Video: ‘Zionist thugs’ invade Jewish anti-genocide demo and Muslim woman dragged out of ‘debate’

Manchester University event was titled ‘Is Anti-Zionism Antisemitism?’ and was supposedly a debate but Palestinians were ejected, while right-wingers outside chanted ‘free free Pakistan’ to try to drown out protest

A group described as ‘Zionist thugs’ invaded – and allegedly attacked – a peaceful protest staged by anti-genocide Jews outside a Manchester University ‘debate’ titled ‘Is anti-Zionism anti-Semitism’ on Thursday evening. The invaders tried to disrupt the protest and shouted ‘Free free Pakistan’, seeming to assume that anyone opposing Israel’s genocide of innocent Palestinians must be from Pakistan.

Inside the hall, the ‘Whitworth debate’ saw a young Muslim woman dragged out by guards for demanding to know why there was no Palestinian on the stage for the debate – and challenging a group of sneering Israel supporters how they would feel if their children were among the tens of thousands of children slaughtered in Gaza by settler-colonial, apartheid Israel:

One Jewish woman who attended the demo, said that some of the Zionist group outside later became ‘much more aggressive and confrontational’. Skwawkbox was told that some resorted to outright violence with, for example, one of the ‘invaders’ attempting to knee an anti-genocide protester in the groin although he was partially blocked and caught his victim in the thigh.

Gary Ostrolenk, an anti-Zionist Jewish activist, posted to Facebook about the events:

To their shame, the University of Manchester held a public “debate” on 31st October titled “Is Anti-Zionism Antisemitism?” On the platform, they positioned a Jew and a Muslim to answer the question, deliberately framing the discussion as a debate between religions. Can you believe it – a clear attempt to re-legitimise Zionism.

Outside the hall, local anti-Zionist Jews protested that the meeting was a disgrace. Jewish Action for Palestine Manchester, Jewish Voice for Labour and Na’amod all had banners and people picketing the hall. Here you can watch the moment when a group of aggressive Zionist thugs arrive, trying to intimidate and silence the protesters.

Inside the hall, Youth Front For Palestine bravely intervened to successfully disrupt the meeting. See the first comment below to watch a video inside the hall as a young Asian woman gets forcefully manhandled out of the meeting by security guards whilst baying Zionists terrorise the protesters.

Inside and outside the hall, the Zionists posed a continuous threat of violence – Israel is a terrorist state, and not just in Palestine.

The Zionists attending this meeting are one with the fascists and the IOF [Israeli military] in Israel. It is important that we confront them here in the UK, face-to-face, and make it clear not only that they do not speak for all Jews, but that they are actively complicit in genocide. They have no place in our public spaces, in our public institutions nor on our streets.

A letter subsequently sent by the anti-genocide protesters to the university challenged the university for its ‘deeply offensive’ decision to stage such a debate when thousands are being brutally massacred by the occupation regime – and for framing it in such a way as to ‘absurdly’ paint the many thousands of anti-Zionist Jews as antisemitic:

To: Professor Nalin Thakkar

Vice-President for Social Responsibility

University of Manchester

24 October 2024

Dear Professor Thakkar,

We are are writing to you as Jews resident in the Northwest or with a connection to the University of Manchester, to express our consternation and disgust at the framing of the forthcoming Whitworth debate on the question

‘Is antizionism antisemitism?’, scheduled for October 31st.

We wish to clarify at the outset that it is in our view entirely appropriate that the university should seek to promote rational debate on the outstanding political and social issues of our time, including those that may arouse strong emotions such as the present conflagration in the Middle East. The stated general aims of the Whiworth debates are therefore entirely praiseworthy, especially in view of the fact that the University has given the unmistakable impression in recent times of seeking to suppress free debate on the subject of Palestine.  

However in order for such a debate to be worthy of an institution of learning, let alone one which claims to be a world class university, its framing must satisfy certain elementary academic criteria.  We therefore note the following points:

1. Any proposition to be debated must be formulated in such a manner as to have a reasonably clear meaning which is not obviously nonsensical.     Unfortunately the proposition.  “Antizionism is antisemitism” dramatically fails this test.                                               
   
   While there may be some marginal variations in scholarly usage, there is general agreement that the word antisemitism refers to essentialist religious or ethnic hatred or prejudice against Jews because they are Jews.   This is not only the traditional vernacular interpretation but also the overwhelming consensus amongst eminent scholars of the Holocaust.          

      On the other hand the word ‘zionism’ in its current usage refers to a political settler colonial doctrine first formulated in the 19th century by protestant Christians in the US and UK and subsequently elaborated  by Theodor Herzl and other mostly secular European Jews.  Since 1948 zionism has become the official ideology of the state of Israel, and is enshrined in its legal and constitutional framework.  It is a very specific form of settler colonial nationalism which now accords to the entire Jewish diaspora and even to those with a single Jewish grandparent, whether religious or secular,  national rights in Israel which are not accorded to the indigenous population of Palestine wherever they currently  live.  

      It follows that the proposition that “Antizionism is antisemitism” is absurd. There is nothing to debate because there have always existed large numbers of antizionist Jews of otherwise very differing opinions – indeed prior to WW2 they even constituted a majority of European Jews.  In fact at the time of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the only Jewish member of the British cabinet, Edwin Montagu,  declared Zionism itself to be antisemitic and a “mischievous political creed”.

 2.  It is reprehensible that you have chosen as a motion for a debate relating to the ongoing Palestinian genocide a confused and nonsensical proposition and then compounded that offence by casting the historic Palestinian struggle for self-determination as a religious conflict  between Muslims and Jews.

