Good afternoon. Welcome, everybody. I'm delighted to present our speaker today.
It's a special day like not only because of the ongoing life, the seminar, but also we have today one of far as Jamie Weiner,
who is a different candidate here at Oska Oxford School of Global and MBA Studies Jamie.
He's also the editor while writing his then entry. The film has also been able to edit two important volumes.
One is moment of truth, tackling Israel's Israel, Palestine's toughest questions that came with all books in 2018 and 2019.
anti-Semitism in the Labour Party came out with Verso.
And Jamie is going to talk about one of the most timely issues of the of today.
I agree. The politics of the definition. Jamie, thank you so much for joining us.
Thanks very much. So the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance or HRA?
Well, I recently found out that everyone involved in the organisation called the IRA.
But I've gotten too used to calling. I am trying to stop now.
It's an intergovernmental body whose core mandate is to promote and advance Holocaust education, research and commemoration.
Its membership comprises 29 European countries, plus Argentina, Australia, Canada, Israel and the US.
Its central body is the plenary, which normally meets twice a year and makes decisions by consensus.
And that's the decision making body of the HRA.
There's also a number of subsidiary working groups and committees which provide information and proposals for consideration by the plenary.
Finally, a permanent office, just like its civil service based in Berlin and disproportionately funded by Germany and overseas administration.
So in 2016, the HRA adopted a working definition of anti-Semitism.
This has provoked heated controversies wherever it has been applied.
Definition's supporters have claimed that it's just a tool to facilitate consistent data collection
or that it's just kind of symbolic commitment against something Semitism that it poses,
at any rate, no danger to free speech and that it has nothing to do with shielding Israel or attempting to shield Israel from criticism.
Yet again and again in country after country,
political as well as intellectual debate over the HRA definition has tended to
pit supporters of Israel on the one side against progressive Jewish groups,
Palestine solidarity activists and civil liberties campaigners on the other.
Is this just a coincidence? A giant misunderstanding?
Well, the political history of the working definition is little known, not least because it has been obscured by a fog of mystification and secrecy.
The bulk of my presentation today will seek to dispel some of that confusion,
established the relevant diplomatic record in order to help clear the way for a debate.
Clearly, a much needed debate about the principles that are truly at stake.
I will return at the end to some broader reflections on an invitation to discussion on what might be learnt from this story.
Let's first take a look at the subject of this talk.
The HIV working definition of anti-Semitism. If you look at this document, you'll see that it comprises basically two sections,
a short two sentence passage surrounded by books, followed by a list of 11 examples of purported anti-Semitic statements.
Most of these examples make some reference to discourse about Israel needs to the
rest of the examples I speak to on two slides just to make it easier to read.
Now, they include such criteria as applying double standards to Israel by requiring
all the behaviour and not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
And denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour.
Now, a key point.
I want everyone listening, watching to bear in mind throughout this talk is that there are actually two IRH already working definitions.
The first refers only to the two sentences in the box.
Just demand. anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,
rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism directed towards Jewish or non Jewish
individuals and or their property towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
The second I hate CHANTREY working definition comprises both that text in the books and the list of eleven examples which follow it.
Those two definitions, two sentences in the books list of examples are very different.
The first is vague to the point of vacuity. Examples, by contrast, are substantive.
In effect, delegitimizing as anti-Semitic a range of specific statements.
Yet both are frequently referred to by the same name, the IHH or any working definition of anti-Semitism.
Now, choose these designations is correct. Is the IHH already working definition two sentences long and vague?
Or does it contain the 11 examples? The question might seem technical and might seem arcane.
It might seem trivial, but as a matter of fact, it's been the subject of protracted and bitter political battle.
It kind of disconnected your back on the icon.
So, Sharon. Yes. It's been the subject of protracted and bitter political battles,
battles which influential organisations have invested significant resources in winning one such battle.
An especially high profile one played out here in the UK in the summer of 2018.
On the 17th of July 2018, the ruling body of the British Labour Party,
the National Executive Committee or any sea adopted a code of conduct for anti-Semitism.
Now, this code of conduct incorporated a two sentence text in the books from the HRA document,
as well as most but not all of the accompanying each other examples.
Labour claimed that the party had thereby adopted the hard working definition,
but its critics contended that the examples constituted an integral part of the definition.
To reject or revise any of them was ipso facto to reject the definition.
This, in turn, was labelled arrogant and presumptuous.
Who was the Labour Party to reject Toco again? So seek to unilaterally amend this international definition.
The Board of Deputies and Jewish Leadership Council urged that, quote, Labour needs to accept Wieczorek definition with all its examples.
The Community Security Trust claimed that, quote, The definition is one document.
It is not a pick, pick and mix selection of components to adapt. It is to reject it.
It is not as many as I've argued. A core paragraph with optional examples to then be selected from.
And the campaign against anti-Semitism insistent that Labour, quote,
cannot claim to have adopted the definition while also seeking to discard part of it is not negotiable as an entity.
At the height of this national controversy, seven U.K. delegates to the HRA published a joint statement on the official HRC Web site,
which proclaimed, quote, Any modified version of the HRA definition it does not include all of its 11 examples is no longer nature HRA definition.
Well, this backlash from which I've only just sampled was so sharp unrelentless that in
the end Labour's any see its ruling body capitulated and adopted all the examples.
Well, what to make of this controversy? Why was the HRA working definition elevated, in the words of Brian, include to the status of a sacred text?
Was it because, as David Feldman has suggested, the definition of quiet, symbolic importance as a litmus test of opposition to anti-Semitism?
Well, was it because as the seven U.K. by HRA delegates we covered,
the whole importance of this definition resided in the international consensus behind it,
a consensus that would be undermined by, quote, adding or removing language to or from the definition on a case by case basis.
In my view, neither of these factors is wholly persuasive.
