David Miller, a former Professor of Political Sociology at Bristol University, whose recent Employment Tribunal has brought much comment, believes that Zionism is more powerful than any state in the world: “The sovereignty of every nation in the world is undermined by the Zionist movement’s activities.”
The Zionist movement, he claims, is seeking world domination: “The enemy we face is trying to impose its will all over the world.” There is an ongoing “attempt by the Israelis to impose their will all over the world, and that’s what we should recognise.”
Miller jumps back and forth between references to the Zionist movement, the Israel lobby, and the state of Israel itself. In his eyes, they are all the same thing.
Like the rest of the world, Britain is a target of the Zionist movement: “There has been a long, long history of Zionist attempts to penetrate this country and to take on and colonise parts of the power structure of this country.”
Britain is “in the grip of an assault on its public sphere by the state of Israel and its advocates.” This assault has been successful: “An extraordinary Zionist stranglehold” now exists “at the top of industries and governmental organisations” and “over the top of the music industry.” There are “Zionist entryists and spies at senior levels in every major British institution.”
The Zionist stranglehold has made proper discussion of anti-racism impossible: “Meaningful conversations about anti-Black racism and Islamophobia have been drowned out by a concerted lobbying campaign targeting universities, political parties, the equalities regulator and public institutions all over the country.”
This concerted lobbying campaign is run by Israel: “To be clear, this campaign of censorship, which has attacked British universities, political parties and public institutions, is directed by the State of Israel.”
Israel has also played an influential role in determining the outcome of recent British elections. It has “tried to dictate (!) the outcome of the past two general elections [2017 and 2019], and, by any yardstick, succeeded to a great extent.”
The Zionist movement’s influence “was one of the key reasons why Corbyn was sunk. There was such a lack of understanding of Zionism, of the Zionist movement, of the Israel lobby which goes along with that.”
With Corbyn out of the way, the Zionist movement has now been able to reassert a controlling influence in the Labour Party:
“We are not going to get a proper investigation [into a leaked Labour Party report] by Starmer or Nandy, who have been in receipt of money from the Zionist movement, from Trevor Chinn. A significant element of support [for Starmer] has come from the Zionist movement.”
Miller discovers the corrosive impact of the Zionist movement even in the East London Mosque.
“Israel has sent people in to target that. Interfaith work is a Trojan horse for normalising Zionism in the Muslim community. For example, the East London Mosque unknowingly held a project of making chicken soup with Jewish and Muslim communities coming together.”
The Community Security Trust (CST), which provides training and security for Jewish community organisations, is another front for Israel or the Zionist movement: “The CST exists to run point for a hostile foreign government in the UK… It should be under investigation for its ties with the State of Israel. This is a straightforward story of influence-peddling by a foreign state.”
Enemy
According to Miller, “the Zionist movement, and the Israeli government, are the enemy of the Left, the enemy of world peace, and they must be directly targeted.” Zionism “has no place in any society.” The solution is: “Every single Zionist organisation the world over needs to be ended. Every. Single. One.”
Miller believes that he himself has been targeted by the Zionist movement, as part of its drive to take over British universities: “With the rising popularity and effectiveness of the anti-Semitism smear after the Labour Party’s capitulation to the tactic, Israel’s apologists have been emboldened to intensify their use of it on university campuses. Their campaign of subversion on British campuses [is] on behalf of a violent foreign regime.”
University Jewish Societies (JSocs) are the means through which the broader Zionist movement promotes this campaign of subversion: “The JSocs are all part of the Union of Jewish Students and the UJS is a member of the World Union of Jewish Students, which is a direct member of the World Zionist Organisation.”
JSoc members campaign to “silence critics of Zionism or the State of Israel on British campuses”. They are the pawns of a foreign power: “There is a real question of abuse here — of Jewish students on British campuses being used as political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing.”
The JSoc in Miller’s own (former) workplace was part of this Zionist campaign of subversion: “Bristol’s JSoc, like all JSocs, operates under the auspices of the Union of Jewish Students (UJS), an Israel lobby group… The UJS and Bristol JSoc have consistently attacked me with a campaign of manufactured hysteria for two years, attempting to have me sacked.”
