Antisemitic Discourse Report 2013

ANTISEMITIC DISCOURSEin Britain 2013

ISBN: 978-0-9548471-5-9The text and illustrations may only be reproduced with prior permission of CST.Published by the Community Security Trust.Registered charity in England and Wales (1042391) and Scotland (SC043612).Copyright © 2014 Community Security Trust.Front cover: Footballer Nicolas Anelka performing a quenelle salute. This is explained in detail on page 34.This Facebook page repeats the classical antisemitic blood libel for a contemporary, social media audience.

CONTENTSExecutive summary ................................................. 4Introduction .............................................................. 6Antisemitic discourse and antisemitism ............ 7UK Jewish life:putting antisemitism into context ....................... 8What is antisemitism?Background and concepts .................................... 9Antisemitism: legal definitions ............................. 11British Jews:relationship with Zionism and Israel ................. 12Antisemitism and anti-Zionism ........................... 13Anti-Zionism ............................................................ 13Anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel ................... 14EU survey: What statements and actions aboutJews and Israel do Jews consider tobe antisemitic? ....................................................... 16The Daily Mail, Ed Miliband MP and the“jealous G-d of Deuteronomy”........................... 20Sunday Times cartoon on HolocaustMemorial Day: blood and antisemitism ........... 22Lord Ahmed: Jews “who own newspapersand TV channels”.................................................... 24The Church of Scotland’s report onIsrael and Judaism ................................................ 26Conspiracy Theories about Zionists and Jews .. 29• Nick Griffin’s “Zionist gangsters”....................... 29• Tim Llewellyn’s “Jewish lobby”........................... 29• Iran’s Press TV: “Zionist Jews” behindAmerica’s “misery”................................................. 30• Roger Waters’ pig and Baroness Deech ......... 31• Gilad Atzmon and the “Seek Speak SpreadTruth” conference ................................................. 33Antisemitism in football:the Y-word and the quenelle ................................. 34David Ward MP:on Holocaust Memorial Day, “Jews...inflicting atrocities on Palestinians”................... 18

4 Antisemitic Discourse Report 2013EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXPLICIT antisemitism against Jews per se,simply for their being Jewish, remains rarein British public life and within mainstreampolitical media discourse.Holocaust commemoration increasinglyacts as a trigger for antisemitic expressions,particularly those that involve comparingIsrael to Nazi Germany.However, over two-thirds of British Jewssay that they have encountered antisemiticremarks on the internet, and overthree- quarters of British Jews feel that theproblem of antisemitism on the internet isgetting worse.Historically, antisemitism has includedallegations of Jewish conspiracy, wealth,power, manipulation, immorality and hostilityto others. Echoes of these allegations, whilerarely made explicitly against Jews, can befound in some mainstream discourse aboutIsrael, Zionists or ‘the Jewish lobby’. Thefurther one moves from the mainstream, forexample into more extreme activist groups orwebsites, the more pronounced and obviouslyantisemitic these echoes become.Conspiracy theories about hidden ‘Jewish’,‘Zionist’ or ‘pro-Israel’ influence in politicsand the media continue to be expressed bypeople from different parts of the politicalspectrum, in mainstream and extremist circles.Different examples in 2013 involved then-BNPleader Nick Griffin, former BBC correspondentTim Llewellyn and Iranian TV channel Press TV.British Jews say that they are more likely tohear antisemitic remarks from people with ‘aleft-wing political view’ or ‘a Muslim extremistview’ than from ‘someone with a right-wingpolitical view’.Most British Jews do not believe that criticismof Israel is antisemitic. However, most BritishJews do believe that a person who boycottsIsraeli goods, or who compares Israel to NaziGermany, is probably antisemitic.Over a third of British Jews say that theyhave heard antisemitic remarks in politicalor academic settings, including at schools.In 2013, social media comments by DavidWard MP and two Daily Mail articles aboutEd Miliband MP were examples where someBritish Jews felt that antisemitic language wasused in political settings.Several episodes in 2013 regarding allegeduse of antisemitic discourse hinged onnuanced interpretations of language andimagery, and of the gap between a person’sstated intentions in their language and theway that their choice of words or imagery areperceived by others.The role that a quick and meaningfulapology can play in answering concernsabout antisemitism was highlighted bycontrasting situations involving David WardMP; and the Sunday Times newspaper.While both apologised, only the latter did sounequivocally and without further offence.Antisemites have, in the past, used Jews asa scapegoat to explain their own failings orweaknesses. An example of this in 2013 can befound in the claim by Lord Ahmed that Jewishownedmedia organisations were responsiblefor his 2009 conviction for dangerous driving.The potential for religious attitudes tothe Israel-Palestine conflict to provide aframework for the expression of theologicalhostility to Judaism was highlighted bythe Church of Scotland’s 2013 report, Theinheritance of Abraham? A report on the‘promised land’.

Antisemitic Discourse Report 20135Overt opposition from pro-Palestinianactivists to antisemitic ideas and remarksfound within the pro-Palestinian movementremains inconsistent and weak.The problem of abusive antisemitic languageat football matches, and the use of the‘Y-word’ by fans of Tottenham Hotspur,remained issues of media and public debate.However, only 6 per cent of British Jews saythat they have heard antisemitic remarks atsporting events.“American Zionists incubating another Hitler”, presstv.com

Antisemitic Discourse Report 20137ANTISEMITIC DISCOURSE AND ANTISEMITISMANTISEMITIC discourse influences and reflects hostile attitudes to Jews and Jewish-related issues.PHYSICALLY, antisemitic discourse maycontribute to an atmosphere in whichantisemitic hate crimes against Jews andJewish institutions are more likely to occur.Psychologically, it can make Jews feel isolated,vulnerable and hurt.The purpose of this report is to help reduceantisemitism, by furthering the understandingof antisemitic discourse and its negativeimpacts on Jews and society as a whole.explained the relation between antisemiticdiscourse and hostility in these terms:“Expressions of anti-Semitism in publicdiscourse remain a serious issue of concernas they exacerbate hostile attitudes towardsJews. They have the potential to fuel anti-Semitic incidents, leading to greater insecurityin the Jewish communities and in societiesacross the OSCE region...” 7Antisemitic impacts of legitimatedebate and media coverageAntisemitic impacts may arise from entirelylegitimate situations that have no antisemiticintention.Statistics show that hate crimes againstperceived members of any particular groupcan be triggered (or exacerbated) by publicdiscourse or events related to that particulargroup. For example, antisemitic incident levelstypically rise in relation to some public eventsand stories involving Jews, Jewish institutions,or Jewish-related subjects such as Israel. 6Negative media coverage of, or politicalcomment on, Jewish-related events maybe entirely legitimate, fair and in the publicinterest. Nevertheless, those debates canencourage antisemitism or cause concern toJews. This is more likely if such commentaryinvolves inflammatory language or the use oftraditional antisemitic imagery, or appears tosingle out one particular object or individualfor scrutiny due to their being Jewish.The Organisation for Security andCooperation in Europe (OSCE), the world’slargest regional security organisation,The notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zionclaims to reveal a supposed secret Jewishconspiracy to take over the world, depicted inthis British version by a Jewish snake circlingthe globe.Championed by both far right and Islamistextremists, it includes chapters on Jewishcontrol of war, politicians, finance and media.The Protocols contains old antisemitic themesthat still resonate, impact and evolve inmodern politics, media and discourse.6. Shownrepeatedly in CST’sannual AntisemiticIncidents Report.Also, Paul Iganski,Vicky Kielinger &Susan Paterson,Hate CrimesAgainst London’sJews. London:Institute for JewishPolicy Research(2005)7. http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/odgal0026r1_summary_report1.pdf

Antisemitic Discourse Report 20139WHAT IS ANTISEMITISM? Background and conceptsIN ESSENCE, antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice or hostility against Jews.The word ‘antisemitism’ came into use in the late nineteenth century to describe pseudoscientificracial discrimination against Jews, but is now used more generally to describe all forms ofdiscrimination, prejudice or hostility towards Jews throughout history, and has been called “theLongest Hatred”. 10It may be spelled as ‘antisemitism’ or as ‘anti-Semitism’. CST uses ‘antisemitism’, as this spellinglimits the notion that there is such a thing as ‘Semitism’ to which one may be ‘anti’ (i.e., inopposition to).Antisemitism: backgroundHistory shows that increases in anti-Jewishsentiment or actions often reflect growingextremism or divisions within society as awhole. Antisemitism is a subject that shouldbe of concern not only to Jews, but to allof society.The near destruction of European Jewry in theNazi Holocaust rendered open antisemitismtaboo in public life. The strong association ofantisemitism with the Nazi Holocaust can leadto the mistaken assumption that antisemitismis an exclusively far right phenomenon thatessentially ended after World War Two, andthat it is always genocidal.Throughout history, anti-Jewish attitudeshave taken many forms, including religious,nationalist, economic and racial-biological.Jews have been blamed for many phenomena,including the death of Jesus; the BlackDeath; the advent of liberalism, democracy,communism and capitalism; and for incitingnumerous revolutions and wars.A dominant antisemitic theme is theallegation that Jews are powerful and cunningmanipulators, set against the rest of societyfor their evil and timeless purpose. Thenotion of Jewish power – codified withinthe notorious forgery 11 , The Protocols of theElders of Zion – distinguishes antisemitismfrom other types of racism, which often depicttheir targets as ignorant and primitive.Types of antisemitismAntisemitism is a global phenomenon,occurring even where there are no Jews.Its manifestation and expression mayrange from violent thuggery and murderto literary, philosophical and politicaldiscourse. Antisemitism has been describedas an ideology in its own right; but otherssay it is undeserving of such status andshould rather be regarded as a polluter ofideologies. 12 Its persistence in some form orother is not doubted, yet precise definitionsof antisemitism, its scale and the nature ofits contemporary appearance can causeheated debate.Differing definitions of antisemitismMuch has been written and discussedregarding what constitutes antisemitism. Thedefinitions shown below are intended as aconstructive guide to differing interpretations,but are the briefest of introductions to what isa very large topic.Steve Cohen argued that antisemitism isdefined by its ideological nature:“The peculiar and defining feature of10. Robert S.Wistrich “Anti-Semitism TheLongest Hatred”,Methuen, 1991 andScreen Guides forThames Television“The LongestHatred”, 1991.11. NormanCohn, Warrant forGenocide. London:Serif Books (1996),original publ. 196512. AnthonyJulius, Trials of theDiaspora. Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress (2010), p.xliv

10 Antisemitic Discourse Report 2013anti-semitism is that it exists as an ideology.It provides its adherents with a universal andgeneralised interpretation of the world. Thisis the theory of the Jewish conspiracy, whichdepicts Jews as historically controlling anddetermining nature and human destiny.Anti-semitism is an ideology which hasinfluenced millions of people preciselybecause it presents an explanation of theworld by attributing such extreme powers toits motive force – the Jews.” 13Anthony Julius has argued that Englishantisemitism comprises “several kinds ofanti-Semitism”; and he identifies four kindsthat wholly or substantially “have anEnglish provenance”:• “A radical anti-Semitism of defamation,expropriation, murder, and expulsion – thatis, the anti-Semitism of medieval England,which completed itself in 1290, when therewere no Jews left to torment.”• “A literary anti-Semitism – that is, an anti-Semitic account of Jews continuouslypresent in the discourse of Englishliterature...through to present times.”and metaphors through which more generalpositions are intimated, without ever beingargued for.” 14Brian Klug describes the importance of theimaginary ‘Jew’ (as distinct to the reality ofJews). He depicts the antisemitic caricature ofthis imaginary ‘Jew’ as:“The Jew belongs to a sinister peopleset apart from all others, not merely byits customs but by a collective character:arrogant yet obsequious; legalistic yetcorrupt; flamboyant yet secretive. Alwayslooking to turn a profit, Jews are as ruthlessas they are tricky. Loyal only to their own,wherever they go they form a state within astate, preying upon the societies in whosemidst they dwell. Their hidden hand controlsthe banks, the markets and the media. Andwhen revolutions occur or nations go to war,it is the Jews – cohesive, powerful, clever andstubborn – who invariably pull the strings andreap the rewards.” 1513. Steve Cohen,That’s Funny, YouDon’t Look Anti-Semitic. Leeds:Beyond the PaleCollective (1984),p.11Antisemitism,p.114. Julius, Trialsof the Diaspora,pp.xxxvi–xxxvii15. Dr Brian Klug,‘The Concept ofAnti-Semitism’,speech to OxfordUniversity ChabadSociety (7 June2009) http://www.oxfordchabad.org/templates/articlecco_cdo/aid/922682/jewish/Anti-Semitism-Symposium.htm• “A modern, quotidian anti-Semitism ofinsult and partial exclusion, pervasivebut contained...everyday anti-Semitismexperienced by Jews...through to the latetwentieth century.”• “A new configuration of anti-Zionisms,emerging in the late 1960s and the 1970s,which treats Zionism and the State ofIsrael as illegitimate Jewish enterprises.This perspective, heavily indebted toanti-Semitic tropes, now constitutes thegreatest threat to Anglo-Jewish securityand morale...By ‘tropes’ I mean thosetaken-for-granted utterances, those figures

Antisemitic Discourse Report 201311ANTISEMITISM: legal definitionsLEGISLATIVE definitions of antisemitism are primarily intended for Police and judicial use inidentifying antisemitic incidents and crimes, rather than defining discourse. Nevertheless,these definitions can provide useful tools for helping consider what may, or may not, constituteantisemitic discourse.Race Relations ActThe 2005–06 All Party Parliamentary Inquiryinto Antisemitism summarised antisemitismby reference to the Race Relations Act 1976as follows:“Broadly, it is our view that any remark, insultor act the purpose or effect of which is toviolate a Jewish person’s dignity or create anintimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating oroffensive environment for him is antisemitic.This reflects the definition of harassmentunder the Race Relations Act 1976. Thisdefinition can be applied to individuals and tothe Jewish community as a whole.” 16Government definitions of racismThe Stephen Lawrence Inquiry definition ofa racist incident has significantly influencedsocietal interpretations of what does anddoes not constitute racism, strengthening theimportance of the victim’s perception.The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry intoAntisemitism invoked the Lawrence inquirywhen it said of these issues:“We take into account the view expressedin the Macpherson report of the StephenLawrence Inquiry that a racist act is defined byits victim. It is not acceptable for an individualto say ‘I am not a racist’ if his or her words oracts are perceived to be racist.“We conclude that it is the Jewish communityitself that is best qualified to determine whatdoes and does not constitute antisemitism.” 17The Government command response to theParliamentary inquiry concurred, stating:“The Government currently uses the StephenLawrence Inquiry definition of a racist incidentwhich is an incident that is perceived as racistby the victim or any other person, and thiswould include antisemitism. This is a very wideand powerful definition as it clearly includesthe ‘perception’ of the victim and others.” 18European Union Monitoring Centre /Fundamental Rights AgencyIn 2002–03, the Monitoring Centre conducteda study of antisemitism in Europe thatincluded a recommendation to “defineantisemitic acts”, as a necessary buildingblock for European Police forces to collectdata about antisemitic hate crimes. 19Subsequently, the Centre issued a “WorkingDefinition” primarily as a tool for use by lawenforcement when deciding whether crimesare antisemitic or not. It helps standardisedata, enabling better cross-comparison ofactions against antisemitism.The “Working Definition” has, however cometo epitomise arguments over contemporaryantisemitism. Its list of behaviours that “could,taking into account the overall context”indicate antisemitism, include mention ofvarious anti-Israel acts and attitudes. Anti-Israel and anti-Zionist activists, ignoringthe “overall context” caveat, have arguedthat the definition unfairly renders theirbehaviour antisemitic; and pro-Israel activistshave argued that the “Working Definition”16. Report ofthe All-PartyParliamentaryInquiry intoAntisemitism, p.117. Report ofthe All-PartyParliamentaryInquiry intoAntisemitism, p.118. All-Party Inquiryinto Antisemitism:GovernmentResponse. London:The StationeryOffice (29 March2007), p.3. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228610/7059.pdf19. http://www.european-forumon-antisemitism.org/workingdefinition-ofantisemitism/english/

12 Antisemitic Discourse Report 2013outlaws certain anti-Israel attitudes andacts as antisemitic. Furthermore, the actualMonitoring Centre no longer exists, havingbeen superseded by the Fundamental RightsAgency, which, by European statute, has adifferent role to that of the Centre, and whichno longer publishes the “Working Definition”on its website. The definition remains a sourceof controversy.BRITISH JEWS: relationship with Zionism and IsraelZIONISM and Israel are, in part, Jewish responses to the long and often tragic history ofantisemitism.The complex dynamics between antisemitism, anti-Israel activity and anti-Zionism are central tothe nature, content and impact of much contemporary British antisemitism, and to the concerns ofBritish Jews about antisemitism.20. Accordingto one survey in2010, 95% of UKJews have visitedIsrael; 90% see itas the “ancestralhomeland” of theJewish people;72% considerthemselves to be“Zionists”. DavidGraham andJonathan Boyd,The Attitudes ofJews in Britaintowards Israel.London: Institutefor Jewish PolicyResearch (July 2010)http://www.jpr.org.uk/downloads/JPR%20Israel%20survey%20report%2015.pdfOVERWHELMINGLY, British Jews do notcome from Israel and their families have beenBritish for at least two or more generations.Nevertheless, Israel plays an important rolein the self-identity of many British Jews. 20 Thismanifests in the practical sense of physical,emotional and family links that many Jewsenjoy with Israel and Israeli citizens, as well asin the psychological sense of perceiving Israelas representing Jewish identity, refuge andrebirth in the post-Holocaust age.In recent years, Israel has been subject torepeated criticism and outright hostility fromrelatively large sections of the liberal-left,including media, campaigning groups, tradeunions, politicians, churches and the NGOsector. British Jews hold varying perspectiveson the legitimacy and motivation of thisbehaviour, ranging from those who play aleading part in anti-Israel activity, to thosewho regard these actions as antisemitic.

Antisemitic Discourse Report 201313ANTISEMITISM AND ANTI-ZIONISMLIKE RACISM, antisemitism can feed off criticism of Jews, Israel or Zionism, regardless of how fairor unfair, antisemitic or legitimate, that criticism may be.ANTI-ZIONISMTHE TERM ‘anti-Zionism’ describes a wide range of hostile attitudes towards Jewish selfdetermination,and particularly towards Jewish nationalism and Israel as a Jewish state.‘Anti-Zionism’ is often a complex and contested term, because definitions of Zionism itself meandifferent things to different people. In particular, mainstream Jewish definitions of Zionism differmarkedly from far left, far right and Islamist definitions – all of which tend to use (and denigrate)Zionism as a term of political abuse.Not all anti-Zionists are antisemites and anti-Zionism is not necessarily antisemitic. Nevertheless,when the mainstream Jewish understanding of the word ‘Zionism’ is misrepresented, thisencourages antisemitic impacts and attitudes.Jews and anti-ZionismIn the decades before World War Two,anti-Zionism was a relatively widespread andrespected position within mainstream Jewishpolitics. Many Jewish anti-Zionists opposedthe idea of creating a Jewish state becausethey feared it would threaten the political andcivic status of Jews in Diaspora communities.Others opposed Zionism because theybelieved that revolutionary socialism wouldemancipate Jews alongside the rest ofhumanity. Many strictly Orthodox Jewsopposed Zionism on theological grounds.National Front sticker combining JewishStar of David symbol with “against Zionism”.After the Holocaust and the creation (andsurvival) of Israel, Jewish opposition toZionism declined markedly. Today, otherthan within strictly Orthodox or small Marxistgroups, even many of Israel’s fiercest Jewishcritics would not describe themselves asanti-Zionist.

14 Antisemitic Discourse Report 2013ANTI-ZIONISM AND CRITICISM OF ISRAELCRITICISM of Zionism or Israel may not beantisemitic per se, but it risks becomingso when traditional antisemitic themesare employed; when Jews are randomlytargeted as a result; when Jewish concernsare disregarded or, worse, deliberatelymisrepresented as being fake cover for Israel;and when Jewish historical and religious tieswith Israel are denied.Antisemitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Israelcriticism or hatred are not the same as eachother. They can, however, be hard to untangleand distinguish from one another.Anti-Zionist and antisemiticconspiracy theoriesA more contemporary non-Jewish anti-Zionism that opposes Jewish needs andinterests is found within far right, far leftand extreme Islamist circles. This includesthe various antisemites who reside in thesepolitical movements. These different politicalgroupings employ ‘Zionism’ and ‘Zionist’to pejoratively label political enemies.They discuss and perceive Zionism in termsof conspiratorial power and evil that arestrikingly similar to antisemitic depictions ofJewish behaviour.It is not necessarily antisemitic to criticiseIsrael or Zionism, even if the criticism is harshor unfair. Gauging antisemitic motives andimpacts largely depends upon the interactionof the following factors:• Motivation: To what extent is the criticism,or outright hatred, driven by the Jewishnature of Israel and/or Zionism?• Content: Does the criticism, or hatred,use antisemitic or otherwise discriminatorylanguage, themes and motifs?• Target: Are local Jews being singled out asrecipients for criticism, bias or hatred thatostensibly derives from anti-Israel or anti-Zionist enmity?• Response to concerns: Are local Jewishconcerns about the above sincerely andequally heard? Or, are Jewish concernsviewed with hostility and singled out forscorn?• Repeat behaviour: Does the offenderrepeat their behaviour, knowing theconsequences and concerns that willbe raised?Employing the word ‘Zionist’ where the word‘Jew’ would have previously appeared in openantisemitic discourse may, or may not, bedeliberate obfuscation on the part of the user.Nevertheless, it essentially fulfils the samepsychological and political purpose as openantisemitism once did.This antisemitic ‘anti-Zionism’ has, at its core,a construction of ‘Zionism’ as a political,financial, military and media conspiracy thatis centred in Washington and Jerusalem, andwhich opposes authentic local interests. It iscommonly found in extremist discourse, andsometimes alluded to in more diluted forms inmainstream discourse.Unlike Jewish pre-war anti-Zionism, thesemodern anti-Zionists are not motivated by aconcern for Jewish political and civic rights.The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry intoAntisemitism noted:“One of the most difficult and contentiousissues about which we have received evidenceis the dividing line between antisemitism andcriticism of Israel or Zionism.

Antisemitic Discourse Report 201315“...discourse has developed that is in effectbuilding a new, better world is echoed in theantisemitic because it views Zionism itselfnotion that Zionism is uniquely illegitimate,as a global force of unlimited power andand that its destruction is paradigmatic ofmalevolence throughout history. Thistheological and political struggles for thedefinition of Zionism bears no relation tofuture of the world.the understanding that most Jews have ofthe concept; that is, a movement of Jewish • The image of Jews as alien corruptors ofnational liberation, born in the late nineteenth traditional, authentic society and establishedcentury with a geographical focus limitedmorality endures in today’s portrayalsto Israel. Having re-defined Zionism in thisof Zionists as somehow hijacking otherway, traditional antisemitic notions of Jewish peoples’ true will and nature, and therebyconspiratorial power, manipulation andpolluting domestic politics and society.subversion are then transferredfrom Jews (a racial and religiousAn antisemitic image shared on Facebook. The image ofgroup) on to Zionism (a politicala dead baby being put through a meat grinder resonatesmovement). This is at the core of with the classical antisemitic notion of the blood libel,the ‘New Antisemitism’ on which in which Jews were accused of murdering non-Jewishso much has been written.” 21 children in order to use their blood for religious purposes.In this image, the meat grinder includes a Jewish Starof David on its side. This combination of antisemiticOther continuities betweeniconography sits under a slogan that accuses Israel ofhistorical antisemitic themes and genocide while also calling for Israel not to exist.the type of modern anti-Zionismthat is antisemitic can include:• Alleging that Jewish holybooks preach Jewishsupremacy or chosennessand that this is the basis foralleged Zionist racism.• Dehumanising and demonisinglanguage comparing Jewsto rats, cancer, plague andbacteria is now repeated insome depictions of Zionistsand Israel. This reduces itstarget to a pest or disease tobe cleansed.• Scapegoating Jews as ‘theOther’; blaming them for localand global problems; anddemanding their destructionor conversion as a vital step in21. Report ofthe All-PartyParliamentaryInquiry intoAntisemitism, p.17

16 Antisemitic Discourse Report 2013EU SURVEY: What statements and actions aboutJews and Israel do Jews consider to be antisemitic?IN NOVEMBER 2013, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) publisheda groundbreaking survey of Jewish people’s experiences and perceptions of hate crime,discrimination and antisemitism in eight EU member states, including the United Kingdom,covering around 90% of Jews in the EU. 22The survey asked respondents whether they considered different statements about Jews andIsrael to be antisemitic, and also asked in what contexts they heard those antisemitic statementsmost often.22. EuropeanUnion Agencyfor FundamentalRights,Discrimination andhate crime againstJews in EU MemberStates: experiencesand perceptionsof antisemitism.Luxembourg:Publications Officeof the EuropeanUnion (2013) http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2013-discriminationhate-crime-againstjews-eu-memberstates-0_en.pdf;see also LauraD. Staetsky andJonathan Boyd,The ExceptionalCase? Perceptionsand experiencesof antisemitismamong Jews in theUnited Kingdom.London: Institutefor Jewish PolicyResearch (July 2014)http://www.jpr.org.uk/documents/Perceptions_and_experiences_of_antisemitism_among_Jews_in_UK.pdf23. Jonathan Boyd,‘Is Criticism of IsraelAntisemitic?’ (14November 2013)http://jewishpeoplehood.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/iscriticism-of-israelantisemitic.htmlThe survey was carried out online fromSeptember to October 2012 by the pollingcompany Ipsos MORI, working with theInstitute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR) inthe UK. Across Europe, 66% of respondentssaid they consider antisemitism to be a “verybig” or “fairly big” problem in their countries.In the UK, 48% of respondents said thatantisemitism is a very big or fairly big problem(the lowest figure of all eight countriessurveyed), while 52% said that it is “not a verybig problem” or “not a problem at all”.The survey found that British Jews were morelikely to attribute antisemitic sentiments to aperson who used classical antisemitic tropesto be antisemitic, than they were for peoplewho criticise Israel or who campaign againstit. For example, 80% of British Jews said thata person who says “The Holocaust is a mythor has been exaggerated” is “Definitelyantisemitic”; 77% said that a person whobelieves “Jews are responsible for the currenteconomic crisis” is “Definitely antisemitic”;and 67% said the same about a person whoclaims “Jews have too much power in the UK”.Only 6% of British Jews said that theywould consider a person to be “definitelyantisemitic” if they criticised Israel, while 27%said that they would consider such a person tobe “probably antisemitic”. Therefore arounda third of British Jews think that somebodywho criticises Israel is definitely or probablyantisemitic, while around two-thirds said thatsuch a person is “Probably not antisemitic” or“Definitely not antisemitic”.However, these proportions are reversed inthe survey results for two specific kinds ofanti-Israel attitudes and activity. Sixty-sevenper cent of British Jews said that somebodywho “Supports boycotts of Israeli goods/products” is definitely or probably antisemitic,while 77% said the same about a person whosays that “Israelis behave ‘like Nazis’ towardsPalestinians”. Jonathan Boyd, ExecutiveDirector of the JPR, summed up the meaningof these results in the following terms:“The implication is that most Jews surveyedappear to hold the view that whilst criticism ofIsrael is not antisemitic per se, it can becomeso when it is manifested in particular ways. Inessence, criticism of the Israeli governmentis by no means off the table. Like any othergovernment, the Israeli government should beheld to account for its actions, as it is regularlyby Israelis themselves in the country’s media,civil society and polling booths. But whenthe nature of that criticism tips over intothese more hostile or aggressive realms, it isexperienced as much more prejudicial.” 23

Antisemitic Discourse Report 201317Respondents were also asked about wherethey had encountered antisemitism, and theresults suggested that the internet, in politicsand academia are contexts where Jewsencounter language that they perceive tobe antisemitic. Sixty-eight per cent of BritishJews said they had come across antisemiticstatements on the internet, and 77% thoughtthat the problem was getting worse. Thirtynineper cent of British Jews said that theyhad heard antisemitic statements in politicalspeeches (such as in Parliament) and 37% saidthey had heard them at political events (forexample, meetings or demonstrations). Thirtysevenper cent of British Jews said they hadheard antisemitic statements in an academicsetting, which includes universities andschools. This was the highest figure of any ofthe eight EU countries in the poll. In contrast,only 6% of British Jews had encounteredantisemitism at a sporting event.When asked to describe the person orpeople who they had heard make negativestatements about Jews in the past 12 months,57% of UK respondents said that it was“Someone with a left-wing political view”; 56%said it was “Someone with a Muslim extremistview”; 33% said it was “Someone with a rightwingpolitical view”; 14% said it was “Someonewith a Christian extremist view”; and 25% saidit was none of those or that they did not know.