The diplomatic history of the working definition shows that the examples at issue had long been
prised by the definitions most influential promoters because they served political objectives.
Whatever else the summer 2015 controversy may have been about, and I do not doubt that Feldman symbolic factor played a role.
It was also a defence of these objectives.
Before zooming into the HRA negotiations in 2016, it's worth taking a brief look at the working definitions prehistory.
The definition was first circulated in 2005 by an autonomous agency of the European Union,
the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, or EU and C.
You see, working definition proved controversial.
And by 2013 had been abandoned by the successive bodies of the EU agency called the Fundamental Right to Rights Agency.
The F.R. Right.
On 26 of May 2016, what were then the 31 member countries of the IUT, CHANTREY adopted a slight variant of the EU c working definition,
subsequently known as the HRA working definition, without running through all the details.
There are three key points worth extracting from this diplomatic,
prickly history and taking with us into our assessment of the HRA negotiations in 2016.
First, the working definition was an initiative primarily of pro-Israel advocacy groups.
So the draughting and promotion of the EU,
I'm see working definition was led by the American Jewish Committee in particular through its officials, Kenneth Stein and Andrew Baker.
From early 2014 to May 2016, Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre engineered its adoption by the HRA.
While Baker sought ultimately without success, to shepherd it through the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe OSCE,
both the American Jewish Committee and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre are American Jewish organisations that engage,
amongst other things, in blanket pro-Israel advocacy.
In the course of this advocacy, both these groups routinely designate as anti Semitic criticism of opposition to the state of Israel.
The American Jewish community has applied the epithet to what it calls anti Zionism,
as well as to the campaign for boycotts, divestment and sanctions, obedience against Israel.
For senior American Jewish Committee official Andrew Baker, the import of the working definition was precisely this designation.
Quote, When Israel is demonised, when you equate its activities with the Nazis,
when you suggest it doesn't really have a right to exist or that it's a racist endeavour, we were very clear.
This is not criticism. This is a form of anti-Semitism.
Now, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, for its part, ranked amongst the world's most egregious anti-Semitic incidents in 2018.
A decision by Ed BMB to delist Israeli rental properties located in illegal settlements under German banks refusal to cut off Jewish peace group.
It described European Union guidelines prohibiting the funding of Israeli
institutions that were established unlawfully in occupied Palestinian territory as,
quote, redolent of the 1930s Nazi boycott of the Jews throughout the Reich, which was the prelude to the Holocaust.
And it charged most recently the pre-trial chamber of the International Criminal
Court when it found that it had territorial jurisdiction in Palestine with,
quote, anti-Semitism, as the ICC allegedly sought, quote,
to punish Jews for defending themselves from those committed to finish Hitler's genocidal goals.
Well, the working definition in its various guises and those hands is a vehicle for investing such designations with political,
regulatory and ultimately legal authority. Now, the second key point to take from this prehistory is.
The working definitions, architects and advocates attach little value to the two sentence passage I requested.
The so-called text in the books. This passage has been dismissed as a, quote, preamble that doesn't really say much.
That's kind of the start of American Jewish Committee, who's widely credited as the lead author of the definition.
So obvious. That's the community security trust.
Generalist and vague. That's the campaign against anti-Semitism.
And even according to Mark Weitzman of the Sun invasions on the centre, totally neutered and unmoored from any current reality.
What they prised were the illustrative examples whose effect was to stigmatise
as anti-Semitic abroad sway of international criticism of hostility to Israel.
The wording of these examples has frequently been used to characterise legitimate, warranted criticism.
All well, action against Israel as anti-Semitic.
The criterion of applying double standards to Israel, for example,
has been used to delegitimize everything from criticism of Israel by leading human rights
organisations to the EU's decision to accurately label imports from Israel's illegal settlements.
Jim Baker of the American Jewish Committee went so far as to designate these examples.
The real definition, quote, when the definition was draughted and still today we've always said it was a comprehensive whole.
There is a core paragraph which is in the books, but essentially the definition is the examples.
The working death definition, quote is in itself a minimum definition.
A senior official at Israel's foreign ministry likewise explained what turns it into an essential definition.
Our eyes is the list of examples. Our third and final key takeaway from this phase of the diplomatic record.
Once the working definition was published,
pro-Israel campaigners tended to misrepresent it while deploying it to stigmatise and even stifle criticism of Israel.
So whereas the E.M.S. had mainly disseminated this document as a working drawer without itself adopting the text,
pro-Israel publicists frequently inflated its status to the European or even the European Union definition of anti-Semitism.
The most significant misrepresentation concerning the illustrative examples.
The Jewish groups that dropped that draughted the working definition led by the American Jewish Committee.
They had initially presented to the UMC a list of examples as straightforwardly and unequivocally anti-Semitic.
Here are 11 examples of anti-Semitism as discussed.
The documents principal value for them was precisely that designation.
But in a fraught meeting with UMC officials, a critical contextual caveat was incited.
Each example could, taking into account the overall context, constitute anti-Semitism, but did not necessarily do so.
This qualification was supposedly added in order to allay concerns that critics of Israel would be unfairly targeted.
But the EEOC working definition provided no guidance as to what context ought to be considered qualified.
And in practise,
the caveat was just ignored frequently as pro-Israel activists wielded the working definition with what the American Jewish Committee official,
Kenneth Stern, again widely credited as the lead author of the definition terms,
the subtlety of a mandate to suppress and delegitimize criticism of Israel.
So to recap. The definition was draughted and promoted primarily by pro-Israel advocacy organisations.
These groups did not value the two sentence court definition, what would become later the text in the book?
But rather the list of examples because these redefined as anti-Semitic.
Various criticisms of Israel. Finally,
pro-Israel campaigners in practise ignored any nuances or caveats in the definition as they deployed it as a bludgeon against Israel's critics.
Now, all of this relates to the EU sea working definition, but how did that become the subject of this talk, dietary working definition?
