NUS and the EUMC definition of anti-semitism

Submitted by AWL on 15 April, 2013 - 12:52

At the National Union of Students conference (8-10 April, Sheffield), there was once again a controversy about anti-semitism. This is Workers’ Liberty Students’ response.

In 2007, NUS conference passed policy on anti-racism referencing the definition of anti-semitism produced by the former European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, now called the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (for the definition, see here; for the NUS policy here). NUS policies lapse after three year unless the conference votes to actively renew them; this policy was renewed in 2010 and came up again at this year’s conference (where it was renewed overwhelmingly).

Most of the EUMC definition is uncontroversial. What is controversial on the left, including in the student movement, is the section referring to attitudes to Israel. The policy says:

“Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

“Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

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

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

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

“Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

You might argue about this or that detail or expression, but we think this is basically reasonable.

The definition explicitly does not say that criticism of Israel is necessarily anti-semitic. It says:

“Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-semitic”. (The NUS policy resolves “to ensure the EUMC definition is used to promote and enhance legitimate debate regarding the morality and legitimacy of international conflicts” – a Blairite jargon way of saying: this does not imply the union cannot debate international conflicts, including those involving Israel. And in fact in the last three or four years the NUS leadership has taken a more strongly pro-Palestinian stance than previously.)

To criticise Israel for blockading Gaza, for holding on to the West Bank, for building new settlements there, for building the Separation Wall, for harassing, repressing and killing Palestinians under occupation, for mistreating Arabs and other minorities within Israel – to make any of those criticisms, angrily and stridently, is not anti-semitic.

Nor is it necessarily anti-semitic to argue that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can best be settled by merging the two nations into a single state. “Benign” versions of that argument exist, arguing for voluntary merger. They are highly unrealistic, but not anti-semitic.

The EUMC definition says it is a possible manifestation of anti-semitism to claim that the very existence of “a state of Israel” – however it may be modified, reformed, etc – is in and of itself racist.

To criticise the state of Israel for racist policies and institutions is “similar to [criticisms] levelled against any other country”.

But it is a different thing to say that the very existence of “a state of Israel” – any independent national state for the mainly Hebrew-speaking, mainly Jewish people in historic Palestine – is “racist”. To say that no matter how completely Israel might withdraw from the Occupied Territories, no matter how much it might improve its treatment of minorities, etc, as long as it exists, its very existence will be “racist”.

To say that a one-state solution in Israel-Palestine is necessary because Israelis (unlike other nations) cannot be allowed to have their own state, and that Israel should be forcibly abolished, does at the very least have anti-semitic implications. (And unfortunately the “benign” versions of advocating one state have a tendency to blur in a more “malign” direction.)

We can see why those who want to deny Israelis the right of self-determination and see Israel suppressed would object to the definition. We do not think any socialist who aspires to be a consistent democrat should object, whatever they think the ideal solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is.

Note, too, that the definition does not wildly bandy about “anti-semite” or “anti-semitic”. It says in a fairly measured way that such views could be included among manifestations of anti-semitism.

It may well be the case that defenders of the Israeli government have used the definition to try to stifle criticism. But they tried to stifle criticism before the definition existed too. That cannot be decisive in judging what it says. And, as noted above, NUS has recently moved towards taking a more pro-Palestinian stance.

That is why Workers’ Liberty members and collaborators who were NUS conference delegates voted to renew NUS policy. (We have done the same sort of thing in the trade unions, eg in UCU.)

We understand why some Jewish students feel reluctant to have such debates openly in NUS. That reluctance is understandable given the anti-semitism which does exist in the student movement, on right and left. Nonetheless, we think these issues, like all controversial ones, have to be dealt with and worked out through open discussion and debate.

At this year’s conference, Michael Chessum, a socialist NEC member who we work with closely in the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts, challenged the renewal of NUS’s policy. He stated (genuinely) that he did not know where he stood on the EUMC definition, but thought the issue was too important for the policy to be renewed without debate.

Michael disagrees with us on Israel-Palestine. But he is emphatically not an anti-semite. He is an anti-racist campaigner who has opposed anti-semitism on the left.

We are fighting to convince such comrades, as part of a fight to challenge the whole politics of the student and wider left on these issues. Again, that will be done through discussion, debate and argument.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.