JOURNALfor the STUDYof ANTISEMITISM

The UK’s University and College Union (UCU) decided this weekend to
immunize itself against anybody who might claim that antisemitism can
come in a form that looks like criticism of Israel. It did this by rejecting and
denouncing the EUMC working definition of antisemitism. There was only
one Jewish person at UCU willing or to speak against this stance, and it
was met with stony silence.
I, a Jewish member of this union, am telling you that I feel an antisemitic
mood in this union and even in this room. I would feel your refusal to
engage with the EUMC definition of antisemitism, if you pass this motion,
as a racist act. Many Jews have resigned from this union, citing their experience
of antisemitism. Only yesterday a delegate here said: “They are an
expansionist people.” It is difficult to think that the people in question are
anything other than the Jews. You may disagree with me. You may disagree
with all the other Jewish members who have said similar things. You may
think we are mistaken. But you have a duty to listen seriously. Instead of
being listened to, I am routinely told that anyone who raises the issue of
antisemitism is doing so in bad faith. Congress, imagine how it feels when
you say that you are experiencing racism, and your union responds: “Stop
lying, stop trying to play the antisemitism card.” You, a group of mainly
white, non-Jewish trade unionists, do not have the right to tell me, a Jew,
what feels like antisemitism and what does not. Macpherson tells us that
when somebody says they have been a victim of racism, then institutions
should begin by believing them. This motion mandates the union to do the
opposite. Until this union takes complaints of antisemitism seriously, the
UCU will continue to be labeled as an institutionally antisemitic organization.
It’s true that anti-Zionist Jews may perceive things differently. But the
overwhelming majority of Jews feel that there is something wrong in this
union. They understand that it is legitimate to criticize Israel in a way that
is, quoting from the definition, “similar to that leveled to any other country,”
but they make a distinction between criticism and the kind of demonization
that is considered acceptable in this union.
—Ronnie Fraser, UCU Congress, Harrogate, UK, May 29, 2011
Religions are based on scripture, which is mostly poetry. So it only makes sense
that religious conflict must be resolved through poetry, and not through politics,
negotiation, or war. I propose that all religious conflicts be redefined poetically, so
that they can be resolved without bloodshed, winners, or losers. So let’s sharpen
our pencils, not our swords; send missives, not missiles; and apply our minds not to
pomposity, animosity, ferocity, atrocity, or monstrosity but to metaphor, simile,
rhyme, meter, and prosody.
—Hugh Mann
319