UPDATE Barnet Council tonight debates banning those calling for Israel boycott on grounds of ‘antisemitism’ as defined by the IHRA examples

From Palestine Solidarity Campaign

UPDATE via Barnet Momentum The motion was not taken last night. It has been referred to Barnet  Policy and Resources Committee which next meets on October 23rd.

Barnet Councillor Brian Gordon is to propose a motion effectively outlawing organisations that support Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. The motion [below] cites the hotly disputed International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) document on antisemitism as justification for the move. The meeting is at Hendon Town Hall, 7pm tonight.

The motion calls for the London Borough of Barnet to ‘consider the legality of ensuring’ it does ‘not to provide or rent any space’ to individuals and groups supporting the BDS movement – effectively seeking a ban on events promoting sanctions against Israel for its violations of international law.
Councillor Gordon’s motion specifically quotes the contentious guidance notes to the IHRA document in order to claim that BDS is antisemitic, because other countries are not similarly targeted. 

However no other country that the UK treats as an ally has been in illegal occupation of another country for over 50 years, suppressing the human rights of its inhabitants.

The motion has national significance because the Labour Party – which has adopted the 38-word IHRA definition of antisemitism – has been criticised for not fully adopting the guidanceattached to it, including the two examples cited in the motion.

Jonathan Rosenhead, Vice Chair of Free Speech on Israel, said:

Those criticising Labour for failing to adopt the full IHRA guidance claim the document poses no threat to freedom of expression. This motion being put forward in Barnet clearly demonstrates that they are wrong and vindicates the adjustments made by Labour’s National Executive Committee.

Ben Jamal, Director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said:

Palestinians have a right to describe their history and the continuing racist injustices that deny them their rights, whether as unequal citizens of the State of Israel, living under military occupation in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, under siege in Gaza, or as refugees denied the right of return. Others have a right to hear this information and, in line with a commitment to fighting racism in all its forms, to respond to the Palestinian call for global action via Boycott Divestment and Sanctions.

Despite the clear warning from distinguished lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC in his legal opinion on the IHRA document, groups lobbying for Israel have continued to press public bodies both to adopt the IHRA definition and to use it to suppress both legitimate criticism of Israel, and calls for action on behalf of the Palestinian people. In March, a delegation including Joan Ryan MP, Chair of Labour Friends of Israel , Matthew Offord MP of Conservative Friends of Israel petitioned Theresa May at 10 Downing Street, calling for action to  prevent events on UK campuses that describe Israel as an apartheid state, citing the IHRA document as justification.

Campaigners for Palestinian rights including Free Speech on Israel, Jewish Voice for Labour and Palestine Solidarity Campaign are calling for the motion to be withdrawn. They have also called for the UK government to issue a clear statement that no public body should use the IHRA definition to prevent legitimate criticism of the state of Israel (which includes describing its laws and policies as “racist” and meeting the legal definition of “apartheid”). Nor should they use it to prevent calls for peaceful actions including boycott divestment and sanctions in response to Israel’s continuing violations of Palestinian human rights.

Administration motion in the name of Cllr Brian Gordon Boycott the antisemitic BDS movement 

On 31^st January 2017, Barnet became the first local authority to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s definition of antisemitism and its corresponding guidance, which recognises that antisemitism takes many forms including, in certain circumstances, targeting of the State of Israel. 

The IHRA’s guidance rightly points out that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled [sic] against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. However, Council believes the aims, methods, and rhetoric of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement and believes its go well beyond this, and are consistent with the IHRA’s guidance on the definition of antisemitism. Specifically: 

·      A completely disproportionate focus on the State of Israel to the exclusion of all other territorial disputes and ethnic conflicts in the world, e.g. the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, or the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus; 

·      “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 [sic]”; 

·      Frequently reported incidents of BDS activists “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” and “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism to characterize Israel or Israelis.” 

·      “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” 
Following similar action taken by the City of Frankfurt am Main, Germany, on 25^th August 2017, Council instructs the Policy & Resources Committee to produce a Use of Council Premises policy and to consider the legality of ensuring:
·      The London Borough of Barnet does not provide any space or areas for clubs, organizations or even individuals who support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

·      The London Borough of Barnet instructs its companies not to provide or rent any space for affiliates, organizations or individuals who support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

·      The London Borough of Barnet appeals to landlords of event venues in the borough not to provide or rent any space for clubs, organizations or even individuals who support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

·      The London Borough of Barnet does not make any donations or grants to associations, organisations or other groups which support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

Council also reaffirms its commitment to fight all forms of prejudice, whether against religion, race, sex, gender, or age. 


