128 Academics Urge UN Not to Adopt IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism

This is very interesting. Al-Jazeera, the Arab news agency that broke the story about Shai Masot and his attempts to influence the selection of the Tory cabinet years ago to benefit Israel, has reported that a group of 100 scholars have written to the UN urging it to reject the definition of anti-Semitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The report begins

‘More than 100 scholars have urged the United Nations not to adopt the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism due to its “divisive and polarising” effect.

In a statement published on Thursday, the 128 scholars, who include leading Jewish academics at Israeli, European, British and American universities, said the definition has been “hijacked” to protect the Israeli government from international criticism.

They also called on the UN to instead rely on universal human rights instruments and different resources, such as the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism.

“Let us be clear: We wholeheartedly welcome the commitment of the UN to fight anti-Semitism and commend the UN for its vital efforts in this regard,” the statement said.

“What we object to and strongly warn against is that the UN would jeopardise this essential fight and harm its universal mission to promote human rights by endorsing a politicised definition that is instrumentalised to deter free speech and to shield the Israeli government from accountability for its actions.”’

Precisely. Kenneth Stern, one of the scholars who drew up the definition, and a Zionist himself, has testified that it is being misused to stifle debate and reasonable criticism of Israel. That’s why the self-appointed leaders of the British Jewish establishment, the Jewish Chronicle, the Chief Rabbis and the Board of Deputies of British Jews went absolutely berserk at the Labour party under Corbyn’s leadership a few years ago. Corbyn had committed the unconscionable crime of being pro-Palestinian and the Labour party had not adopted the I.H.R.A. definition, and so they went frantic with the rest of the British media and political establishment painting him as something he most definitely wasn’t: anti-Semitic.

In fact, a range of Jewish academics and legal experts, including a former Scottish appeal court judge, have condemned the I.H.R.A. definition of anti-Semitism. A far better definition of anti-Semitism is that used by the League of Anti-Semites, the late 19th century German hate group that coined the term: hatred of Jews as Jews, regardless of religion or any other dimension.

But the article is also interesting because it contains this photo by Reuters’ Henry Nicholls of a Jewish protester outside a meeting of Labour’s NEC. I didn’t see this on the news, and I bet you didn’t either. Corbyn had a great deal of support amongst the Jewish community, brave people who have been especially vilified in the most disgusting terms by the zealous defenders of Zionism.

For further information, go to



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

11 Responses to “128 Academics Urge UN Not to Adopt IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism”

  1. Mark Pattie Says:

    Slightly off topic, but Netanyahu has appointed the Fascist loon Ben Gvir as his “kingmaker”- i.e. what Cummings was to Johnson. This Ben Gvir chap’s views were *too extreme for the IDF* for goodness’ sake!

    • beastrabban Says:

      I noticed that. The Beeb report even described him as ‘far right’, which is as close as you can get to describing him as what he is – a fascist – without people screaming that you’ve broken the I.H.R.A. rules on anti-Semitism.

  2. Brian Burden Says:

    It’s reported that Israeli money went into Starmer’s leadership camapign…

    • beastrabban Says:

      I honestly don’t doubt it. I think some of it also came from Trevor Chinn, a Zionist Jewish businessman. Blair got a lot of Zionist Jewish money after attending a gathering at the Israeli embassy through Lord Levi.

  3. trev Says:

    This is what people on the Left have been saying all along, and been condemned as anti-Semitic for saying it! Corbyn proved right yet again.

    • Brian Burden Says:

      Did Corbyn finally allow himself to be browbeaten into incorporating the IHRA definition into the Labour party constitution? I remember the Mirror urging him to do so.

      • beastrabban Says:

        I think he was. He first adopted the I.H.R.A. definition itself but didn’t adopt the various examples. This didn’t stop all the screams of anti-Semitism, so he ended up adopting them too. Pity, because his initial stance was absolutely correct, as Trev says.

      • trev Says:

        I thought Corbyn was against it but Starmer was eager to comply.

      • Brian Burden Says:

        To Beastrabban: Yes, that’s how I remember it. To Trev: The kindest thing one can say about Starmer is that he is a realist who prefers to have Israel inside the tent pissing out, even if it means sacrificing anti-zionist Jewish members in the process.

      • trev Says:

        Yes but the trouble with that is Labour being controlled by Right-wingers such as the JLM (as well as supporting the often brutal and illegal actions of the Israeli state).

      • Brian Burden Says:

        I agree entirely!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: