The London Declaration on Anti-Semitism
by Martin Webster
“On returning home from a holiday in Tunisia I was grateful to receive from various correspondents information concerning the terms of the London Declaration on Anti-Semitism promulgated (in 2009) by Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism.
Attention to this astounding and, thus far, little-publicised document was first paid by Stuart Littlewood in the 2nd June issue of Palestine Chronicle. His analysis was quickly picked up by the “ex-Israeli”, “ex-Jew” and “pround self-hating Jew” Gilad Atzmon.
These postings prompted me to get the full text of the Declaration and I paste it below together with Littlewood’s and Atzmon’s commentaries.
Sinister though the terms of the Declaration are, they are nothing new. Zionist-Jewry’s various lobby groups have been striving world-wide for decades — some say for centuries or millennia — to create in every land an exceptional legal / cultural / political status for Jews which puts them above criticism and which renders any criticism of them, or their creations such as Israel, a criminal offence.
This campaign re-surfaced in modern times in the UK with the publication and circulation by the Board of Deputies of British Jews in the early 1950s of The Group Libel Bill. That became the inspiration for the Race Relations Act, which now amends the Public Order Act. Each revision of the R.R. Act has been drafted by the Board of Deputies.
During the 1970s/1980s, the Board acted in liaison with top civil servants such as the Home Office senior advisor on race relations matters Neville Nagler who, upon his retirement from ‘government service’ was appointed Executive Director of — yes! — the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
The Board has been pursuing this agenda recently not only via the criminal law, but also via civil litigation. Recently university lecturer Ronnie Fraser, Director of Academic Friends of Israel, sued his trade union, the University and College Union, at an Industrial Tribunal for “anti-semitic harassment” on account of its ‘Boycott Israel’ campaigns. Fraser used the Board’s own lawyer, the hugely expensive Anthony Julius, to mount his action.
Thanks to a sane English judge, the action failed. The Judge described sworn evidence from sundry leading members of the Jewish community as, variously, “untrue”, “preposterous”, “glib” and “playing to the gallery”. He added:
“Lessons should be learned from this sorry saga. We greatly regret that the case was ever brought. At heart, it represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means. It would be very unfortunate if an exercise of this sort were ever repeated… We are also troubled by the implications of the claim. Underlying it we sense a worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.”
For more info on that case, see: ( <http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/104575/anti-israel-union-case-was-act-epic-folly%E2%80%99> and
Meanwhile the Board is backing another case — this time against a Church of England Vicar, the Rev. Stephen Sizer of Virginia Water.
Rev. Sizer is a noted campaigner for justice for the Palestinians and author of a number of books hostile to the ‘Christian Zionist’ position. He runs a widely-read blog on behalf of the ‘Living Stones Network’. His work has had such a global impact over recent years that various Zionist cyberspace ‘attack-dogs’ have been set on him. The vile abusive activities of one such had to be brought to a halt by the Police and a university administrator.
Thereafter, proxies for Board of Deputies initiated a civil litigation against Rev. Sizer using obscure statutes which regulate the Church of England. (The C-of-E, being the ‘Established’ church in this country, has its affairs regulated by Acts of Parliament.) As this case is pending, I cannot comment on it further, other than to state the obvious: that the case is designed to impose such a burden of legal costs on a parish vicar that he is financially ruined and/or forced to abandon his exercise of free speech — and to serve as a warning to others dare to speak out.
The various demands set out in the London Declaration on Anti-Semitism promulgated in 2009 by the ‘Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism’ presage just such persecutory activity, but the document is, as I say, far from a novel or new initiative by organised Jewry.
Gilad Atzmon blog – Wednesday 5th June 1013
London Declaration on Anti-Semitism
– a glimpse into Jewish phobia
Introduction by Gilad Atzmon
Below you will find the London Declaration on Antisemitism followed by a great analytical deconstruction by Stuart Littlewood.
