Antisemitism v Free Speech Statement
Antisemitism v Free Speech Statement
In the context of the Israel/Palestine conflict there are concerns on free speech v antisemitism which I want to openly address with good intent.
Article updated: Sat 4th May 2024 (Sleekit Scotsman ☮️🏴 articles are updated periodically to add latest information on the subject of the article for relevance)
Synopsis
In the context of the Israel/Palestine conflict there are concerns on free speech v antisemitism which I want to openly address with good intent to share my position on the subject .
As a Scotsman based in Australia I consider myself completely neutral on the subject, examining in a reflective way.
I hope this gives a view on the considered nature of my writing and I appreciate any constructive feedback to refine this.
I talk to:
Definitions of antisemitism - examining the IHRA definition and others and issues with the interpretations including conflating Zionism with Antisemitism
Nelson Mandela’s view on the principle of consistency (which is not applied to Israel)
From the River to the Sea, Intifada - worth examining in their own right, specifically outlining why not antisemitic and subjectively interpreted
Boycott, Diversify, Sanction movement and why this is not antisemitic
Weaponising Antisemitism - Israel in the United Nations University Campuses
Calling out True Antisemitism
Contents
A NON-ANTISEMITIC POSITION AND CONSISTENCY
CRITICISM OF ISRAEL v ANTISEMITISM
FREE SPEECH AND CONSUMER ACTION
A NON-ANTISEMITIC POSITION AND CONSISTENCY
Introduction
I have been writing on this page on Scotland, global current affairs, media bias, animal rights, Aboriginal and global human rights issues.
In the context of the Israel/Palestine conflict there are concerns on free speech v antisemitism which I want to openly address with good intent.
I hope this gives a view on the considered nature of my writing and I appreciate any constructive feedback to refine this.
My position: Antisemitism vs. Justice & Free Speech
Summarised in a few bullets:
🕎❤️ I am not antisemitic
🌎☺️I am pro Human Rights
🇺🇳👩⚖️⚖️ I believe in upholding international law including humanitarian law, maintained by independent institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the various bodies of the United Nations.
🇵🇸🇮🇱 By definition due to documented breaches of international laws and human rights laws by Israel - I am pro-Palestinian rights and hence anti-Israel State policies contributing towards those breaches or perpetuating misrepresentations or continued unfair treatment of Palestinians.
📢✅ This is NOT antisemitic
Nelson Mandela Perspective - Applying consistent principles
Nelson Mandela gave an important speech on an ethical approach to applying consistent principles - that many Governments could learn from in both:
internal politics: favourable treatment of one cause or country over an other
external politics: the selective application of international law
On Mandela’s release from prison in 1990 he visited the US and gave a “Town Hall” style TV interview on ABC News Koppel Report1.
In it he directly addressed the Israel / Palestine conflict, and the assumption that people would join Israel in denouncing Palestine or countries changing their approach when dealing with Israel relative to other countries:
“We have many members of the Jewish community in our organisation and they have occupied very top positions. But that does not mean to say that the enemies of Israel are our enemies. We refuse to take that position.
You can call it being political or a moral question, but for anyone who changes his principles depending on whom he is dealing, that is not a man who can lead a nation”
DEFINITIONS OF ANTISEMITISM
There are various interpretations of antisemitism determined by international Jewish groups. The two definitions below informed the US Government’s inaugural 2020 antisemitism strategy document.
IHRA Working Definition
I acknowledge the 2016 working reference definition of antisemitism maintained by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance - IHRA2.
The IHRA definition is non-legally binding and a reference; many organisations and countries are listed that have "adopted" or "expressed support" for the definition.
To be clear - IHRA definition is a good starting point, but not without its interpretation issues.
Definition Statement:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
There are listed some shocking and indisputable examples of antisemitism such as making negative statements about Jewish people collectively (rather than Israeli State or pro-Israeli State actors), Holocaust denial, drawing comparison with contemporary Israeli State policy to that of the Nazis.
The IHRA definition is a good starting point but I do share concerns that even though the the definition appears to specifically state otherwise ...
"... criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic... "
... there is a common view that IHRA definition in its entirety can still conflate antisemitism with criticism of Israel which is of course not the same thing.
