The Legacy of Hope: Anti-Semitism, the Holocaust and Resistance, Yesterday and Today
Chaired by Sally Hunt
We have heard a lot about fighting antisemitism a long time ago and far away. I wish to turn to events closer to home.
Antisemitism within the UCU started to become a serious problem when people in the union began to support the campaign to boycott Israeli universities, but no other universities in the world. This campaign has dominated academic union Congresses in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.
Normally trade unionists aim to make links with other trade unionists across international boundaries. Normally academics make links with other academics in other countries. But in our union Israelis have been treated differently. Instead of seeking to work with Israeli colleagues for peace and against bigotry, the dominant faction in our union has tried again and again to exclude Israelis from our community.
Since 2003 it has become clear that antisemitic ways of thinking and antisemitic practices have been imported into our union alongside this campaign to punish Israeli academics.
September 2006
Report of the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism (p 41):
“We conclude that calls to boycott contact with academics working in Israel are … anti-Jewish in practice.”
18 January 2007
The Union response to the Parliamenary Inquiry was
(1) to conflate the criticism that boycotts were anti Jewish in practice with a charge which was not made, that UCU members hate Jews.
(2) to declare that criticism of Israel is not antisemitic – although the charge was made in relation to the union setting up an institutional exclusion from British campuses on the basis of nationality – and was not made in relation to criticism of Israel.
(3) the union says that those who raise the issue of antisemitism do so in bad faith in order to silence criticism of Israeli human rights abuses. It produces no evidence regarding the bad faith of those who raise the issue.
(4) the union replies to a charge of institutional antisemitism in the union by saying that the inquiry ought to have looked into the issue of Islamophobia instead.
76 members of the UCU signed a letter in the Times Higher taking issue with UCU’s denials in the face of criticism by the parliamentary inquiry. The union did not respond to the disquiet articulated by these members. Silence.
UCU Congress 2007 passed the following clause as union policy:
“…Congress believes that … criticism of Israel cannot be construed as anti-semitic.”
This statement is an irresponsible denial of the possibility of antisemitism since ‘criticism of israel’ is evidently sometimes antisemitic and sometimes not antisemitic.
UCU Congress 2008 passed the following clause as union policy:
“Criticism of Israel or Israeli policy are not, as such, anti-semitic”
But nobody has ever heard criticism “as such”. They have only ever heard this or that particular criticism of Israel. Some of them are antisemitic and some of them are not. So again, UCU’s mode of denial was irresponsible for an antiracist union.
August 2007
Gert Weisskirchen, a veteran German Social Democrat member of the Bundestag, antiracist, and official of the OSCE responsible for combatting antisemitism in Europe asked the UCU for a meeting about antisemitism in the Union. The union leadership could not find half an hour to sit and hear his concerns. Silence. 39 UCU members signed a letter in the Times Higher asking the union to meet with Weisskirchen. The Union did not respond.
1 “…It would be unlawful for the union to pass” a boycott motion at Congress.
The motion purports to be less than a boycott motion but is in fact a boycott motion.
The motion discriminates against Israelis on the basis of nationality and it discriminates against Jews in a number of indirect ways.
2 The motion is “ultra vires” because it is a breach of the union’s own fundamental and foundational commitment to equality.
The motion is therefore unlawful partly because it violates, in a profound way and not in a purely formal or technical way, UCU’s own law and its own core values. This problem cannot be addressed by fiddling with the wording of the union’s Aims and Objects. It could only be addressed by changing the commitment to equality which is at the heart of the UCU.
3 The motion would be a breach of the Race Relations Act because it would impose on Israeli academics (and potentially Jewish academics) the duty to explain their politics as a pre-condition to having normal academic contact.
4 Debating a motion of this kind is a further breach of the Race Relations Act because such a debate creates an environment which normalizes antisemitic rhetoric and which would create a hostile environment to Jewish and Israeli members and non-members of the union.