18 Antisemitic Discourse Report 2013DAVID WARD MP: on Holocaust Memorial Day,“Jews...inflicting atrocities on Palestinians”DAVID WARD MP marked Holocaust Memorial Day by signing the Book of Commitment inthe House of Commons with a statement that conflated Jews with Israel, and implied that bothwere guilty of inflicting comparable “atrocities” on Palestinians. This was the first of a number ofstatements by Ward that caused offence during 2013, resulting in him losing the Liberal Democratparty whip for two months.The episode highlighted the importance of choosing language carefully when criticising Israelipolicy, and the confusion and offence that can ensue when this does not happen.24. http://archive.totallyjewish.com/news/sorry-seemsto-be-the-hardestward/DAVID WARD is the Liberal DemocratMember of Parliament for Bradford East. Thefull statement that he wrote in the Book ofCommitment read:“Having visited Auschwitz twice – once withmy family and once with local schools – Iam saddened that the Jews, who sufferedunbelievable levels of persecution duringthe Holocaust, could within a few years ofliberation from the death camps be inflictingatrocities on Palestinians in the new State ofIsrael and continue to do so on a daily basis inthe West Bank and Gaza.”Ward placed this statement on his websiteand tweeted a link to it, with a photograph ofhimself signing the Book of Remembrance.In response to the statement, Karen PollockMBE, Chief Executive of the HolocaustEducational Trust, said:“I am deeply saddened that at this sombretime, when we remember those who weremurdered by the Nazis, Mr Ward hasdeliberately abused the memory of theHolocaust causing deep pain and offence– these comments are sickening andunacceptable and have no place in Britishpolitics.”Ward initially defended his statement bysaying: “I’m accusing the Jews who did it, soif you’re a Jew and you did not do it I’m notaccusing you. I’m saying that those Jews whodid that and continue to do it have not learnedthose lessons.” However, at the request of theLiberal Democrats he apologised, saying:“I never for a moment intended to criticise oroffend the Jewish people as a whole, either asa race or as a people of faith, and apologisesincerely for the unintended offence whichmy words caused…[however] I will continue tomake criticisms of actions in Palestine in thestrongest possible terms for as long as Israelcontinues to oppress the Palestinian people.”He also gave a formal undertaking to theLiberal Democrat Chief Whip, AlistairCarmichael MP, that he “will not again usethe phrase ‘the Jews’ in this context” andhe removed the statement from his website.Ward followed this up by emailing theJewish News newspaper to ask: “Can you askthe Board of Deputies if they’re in agreementthat I should replace the words ‘the Jews’ with‘the Jewish community’? If so, I am perfectlyhappy to do so.” He also asked Jewish News:“Can you provide me with a more acceptablechoice of words that I could use to criticise thetreatment of the Palestinians?” 24

Antisemitic Discourse Report 201319In an interview with the Guardian, Wardalleged that claims of offence over hischoice of words were artificial and he wouldhave come under pressure from “a hugeoperation...a machine...designed to protectthe state of Israel”, irrespective of his choiceof words. In doing so, he implied that thoseJews who had objected were acting on behalfof Israel rather than expressing genuinefeelings of their own. He said:“There is a huge operation out there, amachine almost, which is designed to protectthe state of Israel from criticism. And thatcomes into play very, very quickly and focusesintensely on anyone who’s seen to criticise thestate of Israel. And so I end up looking at whathappened to me, whether I should use thisword, whether I should use that word – andthat is winning, for them. Because what I wantto talk about is the fundamental question ofhow can they do this, and how can they beallowed to do this.[...]“What I am absolutely convinced of, is that noform of words would have been acceptable.We would have been having this sameconversation if I’d not used those words. Itwould simply have been on something else.” 25In this interview, Ward denied havingcompared Israel’s actions with the Holocaust,while also suggesting that Israel’s actionswere comparable to Nazi pre-genocidalpersecution of Jews and others during the1930s.Next, Ward’s website published a critique bya writer called John Hilley of this Guardianinterview. Hilley further defended Ward’s useof “the Jews” by claiming: “…he wasn’t, inany meaningful sense, generalising all Jews,merely saying that Israel, a Jewish state, andone that does purport to speak for all Jews,was/is now in the process of persecutingPalestinians.” Hilley then implied that Israelis “setting out to annihilate [the Palestinian]people”. This article remains on Ward’swebsite. 26In July, Ward again drew criticism of his choiceof language to criticise Israel when he tweetedthe following:“Am I wrong or am I right? At long last the#Zionists are losing the battle – how long canthe #apartheid State of #Israel last?”The response of the Liberal Democrats wasto withdraw the party whip from Ward fortwo months because “questioning the stateof Israel fails the test of language that is‘proportionate and precise’.” On this occasion,Ward referred to “Zionists” rather than “theJews” and he was not accused of usingantisemitic language.In November, at a time of heightened mediascrutiny of Roma communities, Ward tweeted:“What a shame there isn’t a powerful, wellfunded Board of Deputies for #Roma”.This evokes the classical antisemitic notionthat Jewish organisations use financialpower to influence policy and public debate.However, the party decided, after consultingwith Ward, that his intention was to expresssupport for Roma rather than to offend Jews,and he was not punished.25. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/06/david-wardnot-racist26. http://davidward.org.uk/en/article/2013/659668/guardian-continuesthe-hounding-ofdavid-ward

20 Antisemitic Discourse Report 2013THE DAILY MAIL, ED MILIBAND MP AND THE“JEALOUS G-D OF DEUTERONOMY”IN SEPTEMBER, the Daily Mail published a long feature article about the political and familybackground of Ralph Miliband, father of current Labour Party leader Ed Miliband MP. The articlereferred to Ralph Miliband’s Jewish ancestry and accused him of disloyalty to Britain. It waswritten by a Jewish journalist, Geoffrey Levy.After protests, a Daily Mail editorial used an Old Testament reference in defence of its originalarticle. Jewish commentators differed publicly over whether or not the articles were antisemitic.27. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435751/Red-Eds-pledgebring-socialismhomage-Marxistfather-Ralph-Miliband-says-GEOFFREY-LEVY.html28. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435751/Red-Eds-pledgebring-socialismhomage-Marxistfather-Ralph-Miliband-says-GEOFFREY-LEVY.html29. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ukpolitics-24395790THE INITIAL article began with a portraitof Ralph Miliband, described as “a Jewishimmigrant”, paying homage at the grave ofKarl Marx in Highgate Cemetery, London,shortly after his arrival in the UK in 1940. Theheadline described him as “The man whohated Britain” and the article claimed that“Ralph’s Marxism was uncompromising.” Thearticle also claimed that “Ed Miliband wasobsessed with maintaining his father’s legacy”and suggested that he sought the leadershipof the Labour Party in order to pursue hisfather’s socialist vision.The Daily Mail article quoted from RalphMiliband’s diary, written at age 17: “TheEnglishman is a rabid nationalist. They areperhaps the most nationalist people in theworld...you sometimes want them almost tolose (the war) to show them how things are.”The article then commented: “This adolescentdistaste for the British character certainlydidn’t stop him availing himself of the fineeducation that was on offer in this country,or spending the rest of his life here.” It thennoted that Ralph Miliband served for threeyears in the Royal Navy during the war. 27Ed Miliband complained about this article anddemanded a right of reply, because he feltthat it misrepresented his father’s views. Hedid not claim that the article was antisemitic.The Daily Mail gave Ed Miliband a right ofreply, but also published an editorial commentdefending the original piece. In attempting tojustify its position, the editorial stated:“We do not maintain, like the jealous G-d[not sic] of Deuteronomy, that the iniquity ofthe fathers should be visited on the sons. Butwhen a son with prime ministerial ambitionsswallows his father’s teachings, as the youngerMiliband appears to have done, the case isdifferent.” 28Ed Miliband continued to maintain that thearticles were not antisemitic, telling the BBC:“I’m always incredibly careful about throwingaround the idea that the paper or somebodyis anti-Semitic or racist unless there is realevidence for that. I don’t believe that of theMail; that’s not been my issue.” 29However, other commentators expresseddivergent views regarding whether or notantisemitism played a role in the articles. Forthose who thought that antisemitism did playa role, this reference to the “jealous G-d ofDeuteronomy” was cited as evidence. Forexample, Jewish Chronicle and Guardiancolumnist Jonathan Freedland wrote:“What was that doing there, that sudden andredundant reference to the vindictive G-dof the Old Testament? In the context of apiece about a foreign-born Jew, it felt like a