The declaration doesn’t leave much room for doubt, Israel and its Lobby are in a state of panic. The London Statement is a clear attempt to stop discussion on issues to do with Jewish past, the Holocaust, the Jewish State and its Jewish nature.
Interestingly enough, the declaration provides us with an insight into Zionist projection. Far from being a universal statement, the declaration is primarily concerned with anti-Jewish discrimination. The declaration is a brutal and crude attempt to interfere with freedom of expression that is still regarded by some as a precious human value.
The declaration is full with logical flaws. Here is one example. Though Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, the declaration calls to stop those who “target the State of Israel as a Jewish collectivity” (1). I guess that the meaning of it is simple. Israel is happy to define itself as a Jewish State but it doesn’t like to be defined as such by others.
The declaration calls “national governments, parliaments, international institutions… to affirm democratic and human values, build societies based on respect and citizenship and combat any manifestations of antisemitism and discrimination.” I would expect the Israeli Government to follow this call and to make sure that Israel, once and for all, becomes a ‘state of its citizens’ and succumb to principles of ‘human values’ and true democracy, because at the moment Israel is still a ‘Jewish State’ and its legal system discriminates non-Jews.
The declaration is an attempt to seal Jewish past “Governments must challenge any foreign leader, politician or public figure who denies, denigrates or trivialises the Holocaust” (3). It is obviously clear that some Jews don’t like it when gentiles look into their past. But the question is why? Is there something secretive in Jewish past? The declaration also fails to define exactly what denial, denigration or trivialization may entail.
I guess that the desperate appeal to law and international community is taking place now because Israel and its supporters grasp that the tide has changed. -resentment towards Israel and its lobbies cannot be contained anymore.
I guess that Israel and its Lobby better learn to self-reflect rather than attempting to silence criticism.
Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism – downloaded Thursday 6th June 2013
London Declaration [promulgated on 17th February 2009]
The London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism, signed by some of the worlds leading parliamentarians, represents a new era in global cooperation in the fight against antisemitism.
Parliamentarians wishing to sign the declaration should click here: <email@example.com>
The London Declaration
on Combating Antisemitism
We, Representatives of our respective Parliaments from across the world, convening in London for the founding Conference and Summit of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism, draw the democratic world’s attention to the resurgence of antisemitism as a potent force in politics, international affairs and society.
We note the dramatic increase in recorded antisemitic hate crimes and attacks targeting Jewish persons and property, and Jewish religious, educational and communal institutions.
We are alarmed at the resurrection of the old language of prejudice and its modern manifestations in rhetoric and political action -against Jews, Jewish belief and practice and the State of Israel.
We are alarmed by Government-backed antisemitism in general, and state-backed genocidal antisemitism, in particular.
We, as Parliamentarians, affirm our commitment to a comprehensive programme of action to meet this challenge.
We call upon national governments, parliaments, international institutions, political and civic leaders, NGOs, and civil society to affirm democratic and human values, build societies based on respect and citizenship and combat any manifestations of antisemitism and discrimination.
We today in London resolve that;
1. Parliamentarians shall expose, challenge, and isolate political actors who engage in hate against Jews and target the State of Israel as a Jewish collectivity;
2. Parliamentarians should speak out against antisemitism and discrimination directed against any minority, and guard against equivocation, hesitation and justification in the face of expressions of hatred;
3. Governments must challenge any foreign leader, politician or public figure who denies, denigrates or trivialises the Holocaust and must encourage civil society to be vigilant to this phenomenon and to openly condemn it;
4. Parliamentarians should campaign for their Government to uphold international commitments on combating antisemitism -including the OSCE Berlin Declaration and its eight main principles;
5. The UN should reaffirm its call for every member state to commit itself to the principles laid out in the Holocaust Remembrance initiative including specific and targeted policies to eradicate Holocaust denial and trivialisation;
6. Governments and the UN should resolve that never again will the institutions of the international community and the dialogue of nation states be abused to try to establish any legitimacy for antisemitism, including the singling out of Israel for discriminatory treatment in the international arena, and we will never witness – or be party to -another gathering like the United Nations World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and other related Intolerances in Durban in 2001;
7. The OSCE should encourage its member states to fulfil their commitments under the 2004 Berlin Declaration and to fully utilise programmes to combat antisemitism including the Law Enforcement programme LEOP;
8. The European Union, inter-state institutions, multilateral fora and religious communities must make a concerted effort to combat antisemitism and lead their members to adopt proven and best practice methods of countering antisemitism;
9. Leaders of all religious faiths should be called upon to use all the means possible to combat antisemitism and all types of discriminatory hostilities among believers and society at large;
10. The EU Council of Ministers should convene a session on combating antisemitism relying on the outcomes of the London Conference on Combating Antisemitism and using the London Declaration as a basis.