The UCU’s obsessional determination to ostracise and punish Israel, and its persistent indifference to the concerns and fears of its Jewish members, have created an atmosphere within the Union which is hostile …. I, like many others, can no longer bear the shame and embarrassment of belonging to an institution which is willing to discriminate against Jews, and whose readiness to do so is supported by leading members of its Executive Committee. …This Union is no longer a fit place for those who think that Jews have the same rights of self-determination, self-defence, and national identity as other peoples do, and I hereby resign from it.
21 August 2008
UCU activist Jenna Delich posted a link to a piece of antisemitic conspiracy theory from the website of David Duke, former head of the Ku Klux Klan. Mike Cushman, one of the leaders within our union of the campaign to exclude Israelis, and only Israelis, from the global academic community, recommended Delich to take legal action against a website in order to keep this story out of the public domain.
October 2008
Physicist Raphaël Lévy resigns from UCU
The union has accepted without being moved the resignation of Jewish and antiracists union members, including philosopher Eve Garrard, philosopher Tim Crane, lawyer Eric Heinze, Professor of English Sarah Annes Brown, and Senior Lecturer in Biblical Studies & Judaism Jonathan Campbell. The union has excluded sociologist David Hirsh permanently from the UCU e-list. … I have considered the ethical implications of remaining a UCU member and I thereby resign.
20 February 2009
Mike Cushman posts an article on a public website which lists the number of Jewish people in parliament in order to construct an argument about how Tony Blair required Jewish “Zionist” money to run the New Labour project after he had cut Labour’s reliance on trade union funding.
May 27 2009
BRICUP, the British organisation behind the boycott of Israeli academics, held a fringe meeting at UCU Congress in 2009.
One question came from Sean Wallis, UCL UCU branch secretary. He wanted to speak about how UCU should debate a boycott, whether it’s legal or not. One of the threats he mentioned was from lawyers backed by those with “bank balances from Lehman Brothers that can’t be tracked down.” Sean Wallis never explained what he thought was the connection between anti boycott lawyers in Britain and allegedly stolen money from Lehman Brothers in New York.
December 2009
The Human Rights Commission is a national institution of post apartheid South Africa. It ruled last December that the statements of Mongani Masuku on the subject of Israel amounted to antisemitic hate speech. He was invited to the UK on a trip paid for by the University and College Union to promote the exclusion of Israelis, and only Israelis, from the global academic community.
The Human Rights Commission does not makes its judgments frivolously. The Human Rights Commission is aware of the distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism. The Human Rights Commission is not pro-Israel and is not concerned with defending the reputation of Israel. It is concerned with racism.
Masuku has openly and repeatedly stated that South African trade unions would target Jewish supporters of Israel in South Africa and “make their lives hell”. He urges that “every Zionist must be made to drink the bitter medicine they are feeding our brothers and sisters in Palestine”.
The Human Rights Commission recognized unequivocally that using anti-Israel rhetoric, Masuku has attempted to mobilize South African trade unionists against Jews in South Africa. Masuku believes that Jews who are not anti-Zionist are “agents of apartheid and friends of Hitler” and he proposes to relate to them as though they were both.
UCU has paid for this man to tour Britain’s campuses to make the argument for a boycott of Israeli universities.
Surely, when it was explained to UCU that Masuku was here to use antisemitic hate speech then it would have realised that it has made a mistake?
But no. The distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism has been explained to UCU countless times over the past decade but UCU is not interested and it continues to turn a blind eye to antisemitism.
A UCU spokesperson told a journalist from the Jerusalem Post that the sources of the evidence against Masuku were not credible.
The UCU spokesperson did not understand who the South African Human Rights Commission is or the significance of what it judged.
But there is nothing new about this. UCU has demonstrated repeatedly that it is simply not bothered by antisemitism if it comes packaged in the language of criticism of Israel.
Jews in UCU have been bullied, have resigned, have been pushed out and have been silenced. The situation is so serious that at the last UCU Congress there were no Jews left who were prepared to oppose the boycott campaign.