There is more commentary on the issues with the IHRA Definition and impacts on its weaponised use in the next sections.
Nexus: Anti-Zionism v Anti-Semitism
There is some consideration that an anti-Zionist position is anti-semitic.
This is absolutely not the case argued from multiple sources to quote one - the Nexus group which focuses on this particular issue3.
The group, formed of 100 prominent US Jewish leaders from the Israel & Antisemitism Task Force met in 20194 to discuss the intersection between Judaism and Zionism to help clarify the issue - the “Nexus Task Force”.
The result was an advisory paper presented to Joe Biden’s US Administration entitled “Understanding antisemitism at the nexus with Israel and Zionism” which clearly states5:
“criticism of Zionism should NOT be deemed antisemitic”
The President welcomed the document informing the publication of the US’s first formal antisemitism strategy augmenting the IHRA definition.
With the advice of the Nexus Task Force - at its most basic and logical level:
not all Jewish people are Zionists
to collectively make comments about all Jewish people IS antisemitic (IHRA definition)
therefore - taking an anti-Zionist position cannot be antisemtic
During the initial phases of the Gaza crisis and the McCarthyite hysteria in the US over antisemitism - a cynical ploy to entrench Israeli support across Congress and Civil Society - a motion was introduced on the floor of the house on 6 Dec 2023.
This set a dangerous precedent - which although not legally binding - noted anti-Zionism as equivalent to Anti-Semitism amongst other statements. It will shut down free speech and increase the weaponisation of the accusation, potentially impacting some of the themes in this article.
There is a more detailed article on this below, such was the impact:
Congress opportunistically redefining antisemitism (6 Dec):
CRITICISM OF ISRAEL v ANTISEMITISM
Antisemitism v Criticism of Israel State Policies
Clearly - criticism of Israel’s Government policy is NOT antisemitic - unless you are making sweeping statements about Jews in general which is antisemitic.
Choosing to support Palestine - for humanitarian reasons - naturally leads to criticism of Israeli State policy, where it is important to be clear in intent and to apply that criticism as you would other nations (international law).
There are two key definitions of antisemitism from the IHRA and the Nexus Group I will look in the next sections. The below summarises the position that criticising Israeli State Policy - either directly or by supporting the human rights of an oppressed group:
is NOT criticising all people of Israel
is NOT criticising all people of the Jewish faith
Since Israeli State policy clearly does not represent the views of all these individuals. Therefore it absolutely cannot be antisemitic.
2021 joint statement on antisemitism from the Australian Jewish Democratic Society (AJDS) and the APAN - Australia Palestine Advocacy Network
Discussed in more detail here: https://ajds.org.au/antisemitism-3/
Key quotes -
“…Those who are critical of Israeli government policies and actions towards the Palestinians are increasingly accused of being antisemitic – a powerful allegation that oftentimes is used in an attempt to shut down legitimate political discourse. The increased accusations of antisemitism towards supporters of justice for Palestinians amounts to the weaponisation of antisemitism to silence criticism of Israeli government actions and obscures the meaning and reality of antisemitism…”
“…Labelling calls for an end to military occupation, settler colonisation, blockade, annexation, imprisonment of children, and Palestinian self-determination as “antisemitic” is often undertaken in order to silence debate and avoid an honest discussion about the most violent forms of antisemitism in the world today. It serves as an attempt to delegitimise critiques of Israeli government policies by attributing an antisemitic motivation…”
“…The IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism explicitly includes criticism of the policies of the State of Israel with antisemitism and has been effectively deployed in Australia. While we recognise the very important work of this organisation, we reject this simplified conflation of antisemitism with criticism of Israel. Indeed, there are many Jewish institutions and groups, both inside Israel and globally, who are committed to tackling antisemitism and are highly critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, historically and today…”
More specific detail on concerns with the definition and others who have voiced concerns - including the original drafter - here: https://apan.org.au/factsheet-ihra/
The APAN President Nasser Mashni spoke out on antisemitism very specifically in December at a Sydney protest in Hyde Park, Sydney attended by many Jewish protestors.