Well, misrepresentation and misuse of the EU see definition in the manner just described led to mounting criticism.
In response, the EU, IMC and its successive body.
The Fundamental Rights Agency publicly clarified repeatedly that the document was just a work in progress, had not been adopted by the E,
C or the EU or anyone else, had no official status and had not, to their knowledge, been applied in practise by any public authority within the EU.
When it became clear in 2013 that the fundamental rights agency had removed the EU c working definition from its website.
American and Jewish organisations, American and European Jewish organisations,
as well as the government of Israel, were highly critical and resolve to act.
Simon Wiesenthal Centre warned that, quote, The absence of an accurate definition of anti-Semitism,
which includes the vilification of Israel and falsely comparing Israel to the Nazis,
will only encourage our enemies all over the world to intensify their efforts to delegitimize the Jewish state.
Note, by the way, how explicit it then was. What is nowadays often denied that the distinctive contribution of the definition was
to designate as anti-Semitic the vilification and decongestant ization of Israel.
As we have seen, the scope of such terms as vilification and deviant utilisation was for groups like the Sun Wiesenthal Centre, expansive.
The chairman of Israel's Consent Committee for the Struggle Against anti-Semitism urged to,
quote, push for the adoption of an internationally accepted definition of anti-Semitism.
This was reiterated at the Fifth Global Forum for Combating anti-Semitism convened by the government of Israel in May 2015.
This meeting, held in Jerusalem, brought together a broad coalition of pro-Israel and Jewish communal organisations from multiple countries.
Its action plan recommended that European institutions and governments, quote,
adopt a formal definition of anti-Semitism that should include unambiguous reference
to attacks on the legitimacy of the state of Israel and its right to exist.
One of the forms working groups advised that the E c working definition be reintroduced into the international arena.
The aim of giving it legal status. Another working group.
Called on the EU to appoint a special envoy on anti-Semitism.
Amongst his tasks should be to work towards a definition of anti-Semitism.
A third coach led by Andrew Baker of the American Jewish Committee and Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre,
recommended engagement with such international bodies as the OSCE and the HRA,
amongst other things, to increase the use of the UMC working definition.
Now, by this point, Weitzman had already been putting these recommendations into practise.
So the Iceman was not just director of government affairs at the Simon Wiesenthal Centre.
He was also chair of the Charities Committee on anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.
In early 2014, just after the fundamental rights agency distancing from the working definition
had been publicly revealed and closed the mind control to see the IAEA,
Cherry's anti-Semitism Committee endorsed a proposal by Weitzman, the diet cherry adopted version of the E room working definition.
In December 2014, Weitzman met and obtained the support of Romanian Ambassador Munir Konstantin Esca,
who agreed to make the definition one of his primary goals during Romania's chairmanship of the HRA in 2016.
In January 2016, a meeting of Holocaust related special envoys,
including from the UK and representatives of the OSCE and on each already was convened at the Foreign Ministry of the Czech Foreign Ministry.
Participants included Ambassador Konstantin Eskew, now the incoming on a chair, a chair, a representative of the OSCE,
probably Andrew Baker and the new European Commission coordinator on combating anti-Semitism, Kasserine, the French carbine, as noted.
The 2015 Global Forum on Combating anti-Semitism, had recommended the appointment of just such an EU special envoy to work on,
amongst other things, a definition of anti-Semitism. Sure enough,
the definition of anti-Semitism was on the agenda of that January 2016 meeting on 5th of April 2016 by Charity Chair Now
Konstantin Eskew informed the charity anti-Semitism Committee headed by invites one of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre.
The HRA and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the OSCE, which was then chaired by Germany,
had determined to, quote, seek adoption of the EU YMC working definition of anti-Semitism.
He requested the experts of the Antisemitism Committee to help me argue this challenging case that the Wieczorek his upcoming.
Bucharest cleaned me and delegated to Weitzman the coordination of this effort.
This push to have the UMC working definition reintroduced into the international arena met with partial success at the OSA at the OSCE.
The efforts of Germany and Baker, they were thwarted by a Russian veto.
It bought from the twenty sixth of May the HRA plenary, adopted by consensus a working definition of anti-Semitism.
Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre was, as he put it, triumphantly. Its architect.
Recognising that I HRA working definition was essentially the same text as the EU see definition.
Louis Brandeis Centre in US about that quote because the Wieczorek has adopted it,
the definition has now officially been given the international status, which it was previously lacking.
And as Israel's Ministry of Diaspora Affairs noted, this was a significant achievement for those Jewish and quote,
Israeli representatives, individuals and organisations who,
since the fundamental rights agency's removal of the EU see definition from its website site in all the four 2013 had,
quote, in endeavouring to restore awareness of the definition as well as its use.
So I noted at the beginning of the talk that the content of the HRA working definition has been disputed.
Does it or does it not include these examples?
The seemingly technical point became the object to the bitter national controversy in Britain in the summer of 2018 centred on the Labour Party.
In this controversy, the full spectrum of British Jewish leadership organisations is noted as well as government officials came down on one side.
The definition did include the list of examples,
with some also suggesting that Labour's claims to the contrary with disreputable, if not outright dishonest.
We've also seen already a number of Wieczorek delegates weighed in publicly on the side of Labour's critics.
Well, where does the truth lie? Let's first go back to the text of the e c working definition back in 2005 as discussed.
This combined a vacuous two sentence definition with a list of substantive examples.
Now, that document, it left unclear the relationship between those two elements.
The text draughted by the American Jewish community and like minded groups did not distinguish
between the two sentence definition and the illustrative examples which followed.
But in the final E.M.S. draught, as you can see, the working definition was rendered distinct by quotation marks on a bold italic typeface.
On the other hand, the whole thing was placed under the heading working definition of anti-Semitism.
And as a result, the examples was sometimes referenced as part of the definition and sometimes not.