June 4, 2009
Jon Pike,
Resignation letter from UCU National Executive.
“We have a union that has allowed the distribution of antisemitic material on its internal lists, and the peddling of antisemitic conspiracy theories by some of its members, whilst banning anti-racist and Jewish members who have objected to such material.
We have a union from which hundreds of members – many of them Jewish – have resigned in protest at the unwarranted exceptionalism of its attitude to Israel. I believe that many more will do so.
We have a union that entirely refuses to investigate concern about institutional antisemitism when raised through the proper channels, by members. The UCU is now the most complacent public institution in Britain with respect to the current rise in antisemitism.”
David Hirsh
Goldsmiths, University of London, UCU
Engage 
January 18, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Well done for putting the case once again. How did that go down?
January 18, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Dave, I’d be interested to hear what response you got at the conference. I’m going to the London one on the 27th. I’d like to know whether it will be a wholly managed SWP operation or whether there will be a real opportunity to make a case.
January 18, 2010 at 9:23 pm
I know I’m repeating myself, but no one from the UCU will say if only Israeli Jews will boycotted or if ALL Israelis will be boycotted.
January 18, 2010 at 9:38 pm
I attended the seminar today (18th January 2009) in Brighton where David Hirsh presented the above paper – to the evident extreme discomfort of Sally Hunt and Tom Hickey of the UCU executive. David did a brilliant and brave job and I hope that he continues to find the physical and mental strength to continue this fight for truth and fair play in the UCU. I saw how tough that is – and I thank him for doing it.
The event was billed by the UCU as an “Anti-Semitism seminar to coincide with Holocaust Memorial Day”. To that end it was publicised via the “university info” email channel to 21,000 Brighton University students and 2,500 staff. Furthermore, presumably, 2,100 staff and 12,500 students at Sussex University would also have been sent a similar email suggesting that they might attend this free event.
Out of these nearly 40,000 invited members of the two Brighton Universities, I would guess that less than a dozen turned up. So much for the level of interest in Holocaust Day shown by the target audience. Instead of academics, the bulk of seminar attendees were other Brighton folk, probably hastily allowed in when registrations failed to materialise from the intended audience. These divided fairly equally between older local Jewish residents and young activist members of the Socialist Workers Party. There may have been about twenty in each camp. The younger group were clearly there to give vocal support their colleague – and local leader of the SWP – Tom Hickey. As such the subject for discussion frequently moved in the direction of “Zionism” and the wrongs done by Israel to Gaza.
As a fig leaf to cover the UCU’s frequently attempted academic boycott of Israel campaign, I think that this day of seminars failed. David Hirsh very successfully removed this ‘cover’ from Sally Hunt and Tom Hickey.
The biggest failure of day of Seminars promoted by the UCU was the evident apathy of nearly 40,000 staff and students of Brighton’s two universities. They were just not interested in Holocaust Memorial Day.
(I am not an academic nor a member of the UCU)
January 18, 2010 at 11:18 pm
This was and is a brave stand taken by David Hirsh, as others have already noted. How did Sally Hunt take it, given that there was implicit criticism of her? And was the unlovely Tom Hickey present? Or did he have better things to so, given that he is a local? He would have been able to guess exactly what David was going to say.
To more specific points:
“The biggest failure of day of Seminars promoted by the UCU was the evident apathy of nearly 40,000 staff and students of Brighton’s two universities. They were just not interested in Holocaust Memorial Day. ”
Michael, I don’t think that they were or are uninterested in Holocaust Day or theHolocaust, rather, I suspect, that the staff (assuming that they weren’t _all_ involved in academic duties of one sort or another) would much rather get to grips with pay and conditions, as would those students contemplating an academic career. And those conditions include the latest attack on university funding.