Antisemitic Discourse Report 201321subtle, if not subterranean hint to the reader, areminder of the ineradicable alienness of thisbiblically vengeful people.“It is not obvious; the Mail ran no hook-nosedcaricatures. That’s why even my most sensitivecolleagues spoke of a whiff rather than astench.“But antisemitism in Britain often works inthat way: latent and hinted at, rather thanovert. And, when it comes to Jews, the Mail’score accusations have a long and unhappyhistory. Jews have perennially been chargedwith disloyalty, even those Jews, like MilibandSnr, who have worn their country’s uniformand risked their lives in war. For decades theextreme right, in a variant of the centuries-oldclaim of a global Jewish conspiracy, blamedJews for communism or ‘Judeo-Bolshevism’.And here was the Mail banging out boththose old tunes on the gravestone of RalphMiliband.” 30Party to shift the debate about the Mail articlethat explored Ed Miliband’s late father Ralph’sviews on politics, international affairs andeconomic models, to one about alleged anti-Semitism within the Associated Newspapersgroup is absolutely deplorable.“When it comes to anti-Semitism, I, as apracticing Jew in the orthodox tradition,regard myself as something of an expert withvery sensitive antennae.[...]“But throughout my time at the Mail, thepaper’s loyalty to Israel, as a beacon ofdemocracy and economic success in a regionof often ghastly sectarian dictatorships, hasnever wavered. Moreover, it is a newspaperthat has nurtured and promoted Jewish staffin every editorial department.” 32John Mann MP, the chairman of the All-PartyParliamentary Group Against Antisemitismand a Labour backbencher, accused theDaily Mail of a “classical age-old antisemiticsmear about disloyal Jews.” However,Conservative MP Lee Scott said that “Anytone of xenophobia or prejudice didn’t comeacross to me in the original article, but I waslooking at it from a political angle.” 31Alex Brummer, a Jewish Chronicle columnist,Daily Mail city editor and a vice-presidentof the Board of Deputies of British Jews,defended the Daily Mail in a column in thenewspaper. He wrote:“Indeed, the cynical attempts by LordKinnock, the political Left and the Labour30. http://www.thejc.com/commentand-debate/comment/111995/was-daily-mailpiece-antisemitic31. http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/111993/daily-mail-accusedantisemitic-attackover-miliband-story32. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2444472/ALEX-BRUMMER-Its-deplorable-say-Mail-anti-Semitic.html

22 Antisemitic Discourse Report 2013SUNDAY TIMES CARTOON ON HOLOCAUSTMEMORIAL DAY: blood and antisemitismTHE SUNDAY TIMES published a cartoon by Gerald Scarfe that depicted Israeli Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu using blood to cement a wall that had parts of bodies trapped within it. Thebodies trapped in the wall appeared to be of various religions or ethnicities. The cartoon waspublished on Holocaust Memorial Day. The reaction to its publication showed the capacity ofcertain images to offend, even if they are not intended to be antisemitic.33. http://www.bod.org.uk/live/content.php?Item_ID=130&Blog_ID=70934. http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/criticize-israel-butwithout-the-vileand-offensivecartoons-1.50039535. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/feb/04/sundaytimesbinyaminnetanyahuCRITICISM of the cartoon focused on itsdepiction of Netanyahu using blood whilecausing the death or suffering of innocents,which some observers felt evoked themedieval antisemitic trope of a ‘blood libel’, inwhich Jews have been accused of murderingnon-Jewish children and using their bloodin religious rituals. The Board of Deputies ofBritish Jews lodged a complaint with the PressComplaints Commission on the basis that thecartoon was reminiscent of the antisemiticimagery of the blood libel:“It depicts Benjamin Netanyahu bricking upPalestinians and using blood for mortar, whichis shockingly reminiscent of the blood libelimagery more usually found in parts of thevirulently antisemitic Arab press. Its use is allthe more disgusting on Holocaust MemorialDay, given the similar tropes levelled againstJews by the Nazis. This far exceeds any fair orreasonable criticism of Israeli policies.” 33Rachel Shabi, writing in Haaretz, argued thatthe cartoon was not antisemitic but that theresonance of its blood imagery meant itshould not have been published:“I don’t think the cartoon is anti-Semitic...Butit is nonetheless a vile and offensive cartoon,because of all that spurting blood-as-cementand the inevitable blood libel associations.I know this isn’t absolutely water-tight,technically, or unanimous, or straightforward;I know many think that I should just get overit, but there it is: it triggers unease over theassociation of a Jew with another people’sblood.[...]“Of course, cartoonists are free to publishwhat they like, and we are free to argue aboutthe merits of their work afterwards, but whychoose to pitch at this level? Given enduring,and well-founded, Jewish sensitivities overcertain imagery, it is manifestly preferableto caricature and castigate Israeli leaderswithout the buckets of blood. There is hardly ashortage of material.” 34The Sunday Times defended the cartoonon the grounds that it was typical of GeraldScarfe’s acerbic style, and that the timing wascoincidental:“This is a typically robust cartoon by GeraldScarfe. The Sunday Times firmly believesthat it is not antisemitic. It is aimed squarelyat Mr Netanyahu and his policies, not atIsrael, let alone at Jewish people. It appearstoday because Mr Netanyahu won the Israelielection last week.” 35Writer and commentator Kenan Malik notedthat the cartoon lacked gratuitous Jewishsymbolism, while the use of blood was itselftypical of Scarfe’s style:“Scarfe’s cartoon is not about Jews, nor

Antisemitic Discourse Report 201323even about Israeli actions in general, butspecifically about Netanyahu’s policies.Netanyahu is not identified as a Jew. He isnot, for instance, wearing a kippa, nor is hewrapped in a Star of David. The cartoon iscertainly vicious, grotesque, brutal, spiteful.That, however, is the nature of politicalcartoons, which often take malicious gleein skewering their subject through cruelexaggeration. ‘Almost all political cartooning’,as Scarfe’s fellow cartoonist Martin Rowsonhas put it, ‘is assassination without the blood’.Scarfe, in particular, turns every politicalfigure, from Margaret Thatcher to George WBush, from Vladimir Putin to Tony Blair, into ahideous caricature, liberally splashing his workwith blood and gore.” 36“The image we published of BinyaminNetanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, whichappeared to show him revelling in the bloodof Palestinians, crossed a line. Publicationof the cartoon would have been a mistakeon any day but the fact that last Sunday wasHolocaust Memorial Day compoundedthe error.“We realise that we caused grave offence,however unintended, which detracted froma day that marks one of the greatest evils inhuman history.” 38Two days after the cartoon was published,the owner of the Sunday Times, RupertMurdoch, tweeted a public apology for thecartoon, writing: “Gerald Scarfe has neverreflected the opinions of the Sunday Times.Nevertheless, we owe major apology forgrotesque, offensive cartoon.” 37 The sameday, Sunday Times editor Martin Ivens alsoapologised after meeting representatives ofCST, the Board of Deputies and the JewishLeadership Council. The following Sunday,the newspaper published an apologythat accepted the principle that using the“historical iconography” of antisemitismshould be avoided:“It is one thing for a newspaper to attackand caricature a leader — and it is aslegitimate to attack Israeli leaders in cartoonsas anyone else. But it is another thing toreflect in a caricature, even unintentionally,historical iconography that is persecutory oranti-semitic.36. http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/gerald-scarfe-antisemitism-and-thedanish-cartoons/37. https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/29596483339485184038. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/feb/04/sundaytimesbinyamin-netanyahu

24 Antisemitic Discourse Report 2013LORD AHMED:Jews “who own newspapers and TV channels”THE LABOUR peer Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham was accused of giving an interview to aPakistani TV station in which he blamed his 2009 prison sentence for dangerous driving on theinfluence of Jewish-owned media organisations. He further claimed that this alleged Jewishpressure was in response to his support for the Palestinians. The interview was broadcast in Pakistanin 2012 but only came to light in the UK in 2013 when it was published by The Times newspaper.39. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3713009.ece40. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article3712868.eceLORD AHMED had been jailed for 12 weeksin February 2009 for his involvement in a fatalcar crash on the M1 motorway which resultedin the death of 28-year-old Martyn Gombar. Inthe Urdu-language TV interview, he claimedthat this was an unusually severe punishment,and claimed: “My case became morecritical because I went to Gaza to supportPalestinians. My Jewish friends who ownnewspapers and TV channels opposed this.”He further alleged that the judge who heardhis case had been promoted by former primeminister Tony Blair due to his involvementin “an important case involving a Jewishcolleague of ours”. 39The Times newspaper accompanied itsreporting of this story with a powerfuleditorial comment that placed Lord Ahmed’scomments in the context of antisemiticconspiracy theories:“Modern Britain is a benign place in which tobe Jewish. By dint of talent and enterprise,many British Jews have attained success inpublic, professional, cultural and commerciallife. Fashionable prejudices evident in popularculture even two or three generations ago(consider the stereotypical depictions ofJews by John Buchan or Agatha Christie) aredistasteful anachronisms.“Yet, as the historian Conor Cruise O’Brienobserved, anti-Semitism is a light sleeper. Wereport today that this historically stubbornprejudice figures in the intellectual make-up ofa parliamentarian and prominent Muslim. LordAhmed of Rotherham, a Labour peer, serveda prison sentence in 2009 for his involvementin a fatal car accident. Speaking in Urduin a television interview in Pakistan, LordAhmed attributed his sentence to a Jewishconspiracy to punish him for his support of thePalestinians.“It is tempting to dismiss Lord Ahmed’scomments as pitiful rantings by an obscurepolitician. Unfortunately, they are worse. Theyexpress an ideology (or, more accurately, apathology) that still disfigures discourse insome parts of the world and that animatesa sub-culture of Islamist extremism. Acommunity leader and representative ofa democratic party should confront anti-Semitism. Instead, Lord Ahmed exemplifies it.[...]“There will not be lasting peace in theMiddle East with a just settlement betweena sovereign Palestine and a secure Israelwhile conspiracy theories about the Jewsare disseminated. Inoculating young andimpressionable British Muslims from thetheocratic hatreds of al-Qaeda requires theconfronting of hoary anti-Semitic myths.How shameful, how scandalous, that a Britishparliamentarian should instead be promotingthem.” 40

