Hello blog readers,

I hope you’re all well. Its been a while since I last blogged, and I hope that I’ll do better until my term of office runs out.

Perhaps in my next blog I’ll write a detailed summary of conference. But in this blog I want firstly to thank all of those people who were at conference and who gave me a lot of encouragement and support, I also want to respond to George Wood’s recent blog.

What a shame it is to see yet another member of the block of 12 failing to respect the sovereignty of our national conference who decided overwhelmingly to support the motion to adopt the EUMC working definition of antisemtism. I was also saddened to see his use of the two arguments that I had tried my best to explain away at conference.

1. Contrary to George’s first argument, this definition in no way seeks to stifle debate of the middle east conflict. For instance, none of the criticisms of Israeli policy, or concerns for Palestinian welfare, raised in his blog could be stifled by the EUMC definition. All that the definition demands is the use of appropriate language and imagery in the conducting of the debate. Any argument to the contrary seems only to be an exercise in scaremongering. As I said in my speech at conference:

“Antisemitism has a long and unfortunate history. We have been branded blood drinkers, Christ killers and bankers who seek to rule the world. These slurs have been used to oppress and maim my people. Talk about Israel all you like. Criticise her all you like. But when you talk of Israelis as blood drinkers, or of the Israeli defence forces killing a Palestinian Jesus in Bethlehem, or talk of a Zionist conspiracy, you do not attack me as a Zionist, you attack me as a Jew.” Let’s not stifle debate, but let’s not use antisemitic language or imagery. I don’t agree with George Wood’s reading of the middle eastern conflict, but I don’t accuse him of antisemitism, nor do I doubt his right to his opinions. His first argument therefore fails to undermine the definition. I don’t see why he can’t support the will of conference.

2. His second line of argument was to quote prominent Jews and Jewish organisations that have different opinions to me on the issue of anti-Semitism. Once again, George is in blatant contradiction of NUS policy, which recognises UJS as the sole voice of Jewish students in this country. As a Jewish student, I feel threatened by this lack of regard for my community’s democratic organisations. There may be prominent Jews with a variety of opinions, but those Jewish voices that do not agree with the motion we passed at conference are fringe and unrepresentative – why do so many people of George’s political persuasion want to give a platform only to the Jewish voices, few though they are, who agree with them? Again, George’s second argument fails to undermine conference’s decision to back the EUMC definition.

It is a working definition. It is not advised that governments adopt it yet, though they will most probably adopt it when its finished. But our union needs a definition NOW. It is only right that it should be the definition supported by the victims of anti-Semitism – and if all we have is a working definition, then so be it.

I’m glad that conference saw fit to support the Jewish student movement on this issue, and I’m sorry that there are still some people, even on the NEC, who seem unable both to accept the decision of conference and to realise that the EUMC definition poses no threat to legitimate debate.

The Blogs on this site represent the individual views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or practices of the National Union of Students.

All links in blogs will open in a new browser window.

The permanent URL for this specific blog entry is: http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/samlebens/274139.aspx