And there are those who still wonder why I (like others) didn’t bother (when retiring from academe) to take up (low-cost) “retired” membership of Natfhe and/or AUT, let alone UCU. As Norman Geras is quoted as saying above, commenting on the UCU executives actions vis-a-vis Israel and only Israel: “Well, not to put too fine a point on it, shove that. Not today, not tomorrow, and not any time.”
I’m with Norm, and Eve, and Jon and all those who’ve resigned from posts within UCU and even fromUCU itself. It takes a great act of bravery to decide to do without the protection of the union in these hard times, says one who stuck with the union through 38 years of employment. Now, as a retiree, I have far better uses for my money.
January 19, 2010 at 5:52 am
Again, thank you, David.
January 19, 2010 at 9:29 am
David, sh’koach, and I look forward to hearing of Robert Fine’s brave stance also.
January 19, 2010 at 10:04 am
Great speech David, well done
January 19, 2010 at 2:22 pm
[…] January 19, 2010 3:22 pm modernityblog Leave a comment Go to comments David Hirsh has documented, with customary clarity, the sorry tale of institutionalised racism in […]
January 19, 2010 at 5:58 pm
[…] excellent speech may be read on the Engage website. It is well worth reading in full and catalogues UCU’s repeated failings […]
January 21, 2010 at 12:21 am
[…] Britain’s University and College Union (UCU) has announced three one-day seminars about the dangers of anti-Semitism to coincide with Holocaust Memorial Day on January 27th. The seminars will address “The Holocaust”, “Jewish Resistance to the Holocaust” and “Historical Anti-Semitism in Europe: Patterns and Explanations.” (David Hirsh, over at Engage, spoke at the first of these seminars earlier this week.) […]
January 21, 2010 at 7:44 pm
[…] text of my talk at this UCU event is here: https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/david-hirshs-talk-at-ucu/ Posted in UCU, academics, anti-Zionism. Leave a Comment […]
January 22, 2010 at 11:37 am
[…] will change at UCU. It describes the reaction of leading UCU anti-Israel campaigner Tom Hickey to David Hirsh’s presentation as a traducement of the truth and it’s a straightforward lie and the author knows it. There has […]
January 23, 2010 at 1:59 am
Dear David,
I am sorry to have to remind you of matters of misrepresentation which I have previously drawn your attention to. I have all the UCU list posts still in my inbox file relating to the period of August 2008 when Jenna Delich made the mistake(which she immediately recognised and apologised for on the UCU list) out of lack of knowledge of who actually David Duke was. As you are very aware she was drawing attention to an article which was substantively about the experience of Palestinians under the rule of government of Israel-this had originated on another website and Duke had appropriated it. The article by Joe Quinn, an independent writer but one who has explored conspiracy theories and who you appear to label antisemitic, had appeared first on several other sites but now was located on Duke’s site.
Mike Cushman’s e mail to her was saying statements were being made about her that were “potentially libelous”.He was not the only UCU list poster who protested about this misrepresentation.
Photos of her-which are actually BBC copyright are labeled still on google images appended with potentially libelous statements which might be literally read as to suggest she actually had “links to far right websites”.
As you know the Press Complaints Authority examined the reporting of this in the Jewish Chronicle and the paper after a period of consideration and conciliation very fair mindedly accepted that there was no intentionality.Jenna Delich was brought up in the former Yugoslavia and as a Bosniac fled with her family from Serbian backed genocide in the early 1990s. It is quite plausible(and it is true) that she did not know who David Duke was. Some people are able to accept that.
Why does it appear from this summary of your speech that you are not fully representing the facts of the matter? Jenna like yourself has been excluded from the UCU list.I have sought on several occasions that you should both be re-instated on the basis of apologies made. She apologised immediately.Why do you think that was?
John Baxter
January 23, 2010 at 10:05 am
I agree with you, John, that Jenna Delich acted out of ignorance. But neither you nor Cushman act out of ignorance. You both understand (a) who David Duke is and also (b) that Joe Quinn’s article was antisemitic.