Fast forward now to the HRA working definition negotiations in May 2016 ahead of the IAEA charges,
May 2016 Bucharest plenary, the HRA anti-Semitism Committee,
headed recall by Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, circulated a draught working definition and recommended that the HRA adopted.
It was the E, it was simply the E c working definition with only two modifications,
whose common effect was to erode any distinction between the definition and the examples.
As you can see, basically the two sentence opening passage now appeared in the same typeface as the rest of the document,
and it was no longer separately introduced as, quote, the working definition of.
Now alleging that a surge in anti-Semitism had raised existential questions about the viability of continued Jewish life in Europe.
The anti-Semitism committee fulfilling the function that Ambassador Konstantin estimate requested of them,
urged HRA Planetree delegates to unite behind the existing EU UMC working definition as there simply wasn't time to negotiate new one quote.
It's our opinion that for the HRA to remain a credible and relevant organisation, given the gravity of the situation and the urgent need for action,
that we simply cannot take another five years or longer to develop a new definition.
Now, according to a confidential internal report by an ambassador to the x ray participates in that meeting,
which they have on file, this heyst that suddenly emerged came as something of a surprise.
Sweden and Denmark proposed to firing the issue until the following plenary meeting in November.
They objected to flaws in the procedure. It was being rushed it as well as to the examples added to the definition.
Another another delegate I've spoken to also said they basically had nothing about
this definition until a few weeks before the plenary and then all of a sudden,
boom, no discussion. It was presented as this urgent, urgent matter that had to be rushed through.
Now, in an effort to reach consensus and recall that the plenary only makes decisions by consensus.
The chair, Konstantin S2P, allowed a compromise proposal to be worked on and to present it to the plenary meeting.
Now, this revised text was presented to the plenary on the 22nd of May.
The definition quote had been shortened to two sentences as the examples that perturbed Sweden and Denmark, amongst others,
were no longer together with the definition, but rather appeared separately after the two sentence definition.
I'm quoting there from the Internal Ambassadors report. Now, most member countries supported that new text,
but some held out for more time and for the definition to be still more clearly differentiates from the examples one.
One man the country wanted them in the holy site. Grauer penned Appendix, for example, as another plenary participant observed,
this controversy was raising really heated debates that threatened to derail the whole initiative.
This was the point at which the Romanian chair started applying pressure and committee heads took turns giving emotional speeches,
quoting here from the report on how important it was to immediately adopt the definition.
While this was going on, an additional sentence was added to the document emphasising that this this definition was just for
use by HRA experts and doesn't provide recommendations or place obligations on any member state.
In the end, the revised text was adopted by consensus around three twenty three p.m.
As noted, it subsequently became the object of great controversy in the UK.
Whether the Bucharest Kennedy, if I actually had considered the examples part of an integral to the definition on this critical point.
The Ambassador's account is unequivocal. I HRA consensus was achieved only when, quote,
the original draught text was cut into two and only the first two sentence part was to be the working definition to be adopted.
The ambassador's report being a confidential brief for internal use,
submitted contemporaneously with the events described by a direct participant to them, must be considered highly credible.
All the more so as many of its observations can be independently corroborated.
But for the purposes of the talk here, let's just focus on the critical point.
In order to achieve consensus, the examples were separated from the definition.
First, the fact that the examples were separated from the working definition was
confirmed to me by a second head of delegation present at the Bucharest cannery.
Two additional members of delegations from different countries, both present at the plenary,
likewise affirmed that only the two sentence passage in the box was the working definition adopted.
This situation is also evident in the text of the resolution adopted,
whereas the text proposed to the plenary by the anti-Semitism Committee didn't clearly distinguish between the definition and the examples.
The adopted draught clearly did. It added a box surrounding the definition, separating it from the surrounding text,
from which additionally distinct and additionally distinguished it by a bold typeface in quotation marks.
In a further departure from the EU c text, the HRA definition was explicitly non-binding but not legally binding.
While the EIT charges examples were pre faced by a caveat that a limited function was to quote, Guide I, HRA and its work.
Third, shortly after the Bucharest plenary, at least one member country placed on record in an email address to the OR a chair,
along with all itinerate heads, a delegation that it, quote, does not consider the examples as being an integral part of the definition.
In sum, in a subsequent charity plenary meeting,
another member country reiterated its reservations regarding the examples and urged that the definition be distinguished from them,
quote, in all contexts. A third member country echoed and expressed those,
echoed that and expressed concern about the examples, quote, implications for freedom of expression.
Recall again, I am sure many decisions require a consensus of the plenary.
The internal cherry record off the Bucharest corroborates that from Bucharest,
but no such consensus existed for including the examples and the working definition and for
precisely the reasons that Labour's ruling body expressed reservations about some of the examples,
namely that implications for freedom of expression.
Finally, only these mutually corroborating accounts are consistent with the public record in the months following the Bucharest plenary.
This is most clear in the case of Germany, which is chair of the OSCE and the main lobbyist,
along with Weitzman and Konstantin Mănescu for the working definition, was well positioned to understand its content.
A June 2017 Brinda Stop motion proposed that the Federal Republic adopt the definition,
and this was quoted as just the text in the books with no mention of the examples.
Then in September 2017, the federal government adopted by a Cabinet decision what it called an extended version of the item definition was
extended because in addition to the text in the books included one sentence on Israel related anti-Semitism from the EU.
IMC definition before the extended version did not include any of the examples of internal correspondence,
which I'm staying here between German Foreign Office Chancellery and other government officials confirms
that understanding that the definition adopted in Bucharest comprised only the short text in the books,
quote the consensus to also include the extended sentence.
They all related anti-Semitism failed due to the resistance of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands.
The ambassador, whose internal report I quoted earlier, later confessed to being, quote,
confused by the ongoing and apparently heated debate in the UK on adopting the definition,
actually rather be illustrative examples and by the public intervention amidst this controversy.