Complaints about Miller lodged by JSoc members were part of “an all-out onslaught by the Israeli government… on the left globally”. They were examples of “the significant number of fraudulent antisemitism complaints which have been all too common in the febrile atmosphere encouraged by supporters of the Israeli state.”
Such complaints were inherently bad-faith allegations: “Israel and its apologists” employ “the time-honoured tactic of smearing any critic of Israel or Zionism as an anti-Semite.”
The purpose of their complaints was: “To give cover to Zionist activists, allowing them to present themselves as part of a benighted ethnic minority facing racism… That’s the point of the anti-Semitism smear tactic, not just an incidental consequence.”
In any case, claimed Miller in an antisemitic tweet which he posted last August, antisemitism no longer really exists today. Accusations of antisemitism must therefore be bogus: “The facts (sic): 1. Jews are not discriminated against. 2. They are over-represented in Europe, North America and Latin America in positions of cultural, economic and political power. 3. They are therefore, in a position to discriminate against actually marginalised groups.”
That tweet cost Miller a lot of support. Individuals and organisations which had previously bought into his claims that he was the heroic victim of a Zionist witch-hunt objected.
“This is straightforward antisemitism,” wrote Owen Jones. “Seems like David Miller has outed himself as an antisemite,” wrote Michael Rosen. The Jewdas organisation asked: “Perhaps the Jews who are overrepresented in mathematics could calculate the ideal representation of Jews in positions of cultural, political and economic power?”
Miller’s claims of a Zionist/Israeli conspiracy to take over the world are 24-carat 21st-century antisemitism: His claims are a revamped version of the world Jewish conspiracy promoted by the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and the Nazis.
Although Miller talks of Zionists rather than Jews, the actors in his imaginary conspiracy are all Jewish: the Jewish national state, Jewish organisations, and Jewish individuals.
Miller endows them with the attributes of Jews in more traditional antisemitic conspiracy theories. They “penetrate” power structures, they run campaigns of “subversion”, they are unpatriotic cosmopolitans, they take orders from a foreign power, they bring down political leaders, they “dictate” the outcome of elections, they are all-powerful, and they use bogus allegations of antisemitism to silence their opponents.
Miller equates Zionism with support (however critical) for, or empathy with, Israel. But well over 90% of Jews see the existence of Israel as part of their identity. By Miller’s logic, therefore, most Jews in the world should be “directly targeted”.
Because “Zionism has no place in society”, Miller advocates an “end [to] every single Zionist organisation the world over”. In practice, this would mean not just the physical destruction of Israel but also the elimination of virtually all Jewish communal organisations on planet earth.
Miller’s global Zionist conspiracy to achieve world domination is simply an invention of his antisemitic imagination. Commenting on an elaborate diagram from Miller of the supposed Zionist penetration of British power structures, Dave Rich (author of Everyday Hate) has written:
“This map is a meaningless mass of names and arrows with no real academic or analytical value. By the time Miller taught it to students in 2019, most of the individuals named on the map had either left their posts or died. The picture of a transnational Jewish or ‘Zionist’ network using finance and lobbying to subvert public life that Miller paints echoes certain facets of antisemitic conspiracism.”
Since his dismissal by Bristol University Miller has found a new platform for his antisemitic conspiracy-mongering.
He now makes regular appearances with ex-MP Chris Williamson on Iran Press TV’s Palestine Declassified programme, correctly described by Jewish News as “a playbook for antisemitic conspiracy theories” and “a horrific show in which every episode contains antisemitic conspiracy theories from first to last.” Iran is a state in which antisemitism has been raised to the level of an official government dogma. Miller would feel at home there.
I’ll discuss the Employment Tribunal in a second article.
The Employment Tribunal
David Miller recently won an Employment Tribunal case against Bristol University. His "victory" was in fact heavily qualified, as we shall see.