--> -->
-->

Board of Deputies intervene in Brent anti-Semitism debate

Cllr Nerva during last night's Council debate on the Hate Crime and Anti-Semitism motions referred to a letter from the Board of Deputies of British Jews to Brent councillors. This is the letter.

Dear councillors,

 

This Jewish New Year, please help us make antisemitism a thing of the past

 

I am writing on behalf of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the national representative body of the UK Jewish community, to ask you to pass tonight’s motion to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Definition of Antisemitism and its appended list of examples which give clarity about what does – and does not – constitute contemporary antisemitism.

 

As you may know, antisemitism is at its highest level since formal records began in the 1980s, with the Community Security Trust recording 1309 incidents in 2016, a 36% increase on the previous year. After the Government and the Official Opposition adopted the definition in December last year, we believe the adoption of the definition at every level increases the resilience of our society to hateful discourse about Jews, and helps educate people about the forms that antisemitism takes.

 

Our community is a diverse one, and on any topic there will be individuals with a range of views. However, on this issue there is a very strong consensus. While I understand that some individuals may have written to you, our organisation - with its 180 affiliate synagogues and Jewish charities, representing the range of Jewish observance and involvement – including all six synagogues in Brent – offers the most definitive view.   

 

Some people have been concerned that passing this motion will mean that nobody can ever criticise the State of Israel. In the UK, there are few stronger supporters of Israel and its people than the Board of Deputies of British Jews, but I can nonetheless assure you that this motion does no such thing. Indeed, the criticism of any government, including Israel’s, is a legitimate and necessary part of democratic discourse.

 

However, the IHRA definition gives a few examples of where criticism of Israel might, under certain circumstances and dependant on context, be antisemitic. This would include calls for attacks on Jews, Holocaust-related comments, talk of a Jewish conspiracy, or comments that single out Israel in a particular way with a standard not applied to other countries. We need to be clear: Making racist comments about Jews will not help Israelis or Palestinians to attain the peaceful or secure future that both communities so urgently need.

 

This Wednesday, Jews in Brent and around the World will start to celebrate Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. We hope that we can count on you to make Brent the 101^st local authority to pass the motion, and show the borough’s Jews that they have the full support of Brent Council in tackling antisemitism. Let us work together to make the coming year a year free of all forms of hate and prejudice.

 

Let me take this opportunity to wish you a Shana Tova u-Metuka, a Happy and Sweet Jewish New Year,

 

Phil

 

Philip Rosenberg

Director of Public Affairs

I am hoping to post a video of the debate later but here is a link to the Brent Council recording LINK

Confusing debate on anti-Semitism motion at Brent Council

In a debate at Brent Full Council, made even more confusing than usual by another round of musical chairs in the Conservative groups, eventually the following motion was agreed with three abstentions. It is the original Joel Davidson motion amended by Cllr Shafique Choudhary (amendment highlighted in yellow). There was cross party support with three abstentions.  Council refused permission for the amended motion moved by Reg Colwill (see posting below) to be debated. I find the amendment on Palestinian rights confusingly worded although the intention appears to be to give equal recognition to Israeli and Palestinian rights. The motion retains many of the guidelines that speakers presenting deputations opposed at the meeting.

On the face of it I think the Reg Colwill motion was much clearer and I cannot understand why the Labour group voted against it being debated. Any interesting insight from the backrooms?

ADOPTION OF INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE ALLIANCE DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM

This Council notes with alarm the rise in antisemitism in recent years across the UK. This includes incidents when criticism of Israel has been expressed using antisemitic tropes. Criticism of Israel can be legitimate, but not if it employs the tropes and imagery of antisemitism.

We therefore welcome the UK Government’s announcement on December 11^th 2016 that it will sign up to the internationally recognised International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) guidelines on antisemitism which define antisemitism thus:

“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.”

The guidelines highlight possible manifestations of antisemitism as sometimes including:

·      “Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion. 


·      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. 


·      Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews. 


·      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). 