Of the seven UK delegates. Well, I hope this confusion should not be understandable to everyone here.
I asked the UK delegates alleged that, quote,
Any version of the HRA definition that does not include all of its 11 examples is no longer by definition.
And whereas that claim formed a critical point of contention amidst the national controversy surrounding the Labour Party in the summer of 2018,
the documentary record unequivocally refutes it. The HRB working definition as adopted upper crust in May 2016,
does not include any of the examples which were separated from the definition to achieve consensus.
It might be wondered how did it come to be that this documentary record was publicly misrepresented,
including by NHMRC delegates in a joint statement on the charity's official website.
As noted aspects, that was misrepresented was neither trivial nor obscure.
But on the contrary, had been the subject of a heated control to see that nearly derailed the whole initiative.
What might account for that? Well, my answer here is necessarily more tentative and speculative than the narrative presented so far.
But I think one can reasonably conclude from the available evidence that the elements of the HRA shifted their public
position over the course of the year 2018 in the critical context of political controversies then ongoing in the UK,
especially that surrounding the Labour Party. Here's what I've been able to find out about how it happened.
In September 2017, I ain't Cherrie's permanent office.
Distinguished between the definition as the text in the books and the examples that guide I chair and its work.
That distinction faithfully reflected the decision of the Wieczorek Kennedy.
That same distinction was evident in, for example, the government of Israel's announcement in January 2017.
That quote, In addition to the IHF charity definition, it had also, quote,
adopted the accompanying on it all right instructions and thus noted it was also reflected
in Germany's adoption of an extended version of the definition in September 2017,
which incorporated none of the Iron Cherrix examples. Well, in the first half of 2018,
Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and chair of the Arteries anti-Semitism Committee
made a number of public interventions that muddied to the point of obscuring this distinction.
In early 2017, yet before the HRA,
working definition had been mobilised in the U.K. to shut down a number of pro Palestine
events on UK campuses with the express approval of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre.
Now there was subsequently a parliamentary enquiry into freedom of speech in universities.
One British academic concerned about the working definitions impact on this
incorrectly claimed that the examples had not been adopted at all by the IRA.
All right. Now, Kreitzman and Konstantin Esker.
The chair of the United Way and the chair of the anti-Semitism Committee of the Arts,
ready at the time of the definitions adoption at the request of some Jewish activists in the U.K. issued the following.
Mr. Fick, mystifying clarification. We can confirm that the definition definition itself,
as stated in the text of the adopted definition, is part of the entire document, including examples.
That was officially adopted as one piece by the plenary. Now,
it's really not difficult to state plainly as the government of Israel did in January 2017 and the IHF is permanent off its date in
September 2017 that the Itinerate adopted the text in the box as the definition alongside a list of examples to guide its work.
If Weitzman instead resorted to such convoluted circumlocutions as the definition itself is part of the entire document,
including examples that was adopted as one piece. Well, this was manifestly in order to convey the false impression.
The definition included the examples by March 2018.
He was explicitly claiming that in May 2016, the book at the book, Chris Flannery, the IIHF,
we adopted a definition of anti-Semitism, which included a number of examples of anti-Semitism.
Now, in the context of the summit 2018 Labour Party controversy divides from constant Enescu statement
was repeatedly cited as proof positive that by declining to adopt some of the examples,
Labour had thereby snubbed, arrogantly snubbed, dietary working definition.
The joint statement by Bite's Going to Constantinidis.
It wasn't an official HRA statement obtaining which would, by its own explained, take more time in the event approximately four months.
The decisive shift in the Chinese position on the working definition took place during its May 2018 general plenary meeting in Rome.
We convened about one month into the public dispute in the UK around Labour and the itinerate working definition.
Now it bears reiterating at this junction it's the plenary. That's the decision making body of the ICJ.
All right. And an actuary spokesman confirmed to me that, quote,
There have not been any further decisions taken on the working definition by the penalty since the one in Bucharest in May 2016.
This notwithstanding vitamines, anti-Semitism community. Meeting in Rome in May 2013.
Independent independently proclaimed the examples part of the full definition and declared the subject close to further discussion.
That's the text you can see in the slideshow. Now, once the reader is aware of what's going on, it becomes almost an amusing pastime,
at least for me to spot the rhetorical slates deployed in order to contrive the
impression without explicitly stating that the Eye HRA is bucharest's planning.
We adopted the examples as part of the definition in this case. Notice the innovative construction, including with.
Well, the anti-Semitism committee's decision was not immediately made public, but it was immediately publicised by Eric Pickles,
the U.K. special envoy for post Holocaust issues and the head of the UK's delegation to the HRA.
That's his tweet that now that was false on two counts of his tweet was false on at least two counts.
Firstly, it was not the HRA but the I. Cherry's anti-Semitism Committee, which had determined the examples part of the definition.
And this was not a restatement, but rather a unilateral attempt to revise and override the decision of the first plenary.
In July 2018, now well into the British Labour controversy. Weitzman publicly condemned Labour's refusal to accept the very definition as a clear
signal of the party's refusal to deal with the reality of anti-Semitism in its ranks.
The Simon Wiesenthal Centre additionally described the settlement and Minch refusal as, quote,
an open invitation to anti-Semitism and, quote, a slap in the face to the UK's Jewish community.
Next came the public intervention, already mentioned on the 7th of August 2014 by the seven UK I very delegates,
which was directly prompted by, it says, in the public controversy surrounding the Labour Party, and it was published on the HRA website.
As noted, this statement falsely claimed that anything which doesn't include all of the 11 examples isn't the cherry working definition.
Now Pickles, despite being head of the UK delegation to the survey.
He didn't himself sign that statement, which is rather curious, but he did repeatedly intervene.
Over the course of the summer,
twenty eighteen controversy to criticise Labour for anti-Semitism at times on the basis of just that misrepresentation of the HRA working definition.