11. Governments should fully reaffirm and actively uphold the Genocide Convention, recognising that where there is incitement to genocide signatories automatically have an obligation to act. This may include sanctions against countries involved in or threatening to commit genocide, referral of the matter to the UN Security Council, or initiation of an interstate complaint at the International Court of Justice;
12. Parliamentarians should legislate effective Hate Crime legislation recognising “hate aggravated crimes” and, where consistent with local legal standards, “incitement to hatred” offences and empower law enforcement agencies to convict;
13. Governments that are signatories to the Hate Speech Protocol of the Council of Europe ‘Convention on Cybercrime’ (and the ‘Additional Protocol to the Convention on cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems’) should enact domestic enabling legislation;
Identifying the threat
14. Parliamentarians should return to their legislature, Parliament or Assembly and establish inquiry scrutiny panels that are tasked with determining the existing nature and state of antisemitism in their countries and developing recommendations for government and civil society action;
15. Parliamentarians should engage with their governments in order to measure the effectiveness of existing policies and mechanisms in place and to recommend proven and best practice methods of countering antisemitism;
16. Governments should ensure they have publicly accessible incident reporting systems, and that statistics collected on antisemitism should be the subject of regular review and action by government and state prosecutors and that an adequate legislative framework is in place to tackle hate crime;
17. Governments must expand the use of the EUMC ‘Working Definition of antisemitism’ to inform policy of national and international organisations and as a basis for training material for use by Criminal Justice Agencies;
18. Police services should record allegations of hate crimes and incidents -including antisemitism -as routine part of reporting crimes;
19. The OSCE should work with member states to seek consistent data collection systems for antisemitism and hate crime.
Education, awareness and training
20. Governments should train Police, prosecutors and judges comprehensively. The training is essential if perpetrators of antisemitic hate crime are to be successfully apprehended, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced. The OSCE’s Law enforcement Programme LEOP is a model initiative consisting of an international cadre of expert police officers training police in several countries;
21. Governments should develop teaching materials on the subjects of the Holocaust, racism, antisemitism and discrimination which are incorporated into the national school curriculum. All teaching materials ought to be based on values of comprehensiveness, inclusiveness, acceptance and respect and should be designed to assist students to recognise and counter antisemitism and all forms of hate speech;
22. The Council of Europe should act efficiently for the full implementation of its ‘Declaration and Programme for Education for Democratic Citizenship based on the Rights and Responsibilities of the Citizens’, adopted on 7 May 1999 in Budapest;
23. Governments should include a comprehensive training programme across the Criminal Justice System using programmes such as the LEOP programme;
24. Education Authorities should ensure that freedom of speech is upheld within the law and to protect students and staff from illegal antisemitic discourse and a hostile environment in whatever form it takes including calls for boycotts.
25. The Criminal Justice System should publicly notify local communities when antisemitic hate crimes are prosecuted by the courts to build community confidence in reporting and pursuing convictions through the Criminal Justice system;
26. Parliamentarians should engage with civil society institutions and leading NGOs to create partnerships that bring about change locally, domestically and globally, and support efforts that encourage Holocaust education, inter-religious dialogue and cultural exchange.