I can’t find the article now, for the moment, can you? The article was ‘anti-Zionist’ conspiracy theory and was also piece of 911 conspiracy theory which blamed Israel for the attack on New York and Washington.
I’d like to read it again but can’t find it.
The point wasn’t simply that Delich produced this article on Duke’s website. Nor that she did so in order to silence anti-boycotters on the activist list – by claiming, implicitly, that anti-boycotters were part of the conspiracy to lie for Israel. Also that the content of the article was antisemitic. She was pushing an antisemitic article in our union. Sure, she didn’t know any better. Although she had previously been cleared by the UCU kangaroo court of formal complaints of antisemitism which were made against her.
But I am not concerned with Jenna Delich. If a member is embracing antisemitism then it is up to the union to show her what the problem is, to educate about antisemitism. The Union hasn’t done this. It has just kicked her out.
I am concerned with Mike Cushman, who attempted to keep this event secret and who attempted to use the law to do so. He didn’t want what had happened coming out into the public domain.
I am concerned with the union, which moved against Delich because of the place the article came from, but not because of the antisemitic content of the article. As though it would have been fine if it had come from somewhere else.
While the union keeps insisting that criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, it fails to explain why the views of people in the boycott campaign are the same as those of David Duke – why they both like and link to the same antisemitic conspiracy theory.
I am happy to accept Jenna Delich’s apology for her antisemitic behaviour, although to my memory, she never accepted that the piece itself was in any sense problematic.
But the union has not apologized and neither has Mike Cushman. And that is much more significant.
January 23, 2010 at 4:16 pm
John Baxter, you think that David Hirsh is lying about Jenna Delich. Do you think that all of the examples he offers of antisemitism in UCU are dishonest too? Do you think Eve Garrard, for example, is also misrepresenting the position? And Raphael Levy? And Robert Fine? And the Parliamentary inquiry? And the UCU members who signed the letters in the Times Higher.
Do you think this is all invented, John Baxter?
January 23, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Probably Toby. This is what Baxter had to say about Peter Oborne’s ‘Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby’ for Channel 4’s Dispatches.
“There was heavy traffic on this list in May and August 2008 before and after the UCU Congress. Antisemitism was a counter claim made against several people on this list (including my colleague Jenna Delich) who dared to raise issues about the actions of the Israeli state. This usage was alluded to in tonight’s programme (Dispatches Channel 4). It explored issues of Israel’s policies and actions and how lobbyists seek influence over British politicians. It explored the wider world of information/disinformation in relation to pressurising the Guardian newspaper and the BBC”
Baxter then defended Delich once more with these telling lines:
“Just to be very clear I don’t think that intentionally to seek supportive information from material posted by neo nazis on a neo nazi website is defensible. That however was not what Jenna Delich did. Try and get used to this. In these times in terms of the BNP and EDL it may well we are looking at their sites but in another context”
As ‘UCU Insider’ noted, ‘presumably Baxter therefore thinks it’s defensible – in another context – “to seek supportive information from material posted by neo nazis on a neo nazi website”‘.
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/11/18/dispatches-from-the-ucu/
January 23, 2010 at 9:41 pm
“I can’t find the article now, for the moment, can you? The article was ‘anti-Zionist’ conspiracy theory and was also piece of 911 conspiracy theory which blamed Israel for the attack on New York and Washington.”
As I remember, DD.C took it down at the time of the “incident.”
I’d also argue that it doesn’t matter what the article said. No. Really. The piece was indeed loaded with rabid “globalized antizionist” swill. But the jaw-dropping nature of the link was found in the sidelines. Along the left line was a slew of hyperlinks and articles that were redder than red flags. Things like Jewish Supremacy (with a clear graphics-based link), articles about Blacks and Welfare, and my favorite, “Whatever happened to Eugenics.”