Now, the UK delegate statement was accompanied around the same time by the revision
of the text of an article on IHF for website about the working definition.
There's a very useful tool called the Internet Archive for the Wayback Machine.
You can put in a euro and it shows you a list of snapshots of that web of that web page, and it's taken over time.
How did it look? You can see how did Google's front page look in 2000 and 2001?
Well, pasting in this, you are right. You can see that exactly around the time of the of the UK delegates statement.
This post was changed. The revised text was it was introduced.
What amounted to the same false claim?
Quote, The working definition, including its examples, was reviewed and decided upon unanimously during the IHT charges.
Bucharest plan to meet in May 2016. According to an email I've seen from the Charmings executive sic secretary.
That amended article was draughted as advised by the HRA chair and the chair of the Committee on Absenteeism and Holocaust Denial.
Now, both the UK delegate statement and the revised I Hate Germany article were publicised and I Atari's August 2018 newsletter.
All while the later controversy is still raging the following months.
In September 2018, the executive secretary of the HRA emailed colleagues noting that, quote,
The HRA working definition has been much discussed in the UK and beyond and pointed
them to the UK delegate statement and the revised I hate every article as,
quote, guidance and background information on the matter.
Now, that email, as you can see, as well as putting the debates in in the U.K. as exciting debates in the U.K. context,
explicitly highlighted from that revised post on the Web site.
The key fault line that the examples were reviewed and decided upon unanimously by the plenary in Bucharest.
No. Incidentally, that I sure is new position did not just misrepresent what the Bucharest plenary had decided.
It also contradicted by Cherry's own statements.
When Germany endorsed a modified version of the working definition included none of the examples I HRA recognised and applauded publicly.
This, quote, endorsement of the working definition. And when the French parliament endorsed the HRA working definition in a form that,
quote, excluded the examples, I HRB publicly recognised this adoption.
And when the Council of the European Union endorsed the HRA working definition,
I actually welcome this not withstanding the reference to the IHT charges illustrating examples had explicitly been deleted from your draught.
Contacted by this author in October 2020, twenty eight charges permanent office in Berlin disavowed its statement posted already of September 2017,
which had characterised correctly the working definition as the text in the book's
title phrase permanent office now said that this is incorrect information.
The working definition is in I actuary's view the entirety of the agreed upon text, by the way.
As you look at that,
you'll doubtless by now notice database of formulations as the passage strains to convey without expressly stating that not the HRA.
The Archery plenary in 2016 adopted the examples as part of the working definition.
To recap then, the item is shifting. Position on the working definition may be linked to what what was happening in the UK in 2018.
By the coincidence, timing express references to this context by both the UK delegates.
And I hate Cherrie's executive secretary on public interventions in that controversy by the most involved.
I am sure beneficials Mark Weitzman of the anti-Semitism Committee.
Eric Pickles, head of the UK delegation,
reflecting back on his successful standing of the working definition through the UN HRA and gloating over those he termed enemies of the Jewish state,
i.e. Israel by Xman himself highlighted definition's contribution to European legislation against the boycott movement,
as well as to quote Corbin's landslide defeat.
OK, well, that concludes my Western top whistle stop tour through what seemed to me to be the salient aspects of the working definitions,
diplomatic history.
I just wanted to conclude with a few reflections on the significance of the story that was just told and provocation or an invitation to discussion.
So first, I think it clear that behind the seemingly hysterical or baffling insistence upon this text,
the sacred text upon verbatim adoption of all the examples that actually lies a longstanding and rational political agenda.
Many organisations have worked for many is invested a lot of resources to draught, propagate, publicise and institutionalise those examples.
The examples that they prise, not the working definition, because those examples facilitate the stigmatising and stifling of Israel's critics.
Second, I think that the whole the whole discussion, I think it's a caution against evaluating, debating,
assessing particular definitions of anti-Semitism or indeed of any other contested notion in the abstract.
These things don't happen by chance. The product of organisation, resources, politics.
Third and relatedly, we should resist the tendency visible in some places to regard as illegitimate or conspiratorial, even anti-Semitic.
Any attempts to explain anti-Semitism initiatives and or controversies in terms of coordinated
political action and attempts to discern the often unstated ideas and objectives behind them?
The fact is, both opponents and supporters of the Army are already working definition all coordinated.
They are strategic. They have political objectives. It's wholly legitimate to try and establish them and enquire into them.
Actually, the whole project of a definition seems to me to be quite a depoliticising one, to be sure.
Even the proponents of the working definition do not suggest that they have come
up with a once and for all statement of anti-Semitism really is stressing,
for example, as they do that it's not intended for academic research.
Still, as we have seen, advocates of the working definition have sought to present it as non as a non-sectarian,
nonideological basis of a broad consensus.
To quote again, the UK delegates joint statement, quote, There is now not a Western or an Eastern definition of anti-Semitism.
There is not a Jewish or non Jewish definition, but an international definition.
Well, this is both untrue and in my opinion, serves to close a discussion just when one is most needed.
Fourth, the definition. Cherry working definition has been misused and misrepresented in other ways as well.
In my opinion, predictably so, given the history just outlined just as the status of the EU sea working definition was inflated as discussed before.
So we now regularly encounter references to the international or even I've seen on quite a few occasions the universal definition of anti-Semitism.
More seriously, even as the working definition was suppost, supposedly intended merely as a guide to anti-Semitic incident counters.
So the monitoring statistics of of anti-Semitic incidents can be rendered comparable between countries and over time.
And even as the text of the definition itself specifies that it's legally non-binding.
Still, we find it repeatedly recommended to universities, political parties, social media platforms and even courts as a regulatory tool.
And this has repeatedly resulted. Happy to talk about it in discussion in the suppression of speech about which the
most influential advocates of the definition have been cited or even applauded.
Finally,
even as I hope that this presentation has demonstrated the importance of examining the specific politics and history behind any given definition,
I also think that it serves as a compelling and cautionary example of the perils of all such definitions.