In an earlier article I documented Miller's repeated claims that Israel, "Zionists", or Jews have extraordinary and malign power in Britain. Miller began teaching at Bristol University, as a professor, in September 2018Complaints – mainly about a lecture in which he accused the Community Security Trust of promoting Islamophobia – began in March 2019.
These were soon followed by other complaints alleging that Miller used antisemitic language, tropes and conspiracy theories. Two investigations launched by the University into these complaints continued through 2019 and 2020.
Miller was given a clean bill of health in December 2020. But in February 2021 two new investigations were initiated, covering public comments made by Miller earlier that month and in October of the previous year.
Miller had accused Bristol University's student JSoc (Jewish Society) of: making bogus complaints of antisemitism about him; acting as pawns of Israel; engaging in activities which were a threat to Arab and Muslim students; pursuing a campaign of manufactured hysteria; attempting to silence critics of Zionism and Israel; being part of a campaign of censorship directed by Israel which sought to determine what should be taught and who should be employed in universities.
One of the two investigations, concerned with the issue of free speech in an academic context, concluded that Miller had not crossed the line. The second investigation, concerning whether Miller had breached University Codes of Conduct, concluded that there was a case to answer.
Following a disciplinary hearing in September, Miller was sacked for gross misconduct: His public attacks on the University JSoc had breached a plethora of University Codes of Conduct:
“The statements single out students and student societies. You [Miller] connected a properly constituted University of Bristol student society to activities that any reasonable person would object to. The way in which you have expressed your views and the consequences of such expression have led to an adverse impact on those students and the University.”
In October Miller appealed against his dismissal. The appeal was heard in December. All seven grounds of appeal were rejected.
Miller lodged Employment Tribunal (ET) claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and seven other counts. The ET hearing took place in late 2023. It published its judgement in early February 2024.
The ET dismissed most of Miller’s claims.
The February 2021 investigation into his criticisms of the University JSoc did not constitute harassment. Nor did the non-publication of the findings of the 2020 investigation. Nor did the alleged “failure” of the University to defend Miller against accusations of antisemitism.
Comments made by the University to the media once Miller was "in the news" did not constitute direct discrimination. There was no “continuing act” (i.e. pattern) of discrimination from December 2020 onwards. A further claim dating from 2020 (which would otherwise have been upheld) fell as it was out-of-time (i.e. it had been lodged too late).
The ET upheld Miller’s claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, and his claim that the rejection of his appeal against dismissal constituted discrimination. But the upholding of the latter two claims followed automatically from the decision to uphold the claim of unfair dismissal.
Even the finding of unfair dismissal was heavily qualified.
The decision to dismiss was unfair because it was excessive: “It would have been proportionate to issue some disciplinary sanction short of dismissal. … Inadequate attention was given to the possibility of a sanction short of dismissal. … We conclude that a disciplinary warning would have been both fair and proportionate.”
The ET found that Miller contributed to his own dismissal by his own conduct. His public attacks on the University JSoc were “culpable and blameworthy.” He abused the “significant power differential” between himself as a professor and university students.
It had been “inappropriate” for him to have publicly “aimed aggressive discourse at students or student groups.” His conduct “clearly had an impact on not only the University’s reputation but also on sections of both the student and academic body.”
As a consequence, the ET ruled that any damages paid to Miller should be reduced by 50%, in order to reflect the extent to which he contributed to his own dismissal.
The ET also ruled that damages should be reduced by a further 30% on the basis that Miller might well have been fairly sacked later because of an antisemitic tweet of August 2023:
“There is sufficient evidence for us to conclude that there is a realistic chance that the claimant would have been dismissed after these further actions. … We conclude there is a 30% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed two months after the tweets were made in August 2023. “
Miller and his supporters have made much of the fact that the ET found that his dismissal constituted an act of discrimination against a “protected belief” held by Miller. But the ET made it clear that the discriminatory aspect of the dismissal was secondary to its excessive aspect:
“Even if we had not found the dismissal to be direct discrimination, we would have found the dismissal to be unfair … because the actions of the claimant did not amount to gross misconduct and also because inadequate attention was given to the possibility of a sanction short of dismissal.”