Antisemitic Discourse Report 201325The Labour Party immediately suspendedLord Ahmed’s membership, pending adisciplinary process. Party leader Ed Milibandwas quoted as saying that “There’s no placefor anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, andfrankly anybody who makes those kinds ofcomments cannot be either a Labour Lord or aLabour Member of Parliament.” 41 Lord Ahmedapologised two weeks after the Times storywas published, saying that “I only believe infacts and to be honest I should have stuck withthe facts rather than with conspiracy theories.I completely and unreservedly apologise tothe Jewish community, to the judiciary, tothe newspaper owners.” He offered a furtherapology to Ed Miliband, saying, “He’s of theJewish faith and I’m sorry that I embarrassedhim or anybody else in the Labour Party.” 42However, Lord Ahmed resigned from theparty two days before his disciplinary hearing,saying that he did not recollect ever havingmade the original comments and could notexpect a fair hearing.41. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3713242.ece42. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3725312.ece

26 Antisemitic Discourse Report 2013THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND’S REPORT ONISRAEL AND JUDAISMTHE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND published a report about the State of Israel and its place in Jewishtheology that drew protests from representative Jewish bodies for both Scotland and the widerUK. The report was withdrawn and a revised version adopted after a meeting between the Churchand Jewish leaders.TITLED The inheritance of Abraham? Areport on the ‘promised land’, the report wasproduced for adoption by the Church’s GeneralAssembly. It used interpretations of Jewishtheology to challenge the legitimacy of Jewishstatehood in Israel. The Church’s moral right tomake such interpretations was challenged byJewish communal leaders, who also questionedthe accuracy of its specific claims. The originalversion of the report also included offensivelanguage that made pejorative comparisonsbetween Judaism and Christianity.After a meeting between the Church ofScotland, the Scottish Council of JewishCommunities (ScoJec) and the Board ofDeputies of British Jews, a revised versionof the report was issued that omitted someof the more offensive sections and includeda recognition of Israel’s right to exist and acondemnation of terrorism. The new reportalso committed the Church to ongoingdialogue with the Jewish community.The original report used New Testamentsources to undermine or reject Jewishtheological understandings of Israel. Forexample:“There has been a widespread assumptionby many Christians as well as many Jewishpeople that the Bible supports an essentiallyJewish state of Israel. This raises an increasingnumber of difficulties and current Israelipolicies regarding the Palestinians havesharpened this questioning.“This assumption of biblical support isbased on views of promises about land inthe Hebrew Bible. These views are disputed.The guidance in the Bible, notably theinterpretation in the New Testament, providesmore help in responding to questions aboutland and covenant.[...]“Jesus offered a radical critique of Jewishspecialness and exclusivism, but the peopleof Nazareth were not ready for it...Jesus’cleansing of the Temple means not just thatthe Temple needs to be reformed, but that theTemple is finished.[...]“If Jesus is indeed the Yes to all God’spromises the promise to Abraham about landis fulfilled through the impact of Jesus, notby restoration of land to the Jewish people.Jesus gave a new direction and message forthe people of God, one which did not featurea special area of land for them.”A particularly troubling section was basedon the writings of an American writer calledMark Braverman, in which the “particularexclusivism” of Judaism was contrastedunfavourably with “the universalist, inclusivedimension” of Christianity. The idea that Jewsare exclusive and feel superior is a commontrope of classical antisemitism:

Antisemitic Discourse Report 201327“Braverman is adamant that Christiansmust not sacrifice the universalist, inclusivedimension of Christianity and revert to theparticular exclusivism of the Jewish faithbecause we feel guilty about the Holocaust.He is equally clear that the Jewish peoplehave to repent of the ethnic cleansing ofthe Palestinians between 1947 and 1949.They must be challenged, too, to stopthinking of themselves as victims and special,and recognise that the present immoral,unjust treatment of Palestinian people isunsustainable.“Braverman challenges, too, what he calls‘revisionist Christian theology’, more widelyknown as Western post-Holocaust theology,i.e. theology which takes away Jesus’ radicalcritique of Jewish theology and practice inorder to provide no excuse for Christian anti-Semitism. In this approach, he claims, theJewish people are and remain God’s chosen.This gives them the right to land, to triumphover enemies and a sense of specialness.Other people’s part in this is limited to beingpushed aside to make way for occupation,being agents of God’s punishment of theJews for their disobedience and witnessingto God’s glory through Jewish survival andprosperity.“As long as Zionists think that Jewish peopleare serving God’s special purpose andthat abuses by the state of Israel, howeverwrong and regrettable, don’t invalidatethe Zionist project, they will believethemselves more entitled to the land than thePalestinian people. A final difficulty is Jewish‘exceptionalism’...”The report also claimed, falsely, that “Thevisionary geographic concept Eretz YisraelHa’Shlema (from the Nile to the Euphrates)was fundamental to [David] Ben-Gurion’sideology.” 36ScoJec issued a statement that condemnedthis report in unusually strong terms:“The document from the Church and SocietyCouncil on The Inheritance of Abraham? is anoutrage to everything that interfaith dialoguestands for. It reads like an Inquisition-erapolemic against Jews and Judaism. It isbiased, weak on sources, and contradictory.The picture it paints of both Judaismand Israel is barely even a caricature. Thearrogance of telling the Jewish people how tointerpret Jewish texts and Jewish theology isbreathtaking.” 44ScoJec also complained that the report hadbeen produced without any prior dialoguewith the Jewish community. Another meetingbetween the Church, ScoJec and the Boardof Deputies was facilitated by the Council ofChristians and Jews. Following this meeting,the Church withdrew the report and issueda revised version for consideration by itsGeneral Assembly. All of the extracts from thereport that are highlighted above were eitherremoved or heavily amended. The new reportalso included an admission of the hurt causedby the original version:“Since the publication of the GeneralAssembly reports in April 2013, the Churchand Society Council’s report The Inheritanceof Abraham? A report on the ‘promisedland’ has been the subject of internationalcontroversy. Whilst no stranger to controversy,working as we do on difficult issues at theinterface of religion and politics, we havebecome aware that some of the language43. http://www.scojec.org/news/2013/13v_cos/inheritance_of_abraham-original.pdf44. http://www.scojec.org/news/2013/13v_cos/cos.html

28 Antisemitic Discourse Report 2013used in the report used to describe attitudesand beliefs held by some members of theChristian and Jewish communities havecaused worry and concern in parts of theJewish Community in Israel and beyond. Thiswas never our intention. We can be robust inputting our point across, but in this instancewe acknowledge that some of the words wehave chosen may have been misunderstood,which created an anxiety in the JewishCommunity. It is in this light that we are happyto offer this clarification.“The Church and Society Council welcomesdialogue with Scotland’s and Britain’sJewish community for whom the land ofIsrael is understandably special and maybe considered part of their self-identity.Talking has helped increase both our faiths’understanding, and has underlined theimportance for continued dialogue. This isnot about Christianity taking one side andJudaism the other. Both our faiths have awidespread and diverse membership, with awide range of views on theological as well aspolitical matters. What can bring us togetheris our commitment to understanding andengagement, and our willingness to worktogether, and to keep on talking.” 45However, ScoJec noted while some of thelanguage in the report had changed, itretained its underlying anti-Zionist message:“…we continue to have very grave concernsabout the lack of balance in the document’sapproach to the Middle East conflict, evenin its revised form. Although most of theexcesses of language in the original reporthave been modified, the unacceptableunderlying message remains unaltered.[...]“We also regret that the Church and SocietyCouncil has given no thought to the impactof its document on Jewish people here inScotland...the undisputed increase ofanti-zionist activity in Scotland adverselyaffects their lives as Jews in Scotland, andmakes them feel uncomfortable, alienated,and unsafe. We are therefore saddened thatthe Church has not seen fit to meet us todiscuss how they could contribute to betterrelations between communities in Scotland,but instead has issued a document thatcontributes to that climate.” 46ScoJec welcomed parts of the revised report,in particular that:45. http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/14050/the_Inheritance_of_Abraham.pdf46. http://www.scojec.org/news/2013/13v_cos/cos_3.html“The new document confirms a number ofviews that the Church has assured us alwaysformed part of its policy. These include theright of the State of Israel to exist in peaceand security, and condemnation of all acts ofterrorism, violence, and intimidation...Thereis also the addition of a direct repudiation ofclaims that one faith should consider itself tohave superseded another. And critically, thereis a commitment to ongoing dialogue in theamended Deliverance.”

