On February 5, the Bristol Employment Tribunal handed down a judgement [PDF] that I had lengthy been ready for. It dominated that my October 2021 sacking from Bristol College, the place I’ve been working as a professor of political sociology for over three years, was unfair and wrongful.
The tribunal didn’t cease there. It additionally dominated that the explanation for my sacking was not my alleged singling out of scholars and pupil societies in statements and feedback, because the college advised, however my anti-Zionist beliefs. Having heard me define my views on Zionism in detailed courtroom submissions and in additional than two days of cross-examination, the courtroom decided that they had been sufficiently coherent, cogent and deeply held as to qualify as protected philosophical beliefs within the sense referred to within the Equality Act 2010.
I used to be relieved and jubilant to obtain such a verdict, as this saga had been ongoing since April 2019. That was when the primary criticism a few lecture I had given on the college was submitted. The criticism got here from the Group Safety Belief, a charity that claims merely to guard Jews from anti-Semitism, however since its very conception has focussed all its efforts on selling Zionist speaking factors and making an attempt to silence pro-Palestine campaigners with baseless accusations of anti-Semitism.
Whereas the decision is a superb private victory, an entire vindication of my views and stance all through this years-long witch hunt, it additionally has ramifications nicely past me and my tutorial profession.
This verdict, which establishes in clear phrases that anti-Zionist views usually are not racist or anti-Semitic, and are in truth professional philosophical beliefs protected underneath the Equality Act 2010, drives a coach and horses by way of the declare that “anti-Zionism is the brand new anti-Semitism” – first made explicitly by Israeli International Minister Abba Eban in a speech in america in 1972.
That declare underlies the Worldwide Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) controversial working definition of anti-Semitism, which has lengthy been pushed on governments and establishments the world over by Israel and plenty of of its supporters.
Regardless of dealing with widespread criticism from many consultants and activists that it conflates anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel and its conduct in Palestine, the definition was adopted by a number of governments and main establishments within the West previously 10 years. The UK formally adopted the working definition in December 2016.
And within the eight years since, the definition has been Israel’s main weapon in opposition to the ever-growing Palestine solidarity motion within the UK. However each weapon wants boots on the bottom in order that it may be picked up and fired. Normally, the “troopers” deployed to defame and harass pro-Palestine campaigners into silence embody Zionist teams that work collectively to mute any and all criticism of the Israeli regime – in academia, in politics, in media and out on the streets. As they did in my case, intimidating and bullying Bristol College into sacking me over my strongly held anti-Zionist beliefs, they declare that these views are akin to racism and dangerous to society.
Now, with the landmark ruling from the Bristol Employment Tribunal, those that converse in help of Palestinians and in opposition to Israel can’t be summarily dismissed, punished and defamed as racists, or “Nazis”.
Any more, anti-Zionists like me may have this verdict at hand when combating in opposition to the type of intimidation, bullying and harassment that I confronted. Within the UK, will probably be rather more tough for establishments like Bristol College to sack individuals for the expression or manifestation of their beliefs.
Equally importantly, this verdict will strengthen the marketing campaign to roll again the IHRA’s so-called “working definition” of anti-Semitism, which is constructing internationally.
Maybe essentially the most important consequence of the Bristol Employment Tribunal’s verdict in my case, nevertheless, would be the impression it’s going to have on the arrogance of pro-Palestine campaigners throughout the UK and past. Previously month I’ve already had many individuals telling me that the decision I obtained made them extra assured to speak about Zionism and its crimes.
For a few years, important sections of the pro-Palestine motion within the UK, like elsewhere in Europe, have been reluctant to even use the time period “Zionism” when speaking in opposition to the oppression and dispossession of Palestinians — fearful of being smeared as anti-Semites and dropping their livelihoods.
This fearful reluctance to speak about Zionism granted an excessive amount of legitimacy to Israel and made it more and more tough to show the main function many Zionists exterior of Palestine – within the US, UK and elsewhere on the planet – play within the ongoing atrocities in opposition to Palestinians.
As now we have clearly seen since October 7, Zionists exterior occupied Palestinian territory are contributing on to the continuing genocide of Palestinians by supplying recruits to the Israeli forces, in addition to offering monetary, diplomatic and army help to Israel. Moreover, they’re defending Israel by silencing its critics elsewhere with accusations of racism and anti-Semitism.
Due to the decision from the Bristol Employment Tribunal in my case, I hope, many extra teachers, college students, politicians and others will discover the braveness to boost their voices in opposition to Zionism and its crimes.
The views expressed on this article are the creator’s personal and don’t essentially mirror Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.