·      Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. 


·      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. 
 

      Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination alongside Palestinian’s right to self-determination  (Removes ‘e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor’)

·      Applying double standards by requiring of it behaviour not expected or demanded of any other 
democratic nation. 


·      Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews 
killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. 


·      Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. 


·      Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.” 
This Council welcomes the cross-party support within the Council for combating antisemitism in all its manifestations.

This Council hereby adopts the above definition of antisemitism as set out by the 


International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and pledges to combat this pernicious form of racism.

Brent anti-Semitism motion redrafted to remove IHRA examples

Following the changes in the allegiances of Brent Conservative councillors (Cllrs Davidson and Maurice have moved to Brent Conservative Group) the motion on anti-semitism at tonight's Council meeting has been amended as follows:

Full Council – 18 September 2017 Amendments to the Conservative Group motion

Given the change in political composition of the Council, notice has been received of an alteration to the mover and wording of the original motion submitted by the Conservative Group. The alterations proposed are as follows:

Motion to be submitted in the name of Councillor Reg Colwill and to read as follows (thus deleting the section relating to the guidelines):

This Council notes with alarm the rise in antisemitism in recent years across the UK. This includes incidents when criticism of Israel has been expressed using antisemitic tropes. Criticism of Israel can be legitimate, but not if it employs the tropes and imagery of antisemitism.

We therefore welcome the UK Government’s announcement on December 11th 2016 that it will sign up to the internationally recognised International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) guidelines on antisemitism which define antisemitism thus:

“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.”

This Council welcomes the cross-party support within the Council for combatting antisemitism in all its manifestations and pledges to combat this pernicious form of racism.

Councillor Reg Colwill Leader Conservative Group Kenton Ward

This brings the motion in line with the view of Brent and Harrow PSC LINK

Butt attacks BDS as he apologises for sharing 'Israel slur'

The Veolia protest outside Brent Civic Centre

On July 14^th the Times of Israel published an article by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt headed ‘I’m sorry for sharing Israel slur – boycotts are wrong.’ LINK

The article came a considerable time after the minor storm that blew up over Butt’s sharing of a Facebook post of a  video that showed an Israeli soldier  mistreating a young Palestinian girl.  It was not so much the video that led to Butt being accused of anti-Semitism but a comment beneath the video that likened Israel to Isis.

Sharing the video was taken as Butt’s approval of that sentiment.  Anyone who engages in social media will know that in sharing a Facebook post decisions made in seconds and few would check all the comments that are made beneath the post.

At the time, when it appeared that the  allegation may have been used against Butt ahead of the Brent Labour leadership election contest, I tweeted that there were many better reasons to oppose him.  It was at a time when the mass media were in active pursuit of Jeremy Corbyn accusing him of anti-Semitism through his support for justice for the Palestinian people and Butt appeared to have been caught in the backwash.

At the time other Labour figures, including councillors, had been suspended while accusation of anti-Semitism were investigated and the Chakrabarti  inquiry was set up.  In the light of the publicity some were surprised that Butt had not been suspended.

There are several reasons why Butt’s article is curious. 

• It is written in a style utterly difference from any of Butt’s previous utterances and articles – almost as if it had been written by someone else entirely.
• It comes long after the initial controversy, at a time when the Chakrabarti report appears to have calmed things down regarding anti-Semitism and the media have found new grounds for discrediting Corbyn.   Was the article aimed at rehabilitating Butt after he resigned from London Councils as it lead on Equalities following the Facebook controversy?
• Butt’s linking of his apology to opposition to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, a non-violent campaign aimed at changing Israeli government policy towards the Palestinians, including the Gaza blockade and the building of illegal settlements.

In his article Butt states:

As far as I can see, it [BDS]  does nothing for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It only provides more ammunition to those who wish to divide and polarise. What it does do is make our own Jewish community feel isolated and disturbed as to why the world’s only Jewish state appears to be the focus of the most vociferous boycott movement. So when boycotters wanted Brent to cancel its contracts with vendors who do business in Israel, the decision to say no was one of the quickest and easiest I have had to make.