Geoffrey Robertson AO KC (one of the world's foremost human rights lawyers)
Geoffrey Robertson AO KC Legal Opinion on issues with the UK Government 2016 acceptance of IHRA definition: Read/download here: 🔗👉⬇️ https://prc.org.uk/upload/library/files/Anti-Semitism_Opinion_03.09.18eds.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1JGAkofecdSgKEyTo8OhhantJKJZeGVconpx5V4sIsjJIThZK1s0ZJDF8
Quote from interview by the Australian Palestinian Advocacy Network (APAN) with Geoffrey Robertson6:
WEAPONISING ANTISEMITISM
There are reasons why the definition of antisemitism is deliberately weaponised to Israel’s advantage to the shame of those truly impacted by antisemitism and the memory of the Holocaust.
Some examples below.
European Legal Support Centre - 2023 Reports on IHRA Definition used to suppress freedom of speech in higher eduction and right of assembly
The European Legal Support Centre - an NGO monitoring the legality of free speech on Palestine in the EU - produced two reports on legal violations of free speech and right of assembly, citing generalisations of interpretation of the IHRA definition.
Violating the rights to freedom of expression and assembly
in the European Union and the UK (June 2023)7
Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in UK Higher Education: The Adverse Impact of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism (Sep 2023)8
Both reports look at 96 cases studies between them over a 5 year period between 2017 and 2022 and conclude adoption of the IHRA definition leads to suppression of freedom of speech in its “catch all” phrasing.
This is off the back of an open letter to the UN General Secretary in April 2023 from 104 human rights organisations, raising concerns on the IHRA definition and possible use by the UN making it more difficult to call out human rights violations9.
US COLLEGE CAMPUSES - Weaponising Antisemitism to shut down free speech
With the explosion of pro-Palestinian encampments on US campuses and globally in April 2024 - the largest since Vietnam - there has been UNPRECEDENTED police and national guard action. Brutal suppression of protestors and demonisation.
In addition on 2nd May 2024 - a heavily stacked Congress effectively weaponised the subjective IHRA definition of antisemitism - by FORCING INTO LAW the use of the IHRA definition by University Deans when determining:
if an incident was antisemitic or not
if to grant permission for a protest
if to SHUT DOWN a rally or camp
And if a Dean reports antisemitism - legally protected - and calls in the State Troopers - there’s a greater case by law for violence.
Weaponising antisemitism in its most literal sense…
More in the article below:
Redefining antisemitism to shut down US college protests (see section : “2nd April 2024: Legally imposing IHRA definition of antisemitism on Universities: Shut down freedom of protest”)
Iron Grip: Pro-Israeli Influence in US Politics
🇺🇳 UN: Weaponising Antisemitism
The below made me feel very … no other words … sad and upset.
A shameful incident occurred at the UN on 30 October weaponising both antisemitism and history in the face of criticism of Israel, drawing a direct complaint by the Chairman of the Yad Vashem World Holocaust Remembrance Centre in Jerusalem at the Israeli Ambassador’s behaviour - “this disgraces the victims of the Holocaust as well as the State of Israel”.
The Israeli Ambassador unconscionably walked into the UN Chamber wearing a yellow Star of David pledging to wear the star in the face of perceived bias against Israel until the UN Condemned the Hamas attacks on 7th.
To fully quote the Chairman of Yad Vashem Dani Dayan10:
“This act disgraces the victims of the Holocaust as well as the state of Israel.
The yellow star symbolises the helplessness of the Jewish people and their being at the mercy of others. We now have an independent state and a strong army. We are the masters of our own fate.
Today we will fasten to our lapel a blue and white flag, not a yellow star.”
With the amount of evidence from the UN over a long period of time prior to and now after October 7th11 - it is no wonder Israel at the UN continues to reject all criticism of their actions (spread to international lobbying groups as above EJAC example) calling the treatment biased and singling the country out.
This is clearly not the case looking at the amount of other investigations on the UN Human Rights website (including investigations into Iran, Syria, Ukraine) together with past UN Security Council voted actions most recently in Ukraine, historically in South Africa for example.
Notably the News Corp owned New York Post used the opportunity to post sensationalist pictures of terrible Jewish oppression by Nazis during the war along side an interview with the Israeli Ambassador without once mentioning the Yad Vashem response building an association amongst the readership12.