I tried to run a “Reasonable Person Test” with the page, and tried to assume that you could be into “anti-racism” and not know who David Duke was. But as I read through the piece, each time I got to margin, there was yet another linked article “catching my eye and dragging it 50 feet.” It was just too much. I even tried to change my browser settings to minimize the auxiliary content. It didn’t work. It really was pervasive.
While it wasn’t as bad as the old Atzlan “newsservice” page which was almost pornographic in its antisemitism (yet some academic latino groups still linked to it), I have a lot of trouble seeing how anyone with a scholarly background would see that page and NOT see the associated content and start wondering what was up.
I don’t know what her problem was. But if she worked under me and someone, especially an underrepresented staffer or student, came to me with this, I would have very little latitude as to how to deal with her. It wouldn’t even have been my problem — it would have been HR’s.
January 23, 2010 at 9:45 pm
sorry, it was the right margin as I recall… can’t tell’em apart without making the “L” these days.
January 23, 2010 at 10:00 am
John Baxter “The article by Joe Quinn, an independent writer but one who has explored conspiracy theories and who you appear to label antisemitic…”
John , are you questioning Hirsh’s claim that Quinn is an antisemite ? If you are then you’re an apologist for antisemitsm.
January 23, 2010 at 1:52 pm
For anyone interested in who “independent writer” Joe Quinn is, try —
http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/09/02/an-excursion-in-conspirloonacy/
Quinn co-authored a book on 9/11 entitled “9/11: The Ultimate Truth”. It is “temporarily out of stock” on Amazon, but a sense of its thesis can be gathered from one of the site’s “reviewers”. Here is an excerpt:
“The second part of ‘9/11: The Ultimate Truth’ focused on the history of Zionism, genetics, the hidden motivations behind the attacks, and the nature of psychopaths. With an understanding of how and why Israel was involved and their on-going insidious actions, one will begin to comprehend why 9/11 was so important and how it led the United States of America to become a Fascist State. This part of the book also included some sections from ‘Political Ponerology’ by Andrew Lobaczewski who had done a paramount work on psychopathy and the nature of evil within the governments.”
“Since Knight-Jadczyk and Quinn focused on the current phenomenon of psychopaths, the Zionist control, and the history in the second part of this book, it is strongly recommended for the readers to obtain and study other works that discussed with certain aspects of this phenomenon, including ‘Political Ponerology’ (by Andrew Lobaczewski), ‘The Controversy of Zion’ (by Douglas Reed), ‘The New Pearl Harbor’ (by David Ray Griffin), ‘The Mask of Sanity’ (by Hervey Checkley), ‘Without Conscience’ (by Robert Hare), ‘The Sociopath Next Door’ (by Martha Stout), and ‘Predators’ (by Anna Salter). With these works, one will have a better understanding of how psychopath’s mind works and an alarming and dangerous agenda of the Zionists.”
“In Knight-Jadczyk and Quinn’s ‘9/11: The Ultimate Truth,’ one can apprehend the nature of evil within the United States government and their motivations in bring about the terrorist attacks on the American people by looking at the real evidences in each events of 9/11, the Israel involvement, the political ponerology, the issue of psychopathy, and the history of Zionist control. Instead of being greatly confused about what happened on the day of 9/11, the authors bring the reader to this understanding of ‘why’ the horrific day has occurred. This book is easy to read with a historical perspective and it contains a powerful understanding of the nature of the pathocratic rule in United States. The back of the book where it is stated: ‘This book will shatter your world view,’ it is no joke.”
January 25, 2010 at 6:02 pm
How interesting. Joe Quinn’s artlce reeked of conspiracy theory, of Zionsts running the world’s media to his the “truth” of 9/11. Pure unadulterated antisemitic nonsense.
And, yet, for John Baxter of the UCU, such an article becomes,
“about the experience of Palestinians under the rule of government of Israel-this had originated on another website and Duke had appropriated it.”
Outrageous!
January 25, 2010 at 6:36 pm
“Antisemitism was a counter claim made against several people on this list (including my colleague Jenna Delich) who dared to raise issues about the actions of the Israeli state”
Counter-claim??