The rather vague reference to ‘vendors who do business in Israel’  can only be a reference to the Bin Veolia campaign, of which I was a part.  The campaign was supported by many groups in Brent including Jews for Justice for Palestinians and was backed by Brent Central Labour Party GC, Butt’s local party. LINK

Our case was that Brent Council should not be handing over cash from Brent’s residents to a company that at the time (it has since withdrawn from these activities, arguably because of the national and international campaign against its involvement) provided infrastructural support to Israel’s illegal settlements on Palestinian land.

Although ambivalent about boycotts of all Israeli goods, Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East, is clear that the settlements are a ‘gross injustice’. LINK

Grahame Morris MP, Chair of LFPME said:

We should not have to boycott settlement goods; we should not be allowed to buy them in the first place. I am appalled that the government are more focused on preventing boycotts and disinvestment from the illegal settlements rather than attempting to end settlement trade.

This undermines their commitment to international law, human rights and resolving the conflict.

Cllr Butt’s statement claims that it was his decision to say no to a Council boycott.  At the time he said that the decision on whether to boycott Veolia did not rest with him but with officers, particularly Fiona Ledden, head of  Brent legal and prcorement at the time. He was concerned that Veolia, a large French-owned multi-national would take legal action against the Council.

The decision was to be based on external legal advice (source never revealed despite requests) and although campaigners were denounced as having a political agenda the Council decision would not be made on political grounds.

Now, retrospectively, Butt is claiming in an effort to bolster his credentials, that it was a political decision not to boycott Veolia, and one made by him personally.

The Liberal Democrat opposition at the time was  refused permission to put a motion  on the issue on the advice of Brent Council officer. LINK

The Brent Bin Veolia campaign had a two-pronged approach, mobilizing popular support for the cause and taking on the Council’s legal arguments via legal advice of our own.

The position regarding local councils is summed up by a recent update from the BDS Movement LINK

In a typically straightforward statement Archbishop Tutu made the case for BDS back in 2014 having visited Israel and Palestine to see things for himself:

We could not have achieved our democracy without the help of people around the world, who through... non-violent means, such as boycotts and disinvestment, encouraged their governments and other corporate actors to reverse decades-long support for the apartheid regime.

In his article Butt refers to the importance of Israel in the life of Brent’s Jewish residents ignoring the fact that many of those supporting the Veolia campaign were themselves Jewish people who support the Palestinan cause.

He does not mention his responsibility towards Brent residents of Palestinian origin.

Follow this link for the Free Speech on Israel submission to the Chakrabarti Inquiry LINK

This is the full text of Muhammed Butt's article:


I’m sorry for sharing Israel slur – boycotts are wrong MUHAMMED BUTT

JULY 14, 2016, 11:42 AM 


The Labour Party – my party – is currently going through challenging times. Frankly, the behaviour of some of my fellow members has not been good enough, particularly towards the Jewish community.

 I too fell short of what standards should be expected in a thoughtless act. Earlier this year, I shared a post on Facebook without properly checking the comments below it.

The post contained a video of a violent incident between an Israeli soldier and young Palestinian girl. As a father of a daughter, I felt an instinctive empathy for the young girl and shared the video.

This was a mistake, not least because I had not read the comments below the video.  One made a claim that was both wrong and offensive: that Israel was in some way comparable to the so­ called Islamic State. I don’t believe this and have never believed it. You can sincerely believe that Israel’s rule over the Palestinian people is a tragedy for both parties, while refusing to indulge in that malicious and lazy smear.

As a local authority leader, I work hard to stop young people and children being groomed into the kind of extremism that ISIS represents. I do not need to be told how evil they are: They have deliberately killed thousands of civilians, used rape as a weapon of war and deployed mass executions as propaganda tools.

 ISIS represents nothing but fear. Israel, however, always offers hope. Right from its Declaration of Independence, it pledged itself to democracy, the rule of law and the equal treatment of minorities – an inspirational determination that was born at a time when much of the world lived under dictatorship.

However, whether on purpose or by accident, I shared the comment that made a wholly inappropriate and offensive comparison. I have to accept responsibility for that and say again how sorry I am.

I am the proud leader of Brent, the most diverse borough in the UK. I take my commitment to all our communities very seriously. We must all stand together and that means respect, understanding the realities of each other’s lives.

 I understand how critical Israel is to Jewish life in the UK: It could only be, when a plurality of the world Jewish community – more than 40 percent – live in Israel.

My Jewish residents will have parents, siblings and children in Israel.

That’s why I have no time for boycotts. As far as I can see, it does nothing for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It only provides more ammunition to those who wish to divide and polarise.

What it does do is make our own Jewish community feel isolated and disturbed as to why the world’s only Jewish state appears to be the focus of the most vociferous boycott movement.

 So when boycotters wanted Brent to cancel its contracts with vendors who do business in Israel, the decision to say no was one of the quickest and easiest I have had to make.

I have always felt a huge amount of solidarity with the Jewish community. My family was forced out of Kashmir. I know what it is to be from a victimised community, looking to find a safe place and a welcoming community in which to live. When they came to Wembley, Jewish neighbours were among the most welcoming – not to be taken lightly during the often difficult 1970s and 1980s.

I share the frustration of the Jewish community at how long it is taking Labour to grapple with the problem of anti­Semitism in our ranks. It makes me very sad to think that I could have been a part of making matters worse. You can be sure that I will be much more careful about what I share in future.

For me the Chakrabarti report has not gone far enough. I would have liked it spelled out that not only should Zionist not be used as a term of abuse, but that Zionism is an entirely legitimate belief. As it happens, British Zionist groups such as Yachad are doing far more for peace than the official boycott movement ever has.

I can pledge that, for Brent Labour, it will only be the start of our thinking on the issue of antiSemitism, not the end. We can, we must and we will go further to make sure that Jews feel valued and safe in our party and in our borough, working with our local synagogues, the Board of Deputies, the Community Security Trust, and the local police.

I personally look forward to travelling to Israel in the near future to see the facts for myself. Whatever our disagreements about the Middle East, making outlandish claims such as Israel being in any way comparable to ISIS do not help the cause of peace. They only cause hurt and unhelpful divisions. We can, we must, do better.

Brent debates anti-semitism

Three meetings are scheduled over the next 10 days addressing in various ways the issue of anti-semitism in the Labour Party and in the wider context.

At a Hampstead and Kilburn Labour Party meeting last week last Thursday a motion from the Jewish Labour Movement proposing a rule change on anti-semitism was deferred pending the outcome of the Chakrabati inquiry into anti-semitism in the Labour Party.

That was followed up by an angry blog by Philip Rosenberg entitled  'The great betrayal: Labour members refused to discuss anti-semitism.'  LINK

Rosenberg's account of the meeting was disputed by local activist Ian Saville:

The writer here is being disingenuous to say the least. An inconvenient truth, not mentioned in his article, is that a number of Jewish members supported the proposal to postpone the motion, or any motion on this subject, until after the Chakrabarti Inquiry has reported. This is due by the end of June, so we are not talking of the sort of delay one could expect from a Chilcot type of inquiry. Since an expert inquiry has been set up, with well respected chairs, it would be silly to attempt to preempt its deliberations by bringing in a rule change that proposes disciplinary and other measures which will be covered by the inquiry. The writer needs to calm down and learn some patience. There will be many opportunities to discuss these matters in coming months.

I understand that Hampstead and Kilburn Labour Party are now holding a special meeting of the General Committee on Tuesday 7th June at the Kingsgate Centre, 107 Kingsgate Road, NW6 2JH at which a motion 'unhesitatingly' condemning anti-semitism will be tabled. The Jewish Labour Movemement are expected to address the meeting and there will also be a discussion about a leaflet given out at last Thursday's meeting which was critical of the JLM.

On Monday June 6th the Brent Momentum AGM will be addressed by Jackie Walker, National Vice Chair of Momentum, who was recently reinstated after being suspended over claims of anti-semitism.

The agenda includes:

Where is Momentum Going?
Does Labour have a problem with antisemitism?
How do we get a Corbyn-led Labour government?

The meeting is at 7.30pm Brent Trades Hall/Apollo Club, Willesden High Road, NW10 2JR

Lastly Brent Stop the War (not affiliated to any political party) has invited Julia Bard  of the Jewish Socialist' Group and Jews for Jeremy to speak at their June 13th meeting on 'Is criticism of Israel anti-semitic?'

The meeting is at 7.30pm at the Brent Trades Hall/Apollo Club, Willesden High Road, NW10 2JR

I think these meetings are a sign of a healthy democratic climate in the borough (and neighbouring Camden) where controversial issues are not shied away from but the subject of open debate.