Antisemitism 'resonates in discourse on Middle East'
In this posting, 1) EJP report emphasizes rise in antisemitic incidents, 2) Extracts from report of the inquiry by All-Party Parliamentary Committee on Anti-Semitism (to which JfJfP sent statement), 3) EDM on the report, 4) Notes and Links
Placard on Gaza demonstration, London July 2014. This is in fact one of the very few anti-Jewish (as opposed to anti-Israeli actions) placards to be seen.
By Henri Stein, European Jewish Press (EJP)
February 17, 2015
LONDON —A recent parliamentary report said Britain must take urgent action to address a “disturbing rise” in antisemitism recorded last year, including providing public funds for security at synagogues, giving better education on the Holocaust and introducing a clearer definition of the term “antisemitism” that would reduce the prominence of hate crimes at public demonstrations against Israel.
The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry Into Antisemitism was commissioned after an increase in antisemitic incidents during the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza last summer.
“There is a considerable anxiety amongst British Jewry about their place in Britain. We have sought to reassure them through our report by addressing their security and other related concerns” said Labour MP John Mann, who heads the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry Into Antisemitism. He added: “We have proposed increased funding for security measures at synagogues, clearer guidance for police, prosecutors and judges and have made recommendations about the policing of political protests which were a staging ground for some of the antisemitism perpetrated during the summer.”
The report said government funds provided to Jewish schools for security should be increased and extended to support safety measures at U.K. synagogues. Improved legal tools to combat cyber hate crimes were called for in the report, which said the words “Hitler” and “Holocaust” were among the 35 most used on Twitter on the subject of Jews during the summer.
“Antisemitism continues to linger in British society as it does across Europe and beyond,” the report said, making reference to incidents in Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Ireland. “The frameworks that are in place to tackle this societal infection are strong but could be tightened.”
“Antisemitism is not just a problem for the Jewish community but for us all. The second All-Party Inquiry report reinforces the obligation of non-Jews, working on a cross-party basis to take a lead. This approach needs to be emulated on a local level and across Europe,” John Mann said. “The threat against the Jewish community is real and anxiety remains high following recent events in France and elsewhere,” said Britain’s Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis. “Today’s report could not come at a more opportune time.” “Britain is proud to be a multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracy,” British Prime Minister David Cameron said. “While I am Prime Minister I promise we will fight antisemitism with everything we have got.”
According to the Community Security Trust (CST), a Jewish security charity which runs an incident hotline, the number of antisemitic incidents in Britain has reached the highest level ever recorded, with reports of violence, property damage, abuse and threats against members of Britain’s Jewish population more than doubling in 2014. CST recorded 1,168 antisemitic incidents against Britain’s 291,000 Jews in 2014, against 535 in 2013 and 25% up on the previous record in 2009. CST said in 2014 there were 81 violent assaults, 81 incidents of damage and desecration of Jewish property, and 884 cases of abusive behaviour, more than double the number in 2013, several hundred of which involved social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. CST’s logs include a letter sent to a Jewish organisation which read: “Gaza is the Auschwitz. The inmates are fighting back. The Jew wears the jackboot and armband now.”
Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, pdf file,
February 2015
EXTRACTS
1.2 An Overview of Antisemitism
3: Antisemitism is a scourge of civilised society and an indicator of wider societal problems. As the Community Security Trust (CST) explains, antisemitism at its heart is hostility, phobia or bias against Judaism or individual Jews as a group. It should be of concern not just for the Jewish community but for all of us, when antisemitism is on the rise. Whilst overt antisemitism has become somewhat of a taboo since the Holocaust, it would be a mistake to consider the phenomenon inert. Antisemitism has mutated in form throughout time from religious to ethnic and racial-biological to nationalist.
4. Whereas racial abuse tends to be anchored in a perception of the victim as primitive, lowly, inhumane and worthless, anti-Jewish hatred conversely portrays the victims as all-powerful and duplicitous rulers. Therefore historically, antisemitism has been rooted in allegations of Jewish cunning, conspiracy, immorality, wealth, power and hostility to others. It is that perspective which can still resonate within mainstream discourse about the Middle East conflict in relation to ‘Zionists’ or the ‘Jewish Lobby’ and is more difficult to divine than say, attacks on a synagogue or visibly Jewish people. However, any theory which relies upon stereotypes of Jewish cunning or wealth and alleged control of media or politicians is antisemitic.