      For that is the clear implication of UoM’s advertised formulation that Jewish and Muslim ‘representatives’ are to ‘unpack what antizionism and antisemitism means to them and the impact of the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians’.

      And how else are we to interpret your own quoted use of the words “each side’s” in your comment that

      “…being able to understand each side’s position can only be empowering for individuals and communities who so often feel marginalised and threatened by polarised views”.  

      Would you choose an executive of a Christian charity or even the Archbishop of Canterbury to ‘represent’ the supposed viewpoint of  ‘the UK Christian community’ on international or national politics?   One has only to pose this question to expose at once the patronising bigotry which underlies the formulation.

      We suggest that you ask yourself how the Palestinian Christians who are  also being indiscriminately slaughtered by Israel in Gaza and ethnically cleansed from the West Bank and Jerusalem in defiance of international law might feel about your framing of their persecution.

      Moreover the question chosen for debate is quite asymmetrical in that only Palestinians and Muslims are implicitly being accused of bigotry and racism:  the overtly genocidal rhetoric of Israeli government ministers and the vicious racism of their camp followers in the UK parliament and media are given a free pass. 

      If you had been trying to devise a debate designed to increase prejudice against Arabs and Muslims, reinforce the received bigotry rampant in our media and public institutions, and exacerbate intercommunal  tensions,  it would be hard to conceive of a more effective method than that which you have chosen.

 3.  The  proposition that “Antizionism is antisemitism” is itself clearly antisemitic, since it delegitimises the very existence of antizionist Jews,  

Antizionist and nonzionist Jews include some of the most eminent academics, jurists, doctors, artists and other professionals in the UK, but their voices are systematically ignored by the media. They are also routinely insulted and marginalised as ‘self-hating’ , ‘kapos’ or ‘fringe Jews’  by zionists who feel empowered to malign or ignore them, confident that their own outpourings will remain unchallenged in a corrupt and pliant media – and now increasingly in universities, supposedly institutional bastions of free enquiry.  

      Over the last two decades, and especially since 2016, university senior managers have increasingly betrayed their staff, their students and the academic integrity of their institutions, following the lead of bigoted or opportunist politicians by severely censoring legitimate discussion of Israel’s crimes, and promoting  antisemitic intellectual gibberish in the guise of philosemitism and “defence of the only democracy in the Middle East”.

      The vulgar communalisation of political thought whereby an ethnic or religious minority community is deemed to have a homogeneous political viewpoint which can mystically be accessed by consulting an approved  ‘representative’ is a symptom of the creeping intellectual collapse overtaking our society.   The effects of such communalisation on the social perception of Jews are different from typical effects on the perception of other minorities, but are equally insidious and dehumanising. 

      Indeed the myth that all Jews support zionism is at present the greatest driver of antisemitism. 

      For it is an agreed principle that to hold every Jew responsible for Israel’s actions is antisemitic.  Yet if it is asserted that all Jews support zionism then it is indeed tempting for the uninformed to conclude that all Jews are indeed responsible for – or ant least are complicit in  –  the actions of Israel. Such a conclusion may appear particularly natural since Israel, unlike any other state, vociferously proclaims itself to be the nation state of world Jewry and not just of those who are citizens of Israel.    

 4.  Amidst the horror of the current genocide, livestreamed daily to those who do not choose to avert their gaze, had you genuinely sought to promote an intellectually illuminating debate on issues underlying the conflict, you could have chosen a to debate the proposition that “Political zionism is incompatible with self-determination for the Palestinian people”.

      For such a debate you would have had no difficulty in finding respected   Palestinian or Jewish intellectuals to participate.  Indeed, as you will surely be aware, some of the most eminent academics who would support this motion are Jewish.

      Instead, in conformity with the political complicity in Israel’s genocide of almost the entire UK political class and media, the University of Manchester has chosen steadfastly to ignore both Palestinian and Jewish antizionist voices, vainly pretending that the latter do not even exist or are of no consequence. 

We call on you to cancel the present debate scheduled for October 31.

We urge the university to organise instead, as soon as practicable, a serious debate on the proposition we have suggested above, inviting two eminent specialist academics to propose the motion.  Mindful of the university leadership’s evident fear of accusations of antisemitism, we also suggest that the university invite official zionist organisations to propose two academics to oppose the motion.   

Adopting such a framework should ensure that the contentious political doctrine which lies at the heart of the century old conflict can be debated in the tradition of rational secular inquiry to which the University hopefully  still aspires.

        Kind Regards,  

               [For Full List of Signatories See Below]

cc:  President and Vice-Chancellor, UoM
Joseph Timan

As in the US and worldwide, so in the UK: anti-genocide protesters are peaceful and seek only an end to murder and oppression – and suffer from the supporters of Israel some of the violence, contempt and repression that are inherent to Zionism, the political philosophy that reduces millions of innocents to obstacles to be removed, or killed if they refuse to leave.

Israel, built on Zionism and the settler-colonialism and apartheid it drives, has oppressed and killed the Palestinians for decades even as they protested peacefully, has massacred around 200,000 Palestinian civilians in just the last year and is engaged in the deliberate starvation and extermination of two million who remain – while targeting the journalists who report on Israel’s war crimes and the medics, rescuers and aid workers trying to save its victims. Solidarity with the Palestinians and all who stand with them against genocide.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount as it has to be entered by us). Alternatively, if you prefer to make a one-off or recurring donation by simple card payment, please use the form below:

Thanks for your solidarity so Skwawkbox can keep doing its job of inconveniencing the right and helping to build the left!

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.