jewish identity, British tribunal says anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism
by Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz, Mondoweiss,  on April 9, 2013                                                         

An important case in Britain, pointed out to me by Abdeen Jabara and Antony Loewenstein, who writes,
“Memo to British Zionists; being anti-Zionist [is] as human as oxygen: Witness the debacle within the British Zionist establishment, via Haaretz, and the increasingly desperate ways that so-called leaders there will do anything to defend Israeli policies without for a minute actually considering what the Jewish state has become; a brutish occupier.”
The case involves a suit brought against an academic union by an Israel-supporting professor who wanted the tribunal to condemn anti-Israel speech as anti-Semitism because, he claimed, an affinity to Israel was an intrinsic part of his and others’ Jewish identity.  Anshel Pfeffer in Haaretz says the ruling that such speech does not constitute anti-Semitism has produced “turmoil” in the ranks of British Jewry. I particularly like the bit at the end, where the judge told the plaintiff if he doesn’t want to get his feelings hurt, he should avoid political debate:
"The case was to have been the culmination of 11 years of pro-Israel activism by [Ronnie] Fraser, a mathematics lecturer who had been fighting against what he saw as a virulently anti-Israel tide, with a distinct tinge of anti-Semitism, rising in the union to which he belongs.
Alongside him was Anthony Julius, one of the most prominent Jewish lawyers in Britain and a tireless opponent of anti-Semitism. Supporting the two were a cast of witnesses including Jewish and sympathetic non-Jewish activists, academics and politicians…."
The lawsuit was backed both financially and in terms of considerable research resources by organizations linked to the central British Jewry leadership forums, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council.
But beyond the factual disputes in the case, the fundamental basis of the Fraser’s accusations was that Jews possess a strong feeling of affinity toward Israel that is an intrinsic part of their Jewish identity. Therefore, he claimed, when an organization to which they belong constantly attacks Israel in a manner they deem unfair, it constitutes a direct attack on their identity…
The defendants also had their own Jewish supporters. Fifty Jewish UCU [University and College Union] members signed an open letter praising their union and denying that there was any sort of institutional anti-Semitism within its ranks. Julius responded that it was simply a standard anti-Semitic ploy of dividing Jews into good-Jew/bad-Jew categories. 
But the well-built and detailed case was shattered by the tribunal’s ruling. The panel, headed by Judge A.M. Snelson, accepted UCU’s version of all the events in question, and found that most of the claims were no longer valid in any case, due to a change in the laws. 
Beyond that, it fundamentally disagreed with the central claim underpinning the complaints. The tribunal wrote in its judgment that “a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment cannot amount to a protected characteristic. It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness.” 

 And while many Jews would agree with that ruling, the tribunal did not stop there. At the end of its 45-page ruling, it launched into an extraordinarily hostile invective against the very nature of the case brought before it.
Though the panel was generally sympathetic to Fraser himself, it stated that as an activist “he must accept his fair share of minor injuries. … A political activist accepts the risk of being offended or hurt on occasions.”
In addition, Ben White reports the case may have been supported by the Israeli government:
"Was the Israeli government involved too? A senior official at Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently revealed that, “over the last six months Israel has taken on two (court) cases in partnership with UK Jewry” in fighting Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS). This very likely includes Fraser’s case, yet Anthony Julius had previously denied any such links, saying that to assume the case was “being supported by the Israeli government” is a “fantasy”.
VN:  I included this comment below because he provided the actual written decision and had some insightful comments to add.

mikeo says:
I have been following the case closely here in the UK. It has had hardly any major press coverage. The Haaretz article misrepresents the facts quite substantially.

“But the well-built and detailed case was shattered by the tribunal’s ruling. The panel, headed by Judge A.M. Snelson, accepted UCU’s version of all the events in question, and found that most of the claims were no longer valid in any case, due to a change in the laws.”

The change in the law actually favoured the case, however the case was not well built as is demonstrated by the commentary by other Zionists in the legal profession. (From an article in the JC link to thejc.com )
One lawyer active in Jewish affairs, Jonathan Goldberg QC, commented: “This enormous but legally flawed lawsuit was an act of epic folly by all concerned which will negatively impact our community for a long time to come. You only bring such showcase litigation if you are certain to win.”

The chairman of UK Lawyers for Israel, Jonathan Turner, also questioned the wisdom of bringing the action. “I had deep misgivings and feared it would fail,” he said. But he called it “a reverse, not a disaster”, suggesting that lessons could be learned on “which cases to fight and how”.
“Julius responded that it was simply a standard anti-Semitic ploy of dividing Jews into good-Jew/bad-Jew categories.”
How heinous! Zionists would never do such a thing…
Here is the UCU statement:
UCU cleared of harassment in landmark tribunal
25 March 2013
An Employment Tribunal has found in favour of UCU on all ten complaints of harassment brought by a UCU member who opposed the union’s policy on Palestine.

The claimant had been supported in his claim by leading lawyer Anthony Julius. In giving their reasoning the Tribunal stated that ‘the proceedings are dismissed in their totality’ and ‘we greatly regret that the case was ever brought. At heart it represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.’

The Tribunal also described themselves as troubled by the implications of the claim, stating that ‘underlying it we sense a worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression, principles which the courts and tribunals are, and must be, vigilant to protect’.

While witnesses for UCU were described in the tribunal’s decision as ‘careful and accurate’, some witnesses for the claimant were described as appearing to ‘misunderstand the nature of the proceedings and more disposed to score points or play to the gallery rather than providing straightforward answers to the clear questions put to them’.

John Mann MP and former MP Denis MacShane were collectively described as giving ‘glib evidence, while testimony of another key witness for the claimant was described as ‘extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing’.

UCU general secretary Sally Hunt said: ‘I am delighted that the Tribunal has made such a clear and overwhelming judgement in UCU’s favour. There are many different views within UCU and wider society about Israel and Palestine and this decision upholds our and others’ right to freedom of expression and to continue to properly debate these and other difficult questions.

‘This has been an extremely difficult period for the UCU staff and members involved in defending the union’s position and I am especially pleased therefore that the Tribunal found our witnesses to be careful and accurate.

‘The claimant, while unsuccessful, of course had the right to challenge the union in the courts and will be treated with respect within the union as will his views on this question. Now that a decision has been made I hope in turn that he, and others who share his views, will play an active part in the union and its debates rather than seek recourse to the law.

‘For our part, UCU will look at our own processes to see if improvements can be made in line with the advice given to us within the decision. We remain opposed to discrimination of any kind including anti-Semitism and we will work with energy and determination with all who will work with us to oppose it in the workplace and society at large.’

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

1 comment:

American Action Report said...

Fraser's position, if repeated by non-Jews, would be anti-Semitic. In effect, he was saying that all Jews think alike. Then, when fifty Jews asserted that Fraser's assertion was untrue, Fraser accused those fifty Jews of being anti-Semitic.