On February 5, Bristol Employment Tribunal handed down its judgment. [PDF] What I've been waiting for for a long time. The court ruled that my dismissal in October 2021 from the University of Bristol, where I have worked as a professor of political sociology for more than three years, was unfair and unreasonable.
The court case didn't end there. The court also ruled that the reason for my dismissal was my anti-Zionist beliefs, rather than my alleged identification of students or student organizations in my statements or comments, as the university had suggested. I put it down. Having heard me outline my views on Zionism in detailed court submissions and over two days of cross-examination, the court found them to be well coherent, cogent and deeply held. and that it qualifies as a protected philosophical belief in the sense referred to in the court. Equality Act 2010.
I was relieved and happy to receive this verdict, as this story continued beyond that. April 2019. It was then that the first complaint about a lecture I gave at the university was filed. The accusations came from the Community Security Trust, a charity that simply claims to protect Jews from anti-Semitism, but since its conception, the organization has been promoting Zionist talking points and promoting grounds against anti-Semitism. He was intent on silencing pro-Palestinian activists with baseless accusations. – Judaism.
While this judgment is a great personal victory and a complete vindication of my views and positions throughout the last few years of witch-hunting, it also has implications far beyond me and my academic studies. affect.
This judgment establishes in clear terms that anti-Zionist views are neither racist nor anti-Semitic, but are in fact legitimate philosophical beliefs protected under the Equality Act 2010. They are driving their wagons with the assertion that “anti-Zionism is justice.'' A new anti-Semitism” – first articulated by Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Evan in a speech in the United States in 1972.
This claim underlies the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) controversial actual definition of anti-Semitism, which has long been imposed on governments and institutions around the world by Israel and its many supporters. I've been exposed to it.
Despite facing widespread criticism from many experts and activists for conflating anti-Semitism with criticism of actions in Israel and Palestine, this definition has become increasingly popular in Western countries over the past decade. It has been adopted by several governments and major institutions. The UK formally adopted her working definition in December 2016.
And in the eight years since then, this definition has become Israel's main weapon against Britain's growing Palestinian solidarity movement. But any weapon requires boots on the ground to be able to pick it up and fire. In most cases, the “soldiers” sent to denigrate, harass and silence pro-Palestinian activists include Zionists who work together in academia, politics, the media, and on the streets to silence any and all criticism of the Israeli regime. Contains groups. As they did in my case, they threatened and bullied the University of Bristol into dismissing me because of my strongly held anti-Zionist beliefs, but they believed that these views were akin to racism. They claim that it is harmful to society.
A landmark judgment by Bristol Employment Tribunal will ensure that people who speak in support of Palestinians and against Israel can be summarily dismissed, punished or vilified as racists or 'Nazis'. I can't.
In the future, anti-Zionists like me will have this judgment in front of us as we fight the kind of intimidation, bullying, and harassment that I faced. In the UK, it will be much harder for institutions like the University of Bristol to dismiss people for expressing or expressing their beliefs.
Equally important, the ruling will strengthen the growing international campaign to repeal the IHRA's so-called “working definition” of anti-Semitism.
But perhaps the most significant impact of the Bristol Employment Tribunal's decision in my case will be the impact it will have on the confidence of pro-Palestinian campaigners across the UK and abroad. Already in the last month, many people have told me that my sentence has made them feel more confident about Zionism and its crimes.
As in other parts of Europe, a significant section of Britain's pro-Palestinian movement has long been reluctant to even use the word “Zionism” when opposing the oppression and deprivation of Palestinians – labeling it as anti-Semitic. This is because they are afraid of being stigmatized. And they will lose their livelihood.
This appalling reluctance to talk about Zionism gives Israel too much legitimacy and many Zionists outside of Palestine, the US, UK, and other countries around the world, in their ongoing atrocities against Palestinians. It became increasingly difficult to reveal that they were playing a leading role.
As we have clearly seen since October 7, Zionists outside the occupied Palestinian territories not only supply recruits to the Israeli army, but also provide financial, diplomatic and military support to Israel. By doing so, it is directly contributing to the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people. Furthermore, they protect Israel by silencing critics from other countries with accusations of racism and anti-Semitism.
I hope that thanks to the Bristol Employment Tribunal's decision in my case, more academics, students, politicians and others will be emboldened to speak out against Zionism and its crimes.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