Antisemitic Discourse Report 201329CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT ZIONISTSAND JEWSTHE YEAR 2013 saw political activists from different backgrounds articulate antisemitic conspiracytheories, sometimes using the word ‘Zionist’ instead of ‘Jewish’. British National Party (BNP)chairman Nick Griffin MEP, former BBC correspondent Tim Llewellyn and Iranian Press TV offerthree different examples that illustrate this use of conspiratorial language.Nick Griffin’s “Zionist gangsters”In October 2013, Nick Griffin (who has sincestepped down as BNP chairman) gave aspeech in the European Parliament in whichhe referred to “the attempted murder ofGolden Dawn [a Greek far right party] at thebehest of EU bureaucrats, German bankersand Zionist gangsters.” 47Griffin used “Zionist” on several otheroccasions in 2013 to describe what heperceived to be conspiracies, either againstthe BNP or for war in Syria. For example,he described the far right street movementthe English Defence League (EDL) as “aZionist/neo-con franchise operation” 48 andhe tweeted that former EDL leader andpolitical rival Tommy Robinson was “owned byZionists right from start.” 49 He also dismissedreports that the Syrian Government had usedchemical weapons as “neo-con/Zionist warpropaganda.” 50In November, Griffin visited Poland wherehe spoke at a rally of the far right NarodoweOdrodzenie Polski (National Rebirth of Poland,NOP). Griffin’s speech included this claim that“Powerful Zionists want to destroy us”:“Poles who go to England see that it isdominated by immigrants. It’s the same inFrance and Germany. This is a deliberateattempt to control Europe. Powerful Zionistswant to destroy us. We, the nationalists, muststand together to fight for a white, nationalistand radical Europe.” 51Tim Llewellyn’s “Jewish lobby”Former BBC Middle East correspondentTim Llewellyn insisted to a pro-Palestinianmeeting in London that “Jewish” was amore appropriate adjective than “Zionist” todescribe the “lobby” that is out to “get you”.He was speaking at the book launch ofMemo to the Editor, a collection of letterswritten by Ibrahim Hewitt, the senior editorof the pro-Islamist website Middle EastMonitor. The meeting was titled “Critiquingthe media’s approach to the Israel-Palestineconflict” and was held at the Frontline Clubin London. Joining Hewitt and Llewellynon the panel was David Hearst, then of theGuardian, and the debate was chaired byMark McDonald of Labour Friends of Palestineand the Middle East.During the debate, Hewitt asked Hearst why“most editors wilt under pressure”. He went on:“Is it because, I can see it in the BBC, they’refright— you know, these people are quiteaggressive, right. The Jewish lobby is notmuch fun. They come at you from everydirection.”Hewitt interrupted to say, “No, it’s a pro-Israellobby”. McDonald then also stated:“I mean that’s a very important thing to say,that it’s not a Jewish lobby. Can I interrupt asecond. It’s not a Jewish lobby. It might be aZionist lobby. It might be a pro-Israel lobby.”47. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xnhub-STkUY48. http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/warmongers-andtheir-puppetsjust-who-keepingedlbfp-life-supportmachine49. https://twitter.com/nickjgriffinbnp/status/38793939394180300850. https://twitter.com/nickjgriffinbnp/status/37047823266535424051. http://www.krakowpost.com/article/7244

30 Antisemitic Discourse Report 2013Llewellyn replied:“Yes, but they use the Jewish connection toget you.”McDonald half agreed:“Yes, but it’s not necessarily a Jewish lobby...”Hewitt and McDonald appeared to suggestthat “pro-Israel lobby” or “Zionist lobby”are not antisemitic phrases and thereforerefer to fundamentally different notions thanthe idea of a “Jewish lobby”. However, whileLlewellyn was willing to concede the point onthe use of appropriate language, he insistedthat his central point remained valid. He alsocontrasted “friends of Israel” with supportersof Palestine, who are “all British”:“Alright, it’s an Israeli lobby. Oh, it’s friends ofIsrael let’s say. Let’s not be too polite aboutthem, because they’re not very polite aboutus. But why are we afraid of them? That’s whatI don’t understand. You know, I mean, I’m –we’re all British.”Later in the meeting, Llewellyn returned tothis question of correct language:“We talk about the Jewish lobby, the Israelilobby, the friends of Israel. There is thispeople like us thing...”behaviour of supporters of Israel to what sheviewed as intrinsic Jewish traits:“AIPAC, America’s Jewish Israeli lobby, theyare soooo [sic] well organised. And we’re toonice. Whether we’re the Palestinians, or theBritish, we are awfully nice, we as you say, gomake a cup of tea. They don’t make cups oftea...they are desperately tough...Moses saidthat they were a hard-necked people. Theyare. And they are so well organised...” 52Iran’s Press TV: “Zionist Jews” behindAmerica’s “misery”The Iranian state-run TV station Press TVcontinued to publish antisemitic materialon its English-language website. The mostegregious example was an article about“American Zionists’ control of the UnitedStates of America”, that blamed “ZionistJews” for “every misery” in America. WhereasNick Griffin spoke solely of “Zionists”, and TimLlewellyn spoke of a “Jewish lobby” beforebeing instructed to change his language to“Zionist” or “pro-Israeli” lobby, this articleused both “Zionist” and “Jewish”,sometimes together.Written by M.I. Bhat, the article was originallypublished on the American website VeteransToday. 53 The Press TV version was illustratedby a picture of a Nazi flag with a Star of Davidin place of the swastika.52. http://www.frontlineclub.com/critiquing-themedias-approachto-the-israelpalestine-conflict/53. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/11/07/are-the-americanjews-incubatinganother-hitler/comment-page-1/“The BBC is pressured because it’s partof a Governmental system. There’s noquestion about the friends of Israel arebig in each three political parties”.During the question and answersession at the end of the debate, oneaudience member reflected Llewellyn’scontrasting of “friends of Israel” with“British” people, and related the

Antisemitic Discourse Report 201331It included the following antisemiticconspiracy allegations:“A lot has been said and written on theAmerican Zionists’ control of the UnitedStates of America – banks, Wall Street, media,Hollywood, markets, politicians, foreign policy,indeed the whole life of Americans.[...]“Who in the world doesn’t know AmericanCongress and Senate, Governors and evenCity Mayors, are totally and abjectly soldout, body and soul, to the American Zionists’dollars much before they come to occupytheir exalted office positions. It is no more a‘conspiracy theory.’ Here we have the highestpolitical office not just confirming it butpractically demonstrating and openly beatingdrums about it globally. And in the processalso confirming hordes of Americans who havewritten yottabytes on the subject. America isenslaved by Israel.“Blogosphere is drowned in the anguishand wails of the concerned Americans aboutthe present state of their country – lootingof ordinary families by American Zionistbanksters, homelessness, job losses andfalling wages, rising unemployment andpoverty, drug addiction, sexual promiscuityand pornography, suicides, daily shootoutsand murders, broken political structureso typically demonstrated by the recentGovernment shutdown, spying of and hatedalike by friends and foes. A disgraceful picturefrom Government to an ordinary citizen, as ifof a Third World country.“To their every misery Americans traceZionist Jews in America and Israel at the root.They see miniscule population of AmericanZionist Jews determining, dominating, andcontrolling every aspect of their lives – social,moral, political, judicial and economic. Thestats and arguments presented in supportare shockingly very similar to those heard andreported for the post-WWI Germany.” 54[...]“Why doesn’t the White House plead directlywith the people Americans have elected totake political decisions? Wouldn’t that bemore logical and commensurate with theAmerican constitutional requirements?“Well, that could be true in a true democracy.Where democracy itself has been reducedto mere competition in securing Jewishfunding and acceptance by Zionist media,taking constitutional course is way-off anexpectation. As one of the slave pack, Obamaknows who owns the elected and thereforewhere he could get his desired results. So, hebows before the Masters of the United States.[...]Roger Waters’ pig and Baroness DeechMusician Roger Waters used a model of a flyingpig with a Star of David on it during his live showin 2013. Some observers felt that this use of aStar of David was antisemitic and linked it to hisprevious criticisms of Israel. Waters also madea gratuitous reference to the Jewish-soundingmaiden name of one of his critics.Waters has used inflatable flying pigs as aprop in his live stage show for many years.He has also previously used a Star of Davidalongside other religious and corporatesymbols. In 2010, he had been criticised bythe Anti-Defamation League for juxtaposing aStar of David with a dollar sign. 55During his 2013 tour, Waters used a flyingpig that bore a Star of David alongside other54. http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/11/09/333845/americanzionists-incubatingnew-hitler/55. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/rogerwaters-changescontroversial-wallvideo-20101007

32 Antisemitic Discourse Report 2013Roger Waters’ giant inflatable pig, hoistedabove a concert audience, bearing a Starof David alongside corporate and politicalsymbols and slogans.musician, Nigel Kennedy, from a broadcast ofthe annual Proms concerts. The media reportsof this decision included statements byBaroness Ruth Deech, a former BBC governor,criticising Kennedy. 58 Waters’ statementincluded a gratuitous reference to Deech’smaiden name, Fraenkel, that could have beeninterpreted as an attempt to inform readersthat Deech is Jewish. Waters wrote:56. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4409388,00.html57. https://www.facebook.com/notes/roger-watersthe-wall/an-openletter-from-rogerwaters/68803733121072058. http://www.thejc.com/news/uknews/110366/bbccut-kennedy-slurproms-broadcast59. https://www.facebook.com/notes/roger-watersthe-wall/a-notefrom-roger-watersaugust-18-2013/697457193602067#sthash.An0pI81y.dpuf60. http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/pink-floydisrael-boycottletter;http://www.palestinecampaign.org/officialstatement-fromnigel-kennedy-onbbc-censorship/;http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/pink-floyd-starsnew-israel-boycottletter-family-rockand-rollsymbols. This became the subject of anarticle in the Israeli media in July after anIsraeli attending one of Waters’ concerts inBelgium complained about the symbol. 56The pig is considered an unclean animal inJewish dietary law, and past antisemites havesometimes depicted Jews as pigs. In an openletter denying allegations of antisemitism,Waters wrote:“Like it or not, the Star of David representsIsrael and its policies and is legitimately subjectto any and all forms of non violent protest. Topeacefully protest against Israel’s racist domesticand foreign policies is NOT ANTI-SEMITIC.[...]“Also the pig in question represents evil,and more specifically the evil of errantgovernment. We make a gift of this symbolof repression to the audience at the end ofevery show and the people always do the rightthing. They destroy it.” 57The following month, Waters again causedoffence after the BBC decided to editpro-Palestinian comments made by another“Nigel Kennedy the virtuoso British violinistand violist, at The Recent PromenadeConcerts at The Albert Hall in London,mentioned that Israel is apartheid. Nothingunusual there you might think, then oneBaroness Deech, (Nee Fraenkel) disputedthe fact that Israel is an apartheid state andprevailed upon the BBC to censor Kennedy’sperformance by removing his statement.Baroness Deech produced not one shredof evidence to support her claim and yetthe BBC, non political, supposedly, actingsolely on Baroness Deech’s say so, suddenlywent all 1984 on us. Well!! Time to stick myhead above the parapet again, alongside mybrother, Nigel Kennedy, where it belongs.And by the way, Nigel, great respect man.” 59Various pro-Palestinian groups supportedWaters’ statement in different ways. The StopThe War Coalition published the statement onits website, but with the words “Nee Fraenkel”omitted and replaced by “...”. The ElectronicIntifada website published Waters’ statementin full, including the words “Nee Fraenkel”.The Palestine Solidarity Committee releaseda statement supporting Waters and Kennedythat included a link to Waters’ full statement,but did not reproduce the statement itself.Neither Waters, nor any of his supporters,explained the relevance of including oromitting “Nee Fraenkel”. 60In December, Waters gave an interview to