Media and the Internet
27. Governments should acknowledge the challenge and opportunity of the growing new forms of communication;
28. Media Regulatory Bodies should utilise the EUMC ‘Working Definition of antisemitism’ to inform media standards;
29. Governments should take appropriate and necessary action to prevent the broadcast of antisemitic programmes on satellite television channels, and to apply pressure on the host broadcast nation to take action to prevent the transmission of antisemitic programmes;
30. The OSCE should seek ways to coordinate the response of member states to combat the use of the internet to promote incitement to hatred;
31. Law enforcement authorities should use domestic “hate crime”, “incitement to hatred” and other legislation as well as other means to mitigate and, where permissible, to prosecute “Hate on the Internet” where racist and antisemitic content is hosted, published and written;
32. An international task force of Internet specialists comprised of parliamentarians and experts should be established to create common metrics to measure antisemitism and other manifestations of hate online and to develop policy recommendations and practical instruments for Governments and international frameworks to tackle these problems.
Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism
33. Participants will endeavour to maintain contact with fellow delegates through the working group framework, communicating successes or requesting further support where required;
34. Delegates should reconvene for the next ICCA Conference in Canada in 2010, become an active member of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition and promote and prioritise the London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism.
Lancaster House, 17 February 2009
Palestine Chronicle – Tuesday 4th June 2013 – updated Friday 7th June 2013
London Declaration on Anti-Semitism:
Seeking to criminalize criticism of Israel
Criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.
by Stuart Littlewood
Australian federal and state MPs have been indulging in an orgy of anti-anti-Semitism by signing en masse the London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism. Over 100 have put their mark on it.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports ( <http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/australian-mps-pick-up-torch-in-fight-against-global-anti-semitism.premium-1.525198> ) that even more of the nation’s 226 federal parliamentarians in Canberra are expected to sign up, and all 105 federal Liberal MPs and senators have done so.
About 300 other lawmakers from some 60 countries have also signed, according to a spokesperson from the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism. Fifty of these are Canadians, 18 are British, six are Israeli and two are American (what, only two?).
Moreover, last month Australia’s Julia Gillard became the fourth prime minister to sign, after Britain’s Gordon Brown and David Cameron, and Canada’s Stephen Harper, who in 2010 signed the Ottawa Protocol, reaffirming the London Declaration.
The Stooges’ Pledge
So what exactly have they put their names to? The full document can be found here <http://www.antisem.org/london-declaration/> . It seeks to “draw the democratic world’s attention to the resurgence of anti-Semitism as a potent force in politics, international affairs and society”.
The authors of this one-sided treatise (the aforementioned Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism) want their 34 “commandments” enforced by all the big battalions – national governments, parliaments, international institutions, political and civic leaders, non-governmental organizations and civil society.
In the process, of course, efforts to expose the tightening noose of Zionism on those very same areas of politics, international affairs and society, will be stifled.
Commandment no. 1 states that “Parliamentarians shall expose, challenge, and isolate political actors who engage in hate against Jews and target the state of Israel as a Jewish collectivity”.
Oh dear, how confusing. Here I was foolishly thinking the state of Israel was indeed some sort of Jewish collective since its founding document says:
“We, members of the People’s Council, representatives of the Jewish community of Eretz Israel and of the Zionist movement hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel,to be known as the State of Israel. The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles… We appral to the Jewish people throughout the diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding…”
Commandment no. 6 states that “Governments and the UN should resolve that never again will the institutions of the international community and the dialogue of nation states be abused to try to establish any legitimacy for anti-Semitism, including the singling out of Israel for discriminatory treatment in the international arena…”
In other words, mustn’t pick on, criticize or punish Israel for its horrendous crimes. It’s an old tune.