Also - the Israeli Ambassador then chose to share that New York Post article on his own Facebook feed without any acknowledgement of Yad Vashem13.
Shame on you Ambassador.
More recently - by a prominent pro-Israeli activist - actually producing his own merchandise using the star as a trademarked fashion item disguised as a cynical attempt to “take back” the symbol. Absolutely shameful and I’m sure Yad Vashem would have the same response.
🇺🇳 UN - Call for Free Speech in Response
The UN went as far as to issue a statement on the issues noting the impacts of globally silencing humanitarian voices and that respectful free speech should be allowed14.
“Calls for an end to the violence and attacks in Gaza, or for a humanitarian ceasefire, or criticism of Israeli government’s policies and actions, have in too many contexts been misleadingly equated with support for terrorism or antisemitism. This stifles free expression, including artistic expression, and creates an atmosphere of fear to participate in public life,”
The UN press release acknowledges impacts on the professional welfare of people expressing solidarity with Palestine in the arts & entertainment industry, journalism, college campus students and athletes15.
“…. a highly disturbing trend to criminalise and label pro-Palestinian protests as “hate protests” and to pre-emptively ban them, often citing risks to national security, including risks related to incitement to hatred, without providing evidence-based justification.”
“Such actions not only violate the right to protest guaranteed by Article 21 of the ICCPR16, but are also detrimental to democracy and any peace-building efforts,”
Unprecedented that the UN Human Rights agency should have to defend the global human right to protest without retribution.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND CONSUMER ACTION
In addition to generally shutting down criticism of Israel with a broad accusation of antisemitism - what is agreed is a bad thing - there are some specific examples being targeted (and as at April 2024 in the US attempts to outlaw terms legally after the original time of writing in November/December 2023).
"From the River to The Sea"
Denying the right of the State of Israel to exist in my view is problematic and debatably antisemitic and I was surprised it is expressed implicitly rather than explicitly in the IHRA definition.
However - changing the status quo from the current State of Israel’s policies towards Palestinians and Israeli Arabs for equal freedom - which logically necessitates changes to the way the Israeli State operates - is not antisemitic.
The use of “from the river to the sea” - meaning - as MANY Jewish groups have said never mind global opinion - peace and equality in the Holy Lands.
To quote a speaker at a pro-Palestine rally in Sydney 3 December 2023:
“one day it will be possible for anyone of any religion to drive from Jerusalem to Gaza to have a picnic by the oceans by the rivers, with no special documents, no passports, no permits, no checkpoints, nothing - we will walk in liberation and freedom witnessing a free Palestine”
By example, the collective island of Ireland (Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland - part of the UK) enjoy a peace and freedom of movement whilst remaining separate countries. The Republicans want union long term just as Scottish Nationalists want independence but that’s a separate thing from peace and equality.
Nothing about borders, final state setup, Government etc.
That’s the peaceful dream of “from the river to the sea”.
A Jewish person recently commenting on the Sleekit Scotsman Facebook page agreed the chant is not antisemitic and sent me an amazing brief article from SparkMag Blog which also adds and Israel being free17.
On this note, at a pro-Palestine rally on 10 Dec in Sydney - attended by many Jewish people - the President of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network said:
“Peace and security and freedom exists when we live together as equals. When your foot is on my throat you are not equal - you are trapped as I am trapped.
Let me up and stand next to you as an equal and we will build future together that is beautiful for everyone.” - Nasser Mashni, APAN President, 10 Dec Sydney
Youssef Munayyer, Executive Director of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights wrote in Jewish Currents magazine in 202118:
“what Palestinians are calling for when they use the phrase in question: a state in which Palestinians can live in their homeland as free and equal citizens, neither dominated by others nor dominating them. When we call for a free Palestine from the river to the sea, it is precisely the existing system of domination that we seek to end”
As an example from my own recent experience, at a Sydney pro-Palestinian protest rally on 12th November 2023 as a preamble to the demonstration, the organiser
1. Acknowledged the Gadigal people and that the land was originally stolen from them (with two Aboriginal elder speakers)
2. Specifically positioned the chant "from the river to the sea" as not being antisemitic, and sung in solidarity with Jewish brothers and sisters (many of whom were there #NotInMyName ) - see video here of the organiser talking to the chant, with commentary on the meaning 📺🔗👉https://www.facebook.com/sleekit.scotsman2/videos/935120374994453/
It is important to understand the context in which the chant is used. Not once at these protests did I hear any discussion of calling for the destruction of Israel - it was for equal freedoms as positioned by the organiser.