A well-known argument against hate speech laws or any speech code that is not viewpoint neutral
is that they must be either overly broad and vague or our successively narrower and arbitrary.
Both of those cases, no such laws are vulnerable to political instrumental ization.
And in the former case where it's overly important,
vague to chill discussion as people just don't know what will be will be considered as coming under its ambit.
I submit that both the text and history of the HRA working definition simply reinforces those concerns.
The text itself is read literally.
It's so vague as to require extensive discretion, reinterpretation or interpretive discretion on the part of anyone seeking to apply it.
If, on the other hand, it's read narrowly with the examples included and the contextual can't be ignored,
then the list becomes arbitrary and sensorial.
So therefore closed with the observation, which is really an invitation to discussion that apart from the genuinely,
truly limited task of guiding anti-Semitic incident monitors to facilitate comparable data,
I can see no desirable use for not just the HRA working definition, but any formal or regulatory definition of anti-Semitism.
Period. Thanks very much. Thank you, Jamie, for this detailed and thought-Provoking presentation.
We're moving now to the question and answer session where unfortunately we're still bound to the textual version of it.
So please put in your questions in the Q&A text and I'll read them out and Jamie will answer.
We already have several. First question, Jamie is from Marcus was thanking you for I must talk to a nation of the actors in their actions.
The question is, in your opinion, did this controversy contribute to eradicating anti-Semitism or could it have had the opposite effect?
And I would add to this, this is my own Jaco's addition.
I was wondering, can you give us an example where the definition was used to tackle a non Israel related anti-Semitic accusation?
And so taking the second point, the second question first, yes, I can't knock it off my head,
but the the the European Commission recently commissioned a handbook on best practise of the nature of the military working definition.
And it basically takes I mean, the handbook is extremely misleading.
For one thing, it says that the examples are part of the definition was committed by this organisation.
All right. Yes. Based in Berlin, which is one of these German organisations that treats a broad swathe of criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic.
But it's organised by example. And under each example, it gives some best practise of how the definition has been used.
Well, it illustrates the example with reference to a concrete concrete case across Europe.
And then it also gives examples of Beck's best practise of use of the definition.
So you'll find that in there some examples of non Israel related, not Semitism, that are held to illustrate these examples.
Now, the first question. Well. I don't know of any evidence that adoption of Wieczorek definition, in fact,
and doctrine of any definition has actually proven helpful in reducing or combating anti-Semitism,
um, whenever the whenever the advocates of the definition make the case for it.
They never provide such evidence the most, they will say in general.
There's a need to try and ensure that. Incident counters have some kind of common standard with which to reference.
But beyond that, there's never any proof that, OK, the situation was like this.
And then the definition was adopted and then hurray, anti-Semitism went down.
And that's with regard to any definition, let alone the much more difficult case,
which is that it's in this particular definition is the one that we need.
And on the country. So I also don't have evidence to suggest that, on the contrary,
the attempts to impose this definition or misleading arguments about this definition have increased anti-Semitism.
But I am concerned that when you when you have organisations like the HRA.
Purportedly, I mean, it's these core mandate is the preservation, the protection, the safeguarding of historical truths,
misrepresenting its own record on the altar of currently expediency, ideology or expediency.
That can only detract from the credibility of the organisations, which are the most visible ones in purportedly the fight against anti-Semitism.
Thank you. Another question from Cerutty, Jamie,
is there a working definition of anti-Semitism that you consider effective and useful as opposed to the idea
of a working definition that I've turned to the definition that can or should be adopted in your mind?
No, I don't even know of another definition, period. I mean, there's been many attempts to come up with a definition of anti-Semitism.
You could write. Easy that question, suffice it to say.
After thousands of years, no one has come up with a definition of what a Jew is,
let alone an agreed definition, let alone what anti-Semitism is set in the world of academia.
There's no consensus, a formal definition of anti-Semitism, nor do I sense any real desire for one in the realm of politics and governance.
I'm not aware of another attempt to craft such a definition.
I know that the recent vote at UCLA University College London,
which was the first in the UK where a university that had adopted the HRB Working Definition Academic Board then voted to revoke the adoption.
But I noticed that it voted to not just revoke but to replace it with another definition.
However, we don't we don't know what the definition will look like. As I said,
I'm very sceptical about the desirability and feasibility of this exercise
on the grounds of the general well-known arguments against hate speech laws.
The only function of them that I can see apart from that date accounting, limited function or any function is if you want to censor speech.
And I don't think you should censor speech. I think he should address speech where people are wrong.
Try and show why. Thank you.
We have many questions. So I would just ask you, Jamie, to go over them quickly with Rhythm Way where one does just there,
because they know the audience is obviously very engaged and interested in this question.
So a question from Jonathan Rosen heard. What do you think?
Why do you think that Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands have kept so quiet about the illegitimate rewriting by officials and
subordinate committees of their hard fought agreement in the plenary in Bucharest in 2016?
All I can offer is the general observation that this is an intense amount and it's called pressure around this.
It's just been astonishing trying to research this. I mean, it's taken me like some two years to put together that diplomatic history.
Why? Because no one wants to talk. There's so much secrecy surrounding it.
I can't tell you. There are times when I have submitted a Freedom of Information request.
I get things back from every plenary meeting except the 2016 one that's too sensitive to reveal.
It's just an incredible amount of of sensitivity around this, which means political pressure around.
Can I just follow up with this? Can you give a little bit more information of why?
Oh, how did they originally explain their objection to the inclusion of the definitions, the states,
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, what was for them the contentious point about the definitions?
Well, what what what what what's clear from the documents I have is that a inject into the process,
it was being rushed through and B, they objected to the examples.