Commandment no. 24 states that “Education authorities should ensure that freedom of speech is upheld within the law and to protect students and staff from illegal anti-Semitic discourse and a hostile environment in whatever form it takes including calls for boycotts”.
But what exactly constitutes “illegal anti-Semitic discourse”? And is this an attempt to make boycotting illegal? Surely, that would be an infringement of personal and civil liberty.
Commandment no. 29 states that “Governments should take appropriate and necessary action to prevent the broadcast of antisemitic programmes on satellite television channels, and to apply pressure on the host broadcast nation to take action to prevent the transmission of antisemitic programmes.”
The heavy hand of state censorship rides again.
“A Flawed Document”
There is good, sensible stuff in the declaration but it is laced with neurotic nonsense. The above are just a few examples. Readers will find more to annoy them when they see the full text, including its hectoring tone, and may feel the whole thing trespasses too far on their personal discretion and good sense.
To their credit two Australian Green MPs, John Kaye and David Shoebridge, have publicly refused to sign the declaration, saying that the document:
“…..wrongly conflates valid criticism of the state of Israel with anti-Semitism” and is “an unacceptable slander on those of us who speak up for the rights of the Palestinians. Criticism of the state of Israel… that is motivated by concern for a people dispossessed of their land, the consequences of a state that is founded on a religion or ethnicity or the actions of a government that ignores UN resolutions, is a valid contribution to public discourse.”
“It is a tragedy that the London Declaration is a flawed document. The fundamental intent – to combat and end irrational hatred against a people – is too important to be subverted by the political objectives of Zionism.”
They further argue:
“When people of goodwill express their opposition to Israeli soldiers routinely humiliating Palestinians at checkpoints, the construction of an apartheid-style segregation wall through the West Bank or the brutal use of Israeli military force against civilians in Gaza, their motivation is not to denigrate the Jewish people but to highlight injustices perpetrated on the Palestinian people.”
Is there a working definition of anti-Semitism? According to the European Forum on anti-Semitism:
“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
“Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective – such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.”
When did fact become myth? Is Jewish ownership of large sections of the media a myth? Is the subservience of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the US government to Israel a myth? Is repeated interference in church affairs by Jewish groups a myth?
“Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.”
Legitimate worries over dual loyalty are here to stay.
There’s more to chew on in this part of the document:
Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism 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 endeavour.
• 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 anti-Semitism (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. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.
Self-determination? The Israelis have denied the Palestinians their right to self-determination for decades and just recently opposed their moves towards statehood. And let’s get this straight: critics require from Israel only the same standards of behaviour expected of other countries, i.e. conformity with international law, proper respect for humanitarian law and acceptable standards of justice. This is core.
Furthermore, the state of Israel is always welcome to demonstrate to the world that it is not a racist endeavour after all.
Wanted: a declaration against irrational hatred of all kinds, not just anti-Semitism
So, are you entirely comfortable with these “commandments”? Would you brandish the blue pencil or eagerly sign up like those fine, thrusting parliamentarians in Australia and Canada – and Brown and Cameron?
What’s the alternative? It seems to me that some Jews would do well to examine their own thoughts and deeds before pleading a special case. Tackling anti-Jewish hatred is a priority but not the only one. Hatred of non-Jews also needs to be curbed, and I’m thinking especially of the Israelis’ Arab neighbours – Christian and Muslim – whose lands, homes and resources they have stolen, whose economy, wellbeing and livelihoods they daily trash, and whose freedom, security and dignity they have long denied. This hatred often spills over into cruelty, murder and other atrocities such as out-and-out military assaults and mass bombing of civilians and infrastructure essential to life.
So here’s a suggestion for the promoters of both documents. Please delete the word “anti-Semitism” from the title and redraft to make it a fair and balanced undertaking against irrational hatred of all kinds.
That, hopefully, would earn universal support. Note the word “earn”. Reasonable, sensible people won’t be pushed and shoved.
It is astonishing how any self-respecting lawmaker could wholeheartedly subscribe to the declaration as it stands.”