There has been an undeniable rise of antisemitism on UK college campuses since the October 7 massacre. The Community Security Trust (CST) recorded a 465% increase in university-related antisemitic incidents during the first half of 2024. This has been driven by anti-Israel student groups and networks that have coordinated campaigns advocating for the divestment of corporations associated with Israel while spreading distortions about the Israel-Palestinian conflict. While these groups claim to support human rights and the well-being of Palestinians, they do not. Instead, they call for the dissolution of the state of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state and bully Jews on university campuses.
The anti-Israel group at my university, UAL SJP, is no different. They recently published a document accusing the university of “erasing Palestinian culture” and enabling racism, alongside a list of outrageous demands that must be followed by the faculty in order to be freed from such accusations. For those unaware of the dishonest tactics utilised by these groups and the reality of the situation in the Middle East, this document might seem somewhat reasonable. However, the concerns raised by this document are merely disguised attempts to pressure the faculty into being complicit in the spread of antisemitism and jeopardising the safety of Jewish students.
The university’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism comes under heavy criticism in the document, where it is portrayed as an oppressive tool that both stifles free speech and undermines race equality. It is also claimed that the IHRA Definition is not representative enough of the Jewish community and that it is ineffective in stifling antisemitism, This is a common distortion, amongst anti-Zionist academics and it couldn’t be further from the truth.
The IHRA Definition is an internationally recognised framework, adopted by over 1100 institutions worldwide, including 43 countries and a significant number of international organisations such as the United Nations and the European Union. It was created in response to the rise of a modern form of Jew-hatred, with input from those who have been subject to the most severe forms of antisemitism, and allows authorities to recognise and prevent anti-Jewish hate speech. It acts as a necessary tool in the commentary of the Israeli government by ensuring that any criticism is legitimate and not hinged on stereotypes or ingrained antisemitism.
The accusation that the IHRA Definition curbs free speech is erroneous, and only exemplifies UAL SJP’s negligence in reading and analysing the Definition. It does not prevent legitimate criticism of Israel but inhibits the use of Israel and the Israeli government’s actions as a vehicle in which Jews can be targeted inadvertently. It simply requires that Israel is held to the same standards as other democratic nations as antisemitism is likely the motivation for unjust criticism of Israel. In 2023, the Taskforce on Antisemitism in Higher Education, led by the Government’s Independent Adviser on Antisemitism, investigated 56 different universities’ experiences with using the IHRA Definition, finding that “none knew of or could provide a single example in which the IHRA definition had in any way restricted freedom of speech or academic research, or where its adoption had chilled academic freedom, research or freedom of expression.”
UAL SJP’s claim that the university’s adoption of the IHRA Definition has undermined race equality is just as false. They reason that its use has inhibited the adoption of other anti-discrimination statements addressing other minorities, and creates a “hierarchy of forms of discrimination.” This argument is also false as the IHRA Definition in no way undermines the efficacy of other anti-racist policies or promotes any other race-based prejudice. Palestinians and their conflict with Israel are not mentioned at all in the text, nor does it promote support of the Israeli government. UAL SJP’s suggestion that antisemitism is “inextricably linked” with other forms of racial prejudice and should therefore be addressed by an “inclusive anti-racist charter” ignores the complex shape-shifting nature of modern antisemitism. The IHRA Definition provides a different approach catered to anti-Jewish hatred, whilst successfully working alongside other anti-racist charters.
UAL SJP also implies that monitoring and preventing antisemitic behaviour is of less importance in comparison with other forms of prejudice. This is quite a dangerous statement to make considering the evident rise in campus antisemitism over the past year. Their demand that the university revoke the IHRA Definition disregards the significance it has in protecting Jewish students.
UAL SJP goes on to claim that “there is no such consensus of support for IHRA within the Jewish community,” despite it being democratically adopted by the Union of Jewish Students who represent the UK’s Jewish student body. Instead, they propose the Jerusalem Declaration definition of Antisemitism which they say is more representative of the Jewish community’s consensus. However, they fail to mention that it was only signed by 350 scholars and has an insignificant fraction of support compared to the IHRA Definition. Unlike the IHRA Definition, the JDA was written up without consulting Jewish community organisations or monitors of antisemitic hate crime which further delegitimises UAL SJP’s claims that this definition is more representative. The SJP perpetuate the same kind of prejudice they claim to be concerned about by silencing Jewish voices and instead, speaking for them.
In addition to this, the JDA has been overwhelmingly criticised by major Jewish organisations for the harm it poses to the Jewish diaspora. Ten out of fifteen of the JDA’s guidelines focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict which completely decenters the issue of antisemitism, reducing it to a political or ideological debate rather than a pervasive form of racism. Another major flaw of the definition is its inability to acknowledge that comparing Israel or Zionists to the Nazis is in fact antisemitic. The JDA’s Section C permits rhetoric like comparing Israel to historical cases of “settler-colonialism or apartheid,” with the note that “even if contentious, it is not antisemitic” to do so. Whilst Nazi comparisons or forms of holocaust inversion are not mentioned explicitly, the phrase “other historical cases” does include them. This could render it inefficient in safeguarding Jewish students, as these kinds of comparisons or forms of holocaust inversion make up a large fraction of modern antisemitic incidents that aren’t properly addressed.
This raises a critical question: why do groups like UAL SJP continue to challenge the IHRA Definition’s efficiency in protecting Jewish communities whilst preserving freedom of speech?
It is evident that the goals of these anti-Israel groups are not to better the lives of Palestinians or protect freedom of speech in academia but rather to ostracise Jewish students and permit antisemitism in the disguised form of political critique. If these individuals actually wanted to act in good faith and voice concerns about the Israeli government, they would be utilising the IHRA Definition to their advantage by ensuring that anything they say cannot be considered hate speech. Instead, they want to get away with spouting Holocaust Inversion and antisemitism.
Finally, UAL SJP’s singling out of the school’s Israeli investments such as Lloyds Banking Group and Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design further reveals their bias and hypocrisy. This call for boycott is in line with Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS), an antisemitic movement that discriminates against Israeli corporations, individual Israelis, and Zionist Jewish students. Its central philosophy denies Israel’s right to exist and condemns the idea of a two-state solution, all while holding Israel to impossible standards and turning a blind eye to other countries with similar or worse human rights issues.
For example, UAL is an academic partner of universities in China despite the fact that the PRC government has been effectively commiting a genocide against the Uyghur Muslim minority for the past decade. Similarly, UAL partners with universities in Australia, which has a long history of denying rights to its indigenous people and has been condemned for their mistreatment by multiple human rights organisations. The SJP’s selective targeting of the only Jewish state is not only hypocritical but is also further evidence of how necessary the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism is in differentiating legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemitic hate speech.
Above all, the SJP’s document demonstrates a troubling entitlement hiding a dangerous truth: the belief that their actions and the policies of UK universities have any kind of impact on a deeply complex conflict in the Middle East obscures the real effect on UK Jewish students and community members. It seems to be forgotten by these groups that a university’s primary role is to create a safe environment for all students rather than influencing international political dynamics.
This article was originally published in JNS.