One can, I think, very confidently infer that it's also from subsequent contributions to kind of subsequent plenary meetings where it was made clear,
for example, by by one of the member countries concerned that these examples seem to have implications,
worrying implications for freedom of expression. I think it's clear that that was the nature of those objections in 2016 as well.
But I don't have, you know, detailed minutes of which.
Clarify the question of a different sort. Again, thank you so much.
Mark is writing. Can you give an example of a one or two examples of criticism of Israel that you would personally consider as anti-Semitic?
I don't find the term anti-Semitic Semitism useful. Period.
I think when it comes to statements that that category of statements, which we might call factual statements,
don't mean factually true and statements which might be either true or false beliefs about the world look relevant.
Question is, is it is it true or is it false? Now, if it's true, the question of is it anti-Semitic?
It doesn't arise if it's false. That's already sufficient reason to reject it.
You don't need another reason to reject it. It's false. So I don't think the term anti-Semitism is useful.
I don't know what people mean when they.
And to be honest, it usually turns out people don't know what people mean when they say that X is anti-Semitism.
And then it just what it does is it diverts debate from a productive avenue is.
So is this statement true or false, which at least holds out the possibility of coming to a convergence on the terrain of reason
and evidence diverts that debate to the question of should we be allowed to say this?
That's just shadowboxing. So I don't find it useful or even comprehensible.
Thank you, Jamie. A question for more discussion going. Again, very refreshing presentation on this topic.
I wonder if you think reactions like the UCL, which you mentioned earlier, earlier,
UCL board's rejection of the definition last week would become more common.
What is next in that sense? How can dialogue around anti-Semitism in Europe move away from the debate on HRA, which Morris finds often to distract?
I agree with that. Last I do that last point. Well, the I'll vote be a turning point for British universities.
The it should be. And I hope that it will. The report of the working group,
it's a very detailed study of the implications and the legality of trying to apply the HRT definition in a university context,
and its conclusions should generalise across the university sector.
Now, whether whether other universities will in fact follow, I don't know.
As I say, there's a lot of pressure around this, including from the government,
which threaten the funding of universities that when there was anti-Semitic incidents and they had adopted this definition.
Now, as for Europe, this year, this coming year, it's going to be an important one for the progress of the fate of this definition on the year.
Is debating a digital strategy strategy around what to do with the problem of hateful content online, how to regulate it?
That's one thing. And second thing, in the third quarter of this year, there's supposed to be an EU wide action plan on antisemitism.
Now, as you can imagine, all of the. Lobby groups on both sides of this question of the archabbey working definition,
although one side is more well organised and resourced than the other.
But that these are the kind of big markers that they're working towards trying to shape.
And the demand, by the definition, supporters that ask is to have this incorporate into both of those documents.
And, you know, Japanese in Germany was recently the president and it has a lot of influence.
So I don't. A question from an enormous attendee.
I know the answer to this one. Have you seen the open letter written by Rabbi Andrew Baker,
Deirdre Hamburger and Michael Wine claiming that concern was not the main author of the dietary definition?
Yes, I had my popcorn out. When thieves fall out.
The truth comes in. I'm just hoping that more.
More documents will be released. I mean, I don't know if you're aware, but Ken Starr and he also wrote a reply, a rebuttal to that open letter.
I mean, they really tried to reduce his role to just a go between.
He replied, linking to an e-mail from the time which appears to show that he did.
And he did indeed take a lead draughting role to be continued.
Thank you. A question for Adam Sutcliffe Sutcliff. Hi, Adam. Thank you, Jamie.
Adam writes for this. Really through an interesting talk. My question is in.
Correction of the record make any difference what hope is there that fair minded scholarship and accuracy
can gain traction against the juggernaut that is behind the political use of the age or a definition?
I don't know. I mean, certainly all political organisation plays a huge factor.
But you do need arguments. You do need.
Facts as as as as weapons in your arsenal. I don't know whether they'll prove decisive.
I hope so. And there have been victories as well as as well as defeats on this question.
I mean, to be clear, like the U.K. was one early battle battlefield, but it's a battle ground.
But it's really a global and a global one. Latin America is currently a major target for rolling up its HIV working definition.
In Canada right now, it's a really, really hot controversy.
I don't know. I think trust. Married to a veteran organisation can be can be a factor.
Thank you, Jamie. I don't see any other questions in the Q&A, so I'll take the advantage to take it to ask another question.
That may be the concluding one. We woke up this morning to news that Gavin Williamson, the minister of education,
is now proposing to build a government body to oversee free speech, to guarantee free speech, including a free speech.
So how do you see this squaring with the push of the HRA inside the British universities?
I don't see it squaring I seen as a direct contradiction.
I mean, there is an ambiguity when it comes to adopting on HIV AIDS.
Never made clear what adopting consists of.
Exactly. Is it just we're going to make it. We're going to put out a statement saying we've adopted this and then it goes in the drawer.
Or are we going to actually use it to regulate what what speeches allowed on campus?
I think the inevitable sort of drift of events is they first just adopt it, then it becomes a standard that they've accepted.
Which groups who do want to have speech regulated on campus can then site and put administrators in a difficult position.
We saw that recently with the Ken Loach controversy here in Oxford.
So which wherein students cited the I enjoy definition explicitly as grounds for part of their grounds for wanting his invitation to be rescinded.
So I think in practise it will be and it has at times been used as a speech code.
And to any rate, the tendency is for that to happen.
The vulnerability is that for that to happen, in which case it's in direct contradiction to these claims about supporting free speech on campuses,
which I do think is it isn't is important to support. Just not in the cynical and opportunistic and selective way.
Thank you. Thank you, Jamie, for this fascinating talk and for the engaging discussion.
Thank you all for attending. Let us.
Let me just remind you that next week's meeting is dedicated to the reconsidering early Jewish Nationalist Ideologies Seminar,
where a speaker is might have and took Roman with the title The Pragmatism of Proto
Zionism Tracing Jewish Nation Building through a cultural sociological framework.