Professor Peter Beinart, City University of New York, Nov 919:
“it depends on the context… [of the phrase] if it’s coming from an armed terrorist then yes I would feel threatened … if it is coming from someone who I know has a vision of equality and mutual liberation then no, I would not feel threatened”
The terminology has recently been used in a Scottish Government Parliamentary Debate on 21 November 2023 during a successful and very balanced motion calling for a Ceasefire in Gaza20 (including a reading of the names of some of the Jewish hostages #BringThemHome ) quoting Ivan McKee MSP:
" ... All people—Israelis and Palestinians—between the river and the sea can live in peaceful liberty..."
See article below for full context of the speech, with links to transcripts and video21 - well worth watching as a very balanced debate22.
Pride in the 🏴 Scottish Government taking a stance as one of the few Western Governments calling for a complete Ceasefire in Gaza in contrast to the 🇬🇧 UK position (“from the river to the sea” referenced in the debate):
🏴🗳️✅ Why I will be flying the Scottish flag at Sydney Pro-Palestine Rallies
Use of the word “Intifada”
Another one - again a subjective interpretation.
Arabic for uprising, applied in many countries during the Arab Spring in 2010 (Tunisia, Egypt) for example as a standard term for throwing off oppression.
Yes the events of 2000-2005 in the second Palestine “Intifada” were terrible on both sides - but it is a generic term and you can’t just ban an Arabic word because you don’t like it.
For subjective complaints of “not feeling safe” when hearing the word - by that logic every time an Israeli flag is waved in the face of a Gaza survivor or those with Palestinian relatives violently killed by the IDF have just cause in PTSD and seeing a symbol of fear.
Another example of literal use of a famous and terrible “uprising” - the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington has a page on the Warsaw Uprisings against Nazi oppression in the ghettos. The Arabic page translation literally has the same term for “uprising” as the common term.
Is consumer action against companies supporting Israel State Policy antisemitic?
In a word no - providing it is not blindly targeted at a Jewish people as a collective as per the IHRA definition. For boycotts, choosing to seek alternative products to those produced from a small number of larger companies complicit in Israel’s documented violation of international law - a valid approach as it would be for any cause.
Indeed the 2020 Nexus Task Force definition states23:
Boycotting goods made in the West Bank and/or Israel is not antisemitic unless it specifically singles out Israel because of its Jewish character.
In 2012 Roger Waters addressed the UN on behalf of a Civil Society group that met in 4 different locations around the world and a panel of experts examined the impacts of Israel’s occupation, presenting the findings at that meeting (findings discussed in the “Russell Tribunal” article in the “Related Articles” section at the end).
Waters discussed the reasons for BDS at the meet as below:
I have written an article specifically on BDS here:
Boycott Diversification Sanctions:
Vote with your soda
Unfortunately in Australia - the local pro-Israeli lobby has added BDS to their definition of “antisemitism” which is not even included in the US State Department definition nor IHRA - which gives a further “get out of jail” card when accusing valid action against the State of Israel.
CONCLUSIONS
Calling out True Antisemitism
I will always call out true Antisemitic, Islamophobic or other offensive comments, even in large groups of people.
I have attended most of the Australian rallies since November last year and 2 in the UK. I have never once witnessed any violence, incitement, hate speech or heard inappropriate comments from individuals on these marches that are broad cross-section of society and ages.
I have seen two things I wasn’t comfortable with in that time amongst tens of thousands of people and I’ve spoken out on both.
At one march I attended there was a single person out of the thousands there that had a placard which said “Netenyahu is worse than Hitler” - I went over to the person and spoke to them for a long time, we shook hands, and in the end they put away the placard.
More recently I saw one person wearing an offensive shirt which I took a photo of and complained directly to the organisers regarding.
The organisers actively call out Antisemitism and call for the protestors to do the same.
