We need to talk about the ‘new antisemitism’

Last month, a report commissioned by the National Union of Students (NUS) and carried out by lawyer Rebecca Tuck KC, published its findings into allegations of antisemitism.

The main conclusions, which understandably made headlines, were that “Jewish students have not felt welcome or included in NUS spaces or elected roles”, and that “there have been numerous instances of antisemitism within NUS”.

The framing, focus, and conclusions of the final report were welcomed by many, but this was not a universal response. In fact, some – like myself – believe the report to be deeply flawed in and of itself, and reflective of a far broader problem.

I don’t say this lightly. I have been researching and writing about contemporary antisemitism for more than 40 years. I was interviewed in person by Rebecca Tuck, and am quoted twice in the report. But as I read through it, I was dismayed by what I found.

One weakness of the investigation and report is a lack of transparency; there is no record or evidence of the submissions made, experts consulted, or testimony given. Where sensitivity and privacy are an issue, names can rightly be redacted, but that piece of evidence must still be counted.

But the key failing of the NUS report relates to what is known as the “new antisemitism”.

My latest book, Whatever Happened to Antisemitism? Redefinition and the Myth of the ‘Collective Jew’, traces how, over the last few decades, antisemitism has been redefined – what I call the “new antisemitism” – to incorporate anti-Zionism and various expressions of solidarity with Palestinians.

This “new antisemitism” was articulated in the now infamous “working definition” of antisemitism produced by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

In this worldview, the Palestinians are made into the principal purveyors of so-called antisemitic anti-Zionism. The IHRA text functions as a means of toxifying and restricting Palestinian political expression, as well as those promoting Palestinian rights.

Unfortunately, the IHRA permeates the judgments, conclusions and recommendations of the entire report, indicating the extent to which the redefinition of antisemitism as “new antisemitism” influences and dominates public understanding of the question.

Perhaps the report’s most obvious inclination to see pro-Palestinian activism as antisemitic is in relation to Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) Movement, a Palestinian-led, global civil society campaign to pressure Israel to end its violations of international law and human rights.

The report describes BDS as “specifically and unashamedly anti-Israel”, but an anti-BDS initiative by the Union of Jewish Students is presented without comment in its own terms as “an informed and intelligent approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict”.

The clarification that BDS activism is not “inherently antisemitic” is not much comfort when the overall picture constantly muddles antisemitism and anti-Zionism in order to – dangerously – associate BDS campaigning and Palestine solidarity activism more generally with antisemitism.

Embracing the “new antisemitism” paradigm, the report makes no meaningful distinction between political offence and anti-Jewish bigotry.

The report asserts that “much of the distress caused to Jewish students has been when Israel/Palestine is the topic for debate or conversation”. But giving offence is not the same as inciting hate – and urging “nuanced” debate sounds to Palestinians like both-sidesing ethnic cleansing.

Tuck cites a survey showing 93 per cent of British Jews say Israel forms some part of their identity, and links that directly to claims that BDS and Israel Apartheid Week “impact negatively on Jewish students”.

But what about Palestinian students? Surely the ongoing colonisation of their homeland, and a decades-old struggle for freedom and self-determination, is part of their identity?

This brings me to the final, instructive, flaw in the report and the wider approach it embodies – the marginalisation and omission of Palestinians. Some will say that an investigation into allegations of antisemitism is no place for Palestinian perspectives. I’m sorry, but when a 100-page plus report is dominated by issues pertaining to Palestine, excluding substantive Palestinian responses is a choice; and a revealing one.

Repeatedly, the report refers to “pro-Palestinian” students, or “those who want to campaign for Palestinian rights”, rather than actual Palestinians.

There is no engagement with what it means to face attacks on your freedom of expression while your family members are being bombed inside a fenced-in, occupied enclave.

As The British Palestinian Committee noted in response: “It is hard to imagine another context in which a group subjected to ongoing colonialism, oppression, and apartheid would be effectively told that their lives, rights, and experiences are up for ‘debate’”.

I, for one, hope that the Palestine solidarity movement amongst students and academia – which includes Palestinians, Jews, and many others – will go from strength to strength, unbowed by attempts to impose limitations on freedom of speech. And if one was needed, the current Israeli government is a truly grim reminder of the necessity of such a movement.

Antony Lerman is honorary fellow at the Parkes Institute for the Study of Jewish/non-Jewish Relations, Southampton University