5. Disturbingly, antisemitism both physical and verbal has increased not just across mainland Europe but also in the UK. Only in recent years and as a result of the last All-Party Inquiry into Antisemitism, have the police disaggregated antisemitism from other hate crime figures. According to the incident statistics of the CST, whilst there was a dip in incidents between late 2009 and 2013, numbers have approximately doubled since the late 1990s. CST also points to a distinct global pattern in which “overseas events (primarily, but not exclusively, involving Israel) trigger sudden escalations in local antisemitic incident levels”. It is precisely because of the most recent increase in antisemitism that we are writing this report and our hope is that when implemented, our recommendations may help to avert future spikes in incidents.
6. That antisemitism exists and has been heightened in recent times is not disputed but we are aware that the precise definition of antisemitism has been the subject of significant debate.
……
9. The first All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism report recommended the formal adoption by government of the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia Working Definition of Antisemitism.
. This was designed as a basic guide for data collecting agencies in the European Union which highlighted possible examples of antisemitism, taking into account the wider context. There has been scholarly debate about the EUMC working definition which we do not intend to re-ignite. As Professor Feldman explained to us, the definition was found useful to some but it “rapidly became a topic of controversy rather than consensus.”
10. In the 2007 government response to the All-Party Inquiry, the then Labour administration noted that in the EUMC’s evidence to the inquiry it had stated that the definition was a work in progress and had not been recommended to member states.– The government undertook to re-examine the definition should the successor Fundamental Rights Agency make such a recommendation. In its 2010 paper, the coalition government said that Jewish partners were on board with “the current hate crime definition – ‘A hate crime is a criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender’.
11. It is clear that the EUMC definition of antisemitism will not be adopted formally until the FRA makes a proposal for governments to do so. In addition, there is little if any pressure from the established representative bodies in the Jewish community to pursue the adoption of the definition. It continues to serve a useful purpose as an explanatory tool for police and the judiciary and we are pleased it has been included in the College of Policing Manual for investigating hate crime but we will not be proposing further action.
12. With specific reference to the antisemitic discourses that were prevalent throughout the summer months, Professor Feldman proposed to us two “distinct but complementary definitions” for the purpose of analysis10. One is based on the discourse in question whilst the other focusses on discrimination. For the first, Professor Feldman cites Dr Brian Klug who has contended that ‘antisemitism is a form of hostility to Jews as Jews, where Jews are seen as something other than what they are.’ And so Jews are depicted not as they are, but as “malign stereotyped figures”. Professor Feldman’s second definition focuses on discriminatory practices which disadvantage Jews arising in social and institutional practices. To that end, “discrimination against Jews need not be accompanied by discursive antisemitism, even though in many cases they have been”.
In order to reflect the oral and written evidence accumulated by the Inquiry, not all usages of the term ‘antisemitism’ in the pages that follow adhere strictly to these definitions. The section on addressing antisemitism explores these matters in further detail.
13. As the 2006 inquiry into antisemitism rightly established, it is not our role to take sides in a debate over what is and isn’t Israel criticism – just to raise it and in so doing, emphasise that our concern lies with the effects of anti-Jewish prejudice and hostility. There are those that either unknowingly or wilfully employ antisemitic language when talking about the conflict, so too there are those that wrongly label, what they might consider unfair, criticism of Israel
as antisemitism. We have set out quite clearly in an earlier paragraph our concerns about antiJewish themes being employed in debate around the Middle East conflict. Placards displayed at rallies boasting slogans such as ‘Hitler was right’ are unacceptable, targeting Jewish-owned businesses or individuals is unacceptable and antisemitic outbursts on social media are intolerable. To dismiss these concerns as “jumping on the antisemitism bandwagon” is a sop to antisemites. There are legitimate fears being expressed from within the Jewish community
and they require an appropriate parliamentary and societal response. In finding appropriate solutions to the problem, we expect and hope that the benefits will not be felt by the Jewish community alone but by all the victims of hate crime, as has been the case following the previous All-Party Inquiry into Antisemitism.
Early day motion 774
Session: 2014-15
Date tabled: 09.02.2015
Primary sponsor: Mann, John
That this House notes the publication of a report by the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism; welcomes the cross-party nature of the report and the positive engagement of a wide range of stakeholders in the process; further welcomes the inquiry panel’s action plan to address the concerns of the Jewish community, such as enhancing police and other relevant guidance, encouraging responsible public debate and language, enhancing inter-communal co-operation and raising awareness through education; and further calls on the Government, police forces, the Crown Prosecution Service and social media platforms to work on tightening their existing frameworks on combating antisemitism in line with the report and to respond fully to the recommendations of the inquiry.
Notes and Links
The JfJfP executive committee submitted a statement to the All-Party Committee on Antisemitism last September. It is at Antisemitism and criticism of Israel not the same thingAll-Party committees and their reports have no official parliamentary standing.
EDMs are a formal part of parliamentary business but are merely a marker of interest, and do not lead to any action