Jewish pro-human rights groups in Australia
We see multiple Jewish pro-human rights groups marching with Palestinians throughout the world - and of course here in Australia.
The common theme is the disrespectful appropriation of the term “antisemitism” manipulated to shut down any criticism of Israel.
I feel so sorry for the stories from Jewish fellow marchers at the regular Hyde Park protestors in Sydney at their disgust at weaponising the Holocaust, the pro-Israeli lobby appropriating the definition of “antisemitism” as being any criticism of Israel and the fake collectivism that the ingrained “Jewish representative groups” present in Australia claiming to speak for all Jewish people.
The pro-Israeli lobby in all countries try to claim Jewish alternative voices don’t exist as well which is just appalling. See Edie from the Jewish Tdezek Collective giving a wonderful speech early March in Hyde Park - on the true definition of antisemitism:
APAN President Nasser Mashni acknowledging Jewish protesters in Sydney in December at a Hyde Park rally:
And does true antisemitism have a place in “hate marches". Absolutely not. In fact the very opposite - it is actively called out. Again APAN President calling it out:
In addition to various well established Jewish groups, in February this year The Jewish Council of Australia was formed24, a group of professionals and academics to eloquently counter the claims of pro-Israeli groups - and defend the definition of antisemitism
A strong and definitive voice to support Jewish people who feel manipulated by pro-Israeli groups.
In Conclusion
🌎🕊️ The defence of Human Rights is critical to be protected without being silenced through unfair delegitimisation of critique of Israeli State policy or consumer boycott action through BDS as being antisemitic which it is not.
Related Articles
Note: Original Sleekit Scotsman FB Post “Research Ethics & Antisemitism Statement” was published 23 Nov. This has since been deleted with a link directly to this Substack page for efficiency.
Nelson Mandela on Israel/Palestine & the application of principled consistency (original Sleekit Scotsman Facebook Post 15 Nov 2023 - video and commentary): https://www.facebook.com/sleekit.scotsman2/videos/844119887506738
Pro-Palestine Rally review/images - on personally speaking out at an unacceptable antisemitic placard (Sleekit Scotsman Facebook Post 26 Nov) - https://www.facebook.com/sleekit.scotsman2/posts/pfbid0ZPtvaziRQ2YE2jr4TbHqfV3HAiVk3q1YeEVJTRm9Hopbzi3cpfGNzUM5YgLjH5ENl
Eurekastreet article 14 Feb 2018 by Na'ama Carlin "Are Israel boycotts really anti-semitic?" https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/are-israel-boycotts-really-anti-semitic
Substack Related Articles:
BDS and practical action article:
Previous article discussing writing style, differences in thinking and communication and approach, relevant to any misunderstanding of my writing (“Sleekit Scotsman coming clean”):
Pride in the 🏴 Scottish Government taking a stance as one of the few Western Governments calling for a complete Ceasefire in Gaza in contrast to the 🇬🇧 UK position (“from the river to the sea” referenced in the debate):
Congress opportunistically redefining antisemitism (6 Dec):
Russell Tribunal 2012 - Global Civil society tribunals on Israel’s conduct in the Occupied Territories and presentation to the UN (including BDS report):
Weaponising Antisemitism in the US - laws passed in Congress:
ABC News Koppel Report, broadcast June 21 1990 - full interview here ( Quoted without http:// to avoid Substack embedding: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKaX7naPi5c )
International Holocaust Remembrance Website - Definition of Antisemitism: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism
Israel & Antisemitism website - “Guide to Identifying Antisemitism in Debates about Israel“ - https://israelandantisemitism.com/guide-to-identifying-antisemitism-in-debates-about-israel/
Israel & Antisemitism website: Nexus Task Force - https://israelandantisemitism.com/nexus-task-force/
Israel & Antisemitism website: Synopsis of the report “Understanding Antisemitism At Its Nexus With Israel And Zionism“ - https://israelandantisemitism.com/the-nexus-document/
Interview with Geoffrey Robertson, APAN Website - APAN Statement on Antisemitism - https://apan.org.au/antisemitism/