A “protected belief” might sound quite grandiose. In fact, the bar set for what counts as such a belief by earlier cases – principally Grainger PLC v Nicholson and Forstater v CHG Europe – is rock-bottom.
According to the latter, only “the kind of belief the expression of which would be akin to Nazism or totalitarianism” should not qualify. Holding a belief deemed not as bad as Nazism is not much to boast about.
And Forstater is problematic anyway.
According to Grainger, a protected belief must be "worthy of respect in a democratic society and not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others". But there are many beliefs which, while not being full-on Nazi, fail to meet those criteria.
In any case, Miller’s protected belief was not the central issue in the ET hearing.
Miller defined his protected belief as: “Political Zionism is inherently racist, imperialistic and colonial, and ought therefore to be opposed.” (In fact, Miller’s attacks on the University JSoc arguably flowed out of a different belief: a world Zionist conspiracy aimed at global domination.)
Bristol University did not argue that Miller’s belief was antisemitic or that, at a minimum, it was based on and incorporated antisemitic tropes: “The respondent [Bristol University] confirmed that its position was that nothing the claimant said or did was antisemitic or in contravention of the Equality Act.”
The University did not even consider Miller’s antisemitic tweet of August 2023 to constitute antisemitism: “The University was also careful to say that it was not alleging that the tweets were antisemitic.”
Miller’s stated belief was therefore never challenged as antisemitic. Even if it had been successfully challenged, it would still, on a strict reading of Forstater, arguably have counted as a protected belief.
Insofar as his protected belief was discussed at the ET hearing, Miller seems to have been given an easy ride.
Miller believes that “every single Zionist organisation the world over needs to be ended.” But his conflicting evidence to the ET went unchallenged: “At no time did the claimant suggest that JSocs or the UJS should be disbanded, or that Zionists should not be free to associate with one another.”
Miller also stated that his belief had “nothing to do with the inherent nature of the state of Israel”, that “it is possible for a non-racist state of Israel to exist”, and that he was not opposed to “the idea of Jewish self-determination or of a preponderantly Jewish state existing in the world.”
Miller’s advocacy of a Jewish state sounds suspiciously like Zionism. It is certainly not something he argues in his chats with ex-MP Chris Williamson and Lowkey on Iran Press TV. And it is certainly not consistent with the theme of his next programme:
“This week’s show is about the possibility of solving the question of Palestine by means of a referendum in which all Palestinians would get a vote. Any such vote would result in a mandate to dissolve the Jewish state.
"The second half deals with what would have to happen afterwards, specifically with those millions of Israeli citizens who played an active part in the genocide. A possible model is the agreement made by the Allies at Yalta in 1945 to institute a process of denazification.”
Bristol University’s tactic at the ET was to sidestep any serious challenge to Miller’s protected belief. Instead, it argued that Miller’s comments in February 2023 had nothing to do with his protected belief. The comments were simply inappropriate and serious enough to merit dismissal.
The ET disagreed. It found that Miller’s comments were an expression of his protected belief. To that extent Miller’s dismissal was “tainted by discrimination”. But the main reason why Miller’s dismissal was unfair had nothing to do with his protected belief.
It was simply a case of the penalty imposed being excessive. But Miller’s own conduct was 50% responsible for his dismissal. And he would probably have been sacked not long afterwards anyway.
Miller and his supporters have put a very different spin on the ET judgement.
They see it as a vindication of their antisemitism-in-the-guise-of antizionism. As a glance of their recent social media output confirms, they have taken the judgement as a green light to be even more deranged in their rabid antizionism than they already were previously.
But the ET judgement leaves one question unanswered.
If the Zionist movement is as powerful as Miller claims – if it exerts “an extraordinary stranglehold” over British society, with ““Zionist entryists and spies at senior levels in every major British institution” – why were the Zionists unable to nobble a lowly Employment Tribunal panel in Bristol? §