Interesting how people like Baxter see “antisemitism” as a counter-claim.
Actually, antisemitism, as Hirsh has shown is a claim, a stand alone claim; an autonomus claim. It is raised in the face of antisemitism (that, in this instance attaches to comments about Israel; as opposed to comments about Israel).
For people like Baxter, of course, Jews and non-Jews in the UCU are being duplicitious [i.e. lie]when they raise the issue of antisemitism. It is a “counter-claim” [i.e. a tactic, a strategy] to silent those “brave” enough to “criticise” Israel!
(As if one need to be “brave” to say anyhitng you want about Israel and Jews on the UCU list).
Once again, a comment meant to question Hirsh’s thesis, merely serves to prove him right.
January 25, 2010 at 11:17 pm
And wouldn’t it be nice if, just once, these people, such as John Baxter, would produce actual evidence, the sort that they would present to their students in class. You know, evidence that could be subjected to logical analysis, submit itself to debate and discussion, rational discourse: all the things that the academy is supposed to be about and that Baxter et al would run a mile from if they were accused of _not_ doing in their day jobs.
Some hope: its assertion after assertion; innuendo; smear; even borderline libel and slander. (Sigh) And to think I gave 38 years to trying to persuade students that the (social) scentific method actually made sense of the world.
How naive was that!?
January 26, 2010 at 12:25 pm
I attempted to provoke a discussion about bias by referencing Tom Hickey’s paper “In Defence of Bias”, published in Studies in Higher Education, Volume 15, Issue 3 1990, at the Brighton session. In synopsis, this stated that: “teachers have the responsibility to state and defend positions, however controversial for the furthering of students’ critical capacities and the cultivation of a critical and reflective autonomy”.
As a mere member of the audience I did not have much scope to develop my point at the meeting. But I was able to publicly reference Tom Hickey’s speech at the 2009 Kerala Film Festival’s Open Forum at which he said, whilst calling for a boycott of Israeli films (etc.): “Beyond these oppressions (of the Palestinians by the Israelis) is the greatest threat and indignity of all – the attempt to eradicate the culture and the history of the people in its entirety, to erase the Palestinians as if they had never existed.”
I have seen no serious evidence or proof from Hickey for the above allegation – which he repeats continually at University Islamic Society meetings in the UK (e.g. see Sussex University meeting on Youtube).
Hickey effectively accused David Hirsch of being a “liar for Israel”. However it is Hickey himself who seems to have developed a justification for bias – i.e. having a viewpoint and then being prepared to support it with a selective choice of facts and black propaganda. This is the opposite of scientific method and should be exposed as such.
I was disappointed at the meeting that Sally Hunt’s (as Chair) initial (jokey) reply to me was that bias was normal in academic discussions – and only Brian Klug took my point really seriously. This is that there is a World of difference between commitment to a cause and indulging in bias. The latter permits the possibility of allowing the “ends to justify the means” and so, I would say, inter alia, becoming a “liar for Palestine”.
January 28, 2010 at 2:53 am
Thanks for your reply David. As I recall it the Joe Quinn article which appeared on a website “Sign of the Times” originally.It was entitled “Rascism not Defence at the heart of Israeli policy”-I am going to check if it is still anywhere on the Web. I re- read it several times after the controversy surrounding my colleague’s referencing it in the context of its location on Duke’s website.My abiding memory was it primarily contained a dense mass of assertion about the practicalities of daily life of Palestinians under the rule of the Israeli government.That is what my colleague connected with in a very heated debate between those attacking and those defending the academic boycott proposals.
I am aware since August 2008 of Quinn’s other writings 9/11 conspiracy etc but I have not read them and I have no intention of reading them-they contribute nothing to my world view. I have got some ideas of how I would categorise Joe Quinn and more important the world where his writings emanated from but I am not going to express these on a public space like the Web.
