British Landmark Case ~ Rothschild Zionism Is Not Abrahamic Judaism!!

politicalvelcraft.org/2013/04/09/breaking-cnn-goldman-sachs-


British Landmark Case ~ Rothschild Zionism Is Not Abrahamic Judaism!!


In landmark case on Israel and Jewish identity, British tribunal says anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism,

by Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz.


“Memo to British Zionists; being anti-Zionist [is] as human as oxygen:

Witness the debacle within the British Zionist establishment, via www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/british-jewry,
and the increasingly desperate ways that so-called leaders there will
do anything to defend Israeli policies without for a minute actually
considering what the Jewish state has become; a brutish occupier.”

The case involves a suit brought against an academic union by an
Israel-supporting professor who wanted the tribunal to condemn
anti-Israel speech as anti-Semitism because, he claimed, an affinity to
Israel was an intrinsic part of his and others’ Jewish identity.

www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/british-jewry says the ruling that such speech does not constitute anti-Semitism has produced “turmoil” in the ranks of British Jewry.


I particularly like the bit at the end, where the judge told the
plaintiff if he doesn’t want to get his feelings hurt, he should avoid
political debate.

The case was to have been the culmination of 11 years of pro-Israel
activism by [Ronnie] Fraser, a mathematics lecturer who had been
fighting against what he saw as a virulently anti-Israel tide, with a
distinct tinge of anti-Semitism, rising in the union to which he belongs.

Alongside him was Anthony Julius, one of the most prominent Jewish
lawyers in Britain and a tireless opponent of anti-Semitism. Supporting
the two were a cast of witnesses including Jewish and sympathetic
non-Jewish activists, academics and politicians….

The lawsuit was backed both financially and in terms of considerable
research resources by organizations linked to the central British Jewry
leadership forums, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish
Leadership Council.

But beyond the factual disputes in the case, the fundamental basis of the Fraser’s accusations was that Jews possess a strong feeling of affinity toward Israel that is an
intrinsic part of their Jewish identity.

Therefore, he claimed, when an organization to which they belong
constantly attacks Israel in a manner they deem unfair, it constitutes a
direct attack on their identity…

The defendants also had their own Jewish supporters. Fifty Jewish UCU [University and College Union] members signed an open letter praising their union and denying that
there was any sort of institutional anti-Semitism within its ranks.

Julius responded that it was simply a standard anti-Semitic ploy of dividing Jews into good-Jew/bad-Jew categories.

But the well-built and detailed case was shattered by the tribunal’s ruling. The panel, headed by Judge A.M. Snelson, accepted UCU’s version of all the events in question, and
found that most of the claims were no longer valid in any case, due to a
change in the laws.

Beyond that, it fundamentally disagreed with the central claim underpinning the complaints. The
tribunal wrote in its judgment that:“a belief in the Zionist project
or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment cannot amount to a
protected characteristic. It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness.”

And while many Jews would agree with that ruling, the tribunal did not stop there. At the end of its
45-page ruling, it launched into an extraordinarily hostile invective
against the very nature of the case brought before it.

Though the panel was generally sympathetic to Fraser himself, it
stated that as an activist “he must accept his fair share of minor
injuries. … A political activist accepts the risk of being offended or
hurt on occasions.”