Antisemitic Discourse Report 201333a campaigner for the movement to boycottIsrael in which he compared Israel to NaziGermany and claimed that “the Jewishlobby” is very powerful in America. He alsoused the interview to express his support forboycotting Israel. He said:“I would not have played for the Vichygovernment in occupied France in the SecondWorld War, I would not have played in Berlineither during this time. Many people did,back in the day. There were many people thatpretended that the oppression of the Jewswas not going on. From 1933 until 1946. Sothis is not a new scenario. Except that this timeit’s the Palestinian People being murdered.[...]“The parallels with what went on in the 30’sin Germany are so crushingly obvious that itdoesn’t surprise me that the movement that bothyou and I are involved in is growing every day.[...]“Well, where I live, in the USA, I think, A: theyare frightened and B: I think the propagandamachine that starts in Israeli schools and thatcontinues through all the Netanyahu’s bluster ispoured all over the United States, not just Fox butalso CNN and in fact in all the mainstream media.[...]“This has been a very hard sell particularlywhere I live in the United States of America. TheJewish lobby is extraordinary powerful hereand particularly in the industry that I work in,the music industry and in rock ’n roll as they say.I promise you, naming no names, I’ve spokento people who are terrified that if they standshoulder to shoulder with me they are goingto get f****d. They have said to me ‘aren’t youworried for your life?’ and I go ‘No, I’m not’.” 61Gilad Atzmon and the “Seek SpeakSpread Truth” conferenceGilad Atzmon is an ex-Israeli jazz musicianwho is shunned by most of the pro-Palestinianmovement for making statements theybelieve to be antisemitic. In December,he spoke at a conference in London thatfeatured conspiracy theories from speakersand audience members about “Zionists”,“Freemasons”, “the Illuminati” and others.Atzmon used his speech to explain why heis opposed to “Jewishness”, and also why herefuses to say “Zionist” instead of “Jew”.Atzmon said early in his speech that “I’mnot antisemitic, I’m just anti-Jewish”. Heexplained that people had tried to persuadehim to say “Zionist” instead of “Jew” but thathe refuses to do so. His speech included thefollowing extracts:“[I am] an opponent of Jewish power...”“...we are dealing with Jewish power...”“I actually don’t like to talk about Jews. I neverspeak about Jews. I speak about Jewishness.I speak about the ideology...I also realise thatthe Jew, the Jews, what is the Jew? The Jewis actually, this is a joke yes...[Atzmon fakes adrum roll]...the Jew is the character. No sorry,the Jews, who are the Jews? The Jews are thepeople who give a bad name to the Jew.”“...even the Palestinians are so Judefied thatthey themselves cannot contemplate freelyabout their situation.”“Atheist Jews...they hate the rabbis, theyhate the synagogues, but they always endup burning churches. They never burnsynagogues.”61. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/06/an-interview-withpink-floyds-rogerwaters/

34 Antisemitic Discourse Report 2013Tahra Ahmed, the organiser of the ‘“Seek Speak Spread Truth” conference, commentson Facebook that Gilad Atzmon’s speech “really went for the jugular of Jewish power”.One of the other speakersat the conference wasan American calledLes Visible. His speechincluded a referenceto Israel as “A crimesyndicate masqueradingas a nation” and the claimthat “tribe members” were behind atheism,Zionism and other social movements:“... a particular group of people. A crimesyndicate masquerading as a nation overin the Middle East. They put it together asa country so they could have a sovereignautonomy in a location to commit internationalcrime. This is what they do. [applause][...]“Atheism is the product of the same peoplewho brought you Zionism. Go into who isrunning the show and you’ll see, ho, ho, ho,all tribe members. Go to every alternativesexual organisation, they’re almost exclusivelytribe members. And why...this ain’t accidental,they’re doing this on purpose...” 62ANTISEMITISM IN FOOTBALL:the Y-word and the quenelleTHE YEAR 2013 saw the issue of antisemitism in football repeatedly discussed in the national media.This included the use of the ‘Y-word’ by supporters of Tottenham Hotspur, and the deployment ofantisemitic insults towards Spurs by rival fans. The issue of antisemitism was also raised after theWest Bromwich Albion footballer Nicolas Anelka celebrated a goal by performing the ‘quenelle’, agesture popularised by antisemitic French comedian and agitator Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala.62. http://blog.thecst.org.uk/?p=4631; http://blog.thecst.org.uk/?p=460863. http://blog.thecst.org.uk/?p=4294IN MAY, Spurs played Chelsea in a PremierLeague match. One fan tweeted on socialmedia that he heard Chelsea fans singingthe chant “Adolf Hitler, he’s coming for you”.Another fan tweeted that he heard the chant“Spurs are on their way to Auschwitz”.While these Spurs fans used social media tohighlight antisemitism, other fans use it toexpress antisemitism directly. Antisemitictweets during and following this particularmatch included the following:“In our club we have problem, and thatproblem is the Jew. He takes all Jenkinsmoney, he only score 1 goal. THROWSHECHTER DOWN THE WELL”“BIGGEST JEW C**TS IN ENGLAND, YOUKNOW WHAT YOU ARE”“Fucking Jew c**ts costing me 20 quid p***ks”“Takes off Oscar and puts on a f*****g Jew.”(This is a reference to then-Chelsea player

Antisemitic Discourse Report 201335Yossi Benayoun, who is Israeli.)“We’ll be running round Tottenham withare [sic] willies hanging out Singing I’ve gotforeskin haven’t you F*****G JEW” 63In September, the Football Associationannounced that Spurs fans would be arrestedfor using the ‘Y-word’, which fans claim to useas a badge of honour for the club. Some fanswere subsequently arrested but the chargeswere dropped. CST issued a statement thatdid not support arrests, but that did call forSpurs fans to stop using the word:“CST and our partners at Maccabi GBhave never stated that Spurs fans shouldbe criminalised or given banning ordersfor using the Y-word. We have consistentlysaid that Spurs fans’ use of the Y-worddoes not remotely compare with, nor in anyway legitimise, the vile and unacceptableantisemitic abuse that is all too often heardfrom opposing fans.“Nevertheless, although the way that Spursfans usually use the Y-word does not justifyprosecution, it remains an offensive word thatcan upset many Jews both inside and outsidethe football context. Ultimately, riddingfootball of antisemitism needs to involveSpurs fans voluntarily dropping the Y-wordfrom their songbook.” 64of antisemitism by French courts on severaloccasions. In France, the gesture was thefocus of a social media craze in 2013, wherebypeople perform the quenelle in locationsthat would be offensive to Jews. This hasincluded people performing the quenelle atAuschwitz; at the Western Wall in Jerusalem;at the Holocaust memorial in Berlin; outsidesynagogues and Jewish shops; and evenoutside the Ozar Hatorah school in Toulouse,where French jihadist Mohammed Merah shotdead three children and a teacher in 2012.Anelka denied that his quenelle wasantisemitic and said that it was “just aspecial dedication to my comedian friendDieudonné.” The match was broadcast live inFrance and the French Sports Minister ValerieFourneyron tweeted that “Anelka’s gesture isa shocking provocation, disgusting. There’s noplace for anti-Semitism on the football field.” 65CST and others called for the FA to investigateAnelka for a breach of their disciplinary code.They did so, and in February 2014, Anelka wasbanned for five matches and fined £80,000.A supporter of Dieudonné M’Bala M’Balaperforms a quenelle salute outside the OzarHatorah school in Toulouse, where Frenchjihadist Mohammed Merah shot dead threechildren and a teacher in March 2012.In December, Nicolas Anelka performed aquenelle salute after scoring a goal for WestBromwich Albion. The quenelle involvespointing one arm straight down with handextended, while placing the other handacross the body and onto the upper armthat is extended. It was popularised, andquite possibly invented, by DieudonnéM’Bala M’Bala, a French comedian-cumpoliticalactivist who has been found guilty64. http://blog.thecst.org.uk/?p=450065. http://www.france24.com/en/20131229-french-footballernicolas-anelkatrouble-over-antisemitic-gesture-Dieudonne/

CST’S MISSION• To work at all times for the physical protectionand defence of British Jews.• To represent British Jews on issues of racism,antisemitism, extremism, policing and security.• To promote good relations between British Jewsand the rest of British society by working towardsthe elimination of racism, and antisemitism inparticular.• To facilitate Jewish life by protecting Jews fromthe dangers of antisemitism, and antisemiticterrorism in particular.• To help those who are victims of antisemitichatred, harassment or bias.• To promote research into racism, antisemitismand extremism; and to use this research forthe benefit of both the Jewish community andsociety in general.• To speak responsibly at all times, withoutexaggeration or political favour, on antisemitismand associated issues.CST CONTACT DETAILSWEBSITE www.cst.org.ukTWITTER @CST_UKFACEBOOK Community Security TrustLONDON (Head Off ice) 020 8457 9999Emergency (24-hour) 0800 032 3260MANCHESTER (Northern Regional Off ice) 0161 792 6666Emergency (24-hour) 0800 980 0668Published by Community Security Trust. Registered charity in England and Wales (1042391) and Scotland (SC043612).