A little bit disappointed to find one of your contributors above repeating a total(and fairly stupid) misreading of part of a post I put on Harry’s Place where particularly I was talking about the necessity(for anti racists) to look at sites created by the far right for intelligence purposes.One one contributor on that website’s thread spotted what I meant(“Sarah”) though she patronised my use of language.
John Baxter
January 28, 2010 at 3:37 am
David,
The Quinn article is still on the Web at the Sign of the Times site. Its title was “Racism not defence at the heart of Israeli politics”.
The point is that it hasn’t disappeared from the Web and its text remains open to scrutiny and critical interpretation.
John Baxter
January 28, 2010 at 11:04 am
The point is the content of the article, which was certainly an antisemitic article, from the very first sentence, as I remember it. I’ll have another look at it now that you’ve helped me out.
So it isn’t just coincidence that it was carried on David Duke’s antisemitic website. It was there because it was an antisemitic article. David Duke loved it.
Joe Quinn is a conspiracy theorist.
There is a faction of the UCU boycotters which actively agrees with David Duke and with Joe Quinn on the question of global Zionist conspiracy. That is the point John.
Evidently Jenna also agreed with it. I hope, since she has apolgoized, that she now understand why it was an antisemitic article. I suspect not though. I suspect she was excluded only for the technicality of having linked to the fascistic website – not for the content of the material itself.
And Keith Hammond has been doing conspiracy theory today on the activist list. I am banned. I am not allowed to speak. But he is allowed to articulate conspiracy theory.
Jenna Delich was let down by the union because the union refused to educate her on antisemitism and it pushed out and intimidated those who were trying.
The union continues to allow antisemitic conspiracy theory on the list.
January 28, 2010 at 1:51 pm
David,
You are being far too diplomatic. Joe Quinn is not simply a “conspiracy theorist”; he is an unabashed antisemite. Anyone who cannot – immediately – see the patent antisemitism in his article has a defective moral compass.
January 28, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Is there a conspiracy theory out there that doesn’t link Israel or the global Jewish community to anything negative in the world?
January 29, 2010 at 4:52 pm
That would be like having a sentence without a vowel. Even the one with Reptilians from the earth’s core and the queen (because you can never be too over the top) also included the Rothchilds, and you know what that means. No doubt it will turn up on the Activist List sooner or later. But let’s not forget that that one won’t be anti-semetic either.
January 28, 2010 at 1:10 pm
The backup site which covered these events is still up, http://jennadelich.blogspot.com/
Within it you will see my slightly tongue in cheek guide “How To Avoid Re-posting from Neo-Nazi, Ku Klux Klan or White Power Sites”
I would be happy to write a follow up on Antisemitism and Conspiracy Theorising if UCU would like it 🙂
February 5, 2010 at 11:11 pm
[…] disquiet about dominant forms of pro-Palestinian campaigning, which slide into antisemitism with alarming frequency, stems from this concern and not concern for Israel, which we approach as we would any […]
April 16, 2010 at 6:55 pm
[…] am afraid that this reference to antisemitism and the Holocaust by the UCU which, in the words of David Hirsh, focuses on things “a long time ago” not only ignores the antisemitism that is […]
October 10, 2010 at 2:57 pm
[…] boycott can’t help but contain echoes of anti-Semitism.” This, as UCU activists have discovered for themselves over the last five years, is certainly true. In the same piece Neve Gordon also argues […]
October 19, 2010 at 3:31 pm
[…] decision making body who are willing or able to argue against the boycott because they have been pushed out, bullied or banned. In South Africa, Cosatu, the trade union federation which has such a proud […]
November 14, 2010 at 11:07 pm
[…] Here are links to a number of other previous resignations and statements of concern, relating to ant… […]
May 20, 2011 at 9:29 am
[…] click here for links to some of the evidence that UCU has a problem with antisemitism. […]
August 10, 2013 at 3:07 am
[…] Here are links to a number of other previous resignations and statements of concern, relating to ant… […]