European Legal Support Centre Website - Report Jun 2023: Violating the rights to freedom of expression and assembly in the European Union and the UK - https://res.cloudinary.com/elsc/images/v1685978238/The-Practice-of-Suppressing-Palestinian-Rights-Advocacy-FINAL-PP/The-Practice-of-Suppressing-Palestinian-Rights-Advocacy-FINAL-PP.pdf?_i=AA
European Legal Support Centre Website - Report Sep 2023 - Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in UK Higher Education: The Adverse Impact of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism: https://res.cloudinary.com/elsc/images/v1694507437/Freedom-of-Speech-and-Academic-Freedom-in-UK-Higher-Education-BRISMES-ELSC/Freedom-of-Speech-and-Academic-Freedom-in-UK-Higher-Education-BRISMES-ELSC.pdf?_i=AA
Human Rights Watch April 4 2023 “Human Rights and other Civil Society Groups Urge United Nations to Respect Human Rights in the Fight Against Antisemitism: Joint Letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres and Under Secretary-General Miguel Ángel Moratinos“ - https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/04/04/human-rights-and-other-civil-society-groups-urge-united-nations-respect-human
The Straits Times 30 Oct 2023 “Israel envoy wears yellow star at UN, drawing criticism from Holocaust memorial centre“- https://www.straitstimes.com/world/middle-east/israel-envoy-wears-yellow-star-at-un-drawing-criticism-from-holocaust-memorial-centre
UN Human Rights Councils - Current list of HRC Mandated Investigations, including Iran, Israel, Syria, Ukraine: https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/co-is
New York Post 31 Oct 2023 “Israel’s UN ambassador wears Nazi-era yellow star in protest, compares Hamas to SS death squad“ - https://nypost.com/2023/10/31/news/israels-un-ambassador-gilad-erdan-wears-nazi-era-yellow-star-in-protest
Israeli Ambassador Gilan Erhad Facebook post 31 October: Justification for wearing Star of David, quoting New York Post, no acknowledgement of Yad Vashem Holocaust Centre complaint - https://www.facebook.com/gilad.erdan/posts/pfbid0XpNXhsHsfyhu34pHf6XFu5TNqDZUpACeJFN8exXR39QLei5MfoQ4ryiPJz4WtuXh
UN Press Release 23 Nov “Speaking out on Gaza / Israel must be allowed: UN experts“ - https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/speaking-out-gaza-israel-must-be-allowed-un-experts
El Ghazi Dutch football player taking legal action against Mainz over his dismissal: BBC News Sport 15 Nov 2023 “Anwar El Ghazi takes legal action against Mainz over dismissal for Israel-Gaza posts“ - https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/67338002
United Nations 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) ) - Article 21 on freedom of protest - https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
Spark Magazine blog - November 2023 -”From the river to the sea, Palestine and Israel will be free” - https://sparkmag-au.blogspot.com/2023/11/from-river-to-sea-palestine-and-israel.html
Jewish Currents Magazine June 11 2021 “What Does “From the River to the Sea” Really Mean?”- https://jewishcurrents.org/what-does-from-the-river-to-the-sea-really-mean
New York Times “In Congress and on Campuses, ‘From the River to the Sea’ Inflames Debate” Nov 9 2023 - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/09/us/politics/river-to-the-sea-israel-gaza-palestinians.html
Scottish Parliament website full Transcript of Gaza Ceasefire Motion 21 Nov 2023: 🔗👉 https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/meeting-of-parliament-21-11-2023
Scottish Parliament website full video of Gaza Ceasefire Motion 21 Nov 2023 (McKee quote at 16:32): 📺🔗👉 https://www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/scottish-government-debate-the-situation-in-the-middle-east-november-21-2023
Scottish Parliament website : Broader commentary on the parliamentary debate on Gaza Ceasefire Motion 21 Nov 2023: 🔗👉 https://www.facebook.com/sleekit.scotsman2/posts/122111100596106334
Israel & Antisemitism website - “Guide to Identifying Antisemitism in Debates about Israel“ - https://israelandantisemitism.com/guide-to-identifying-antisemitism-in-debates-about-israel/
Jewish Council of Australia Press Release Feb 6 2024 - “Op Ed: As Jews, we don’t accept that criticism of Israel’s government is antisemitic“ - https://www.jewishcouncil.com.au/media/we-dont-accept-criticism-of-israel-is-antisemitic