Harun Nasrullah
The belief that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians amounts to apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide is “worthy of respect in a democratic society,” a UK employment tribunal concluded in a landmark ruling on October 14.
In February, the tribunal determined that the University of Bristol had unfairly discriminated against Professor David Miller by dismissing him over allegations of antisemitic comments. The tribunal has now released its 120-page judgment, explaining that Miller’s beliefs are protected under anti-discrimination laws.
Judge Rohan Pirani, delivering the ruling, stated: “Although many would vehemently and cogently disagree with [Miller]’s analysis of politics and history, others share the same or similar beliefs. We find that he has established that [the criteria] have been met and that his belief amounted to a philosophical belief.”
Miller, a political sociology lecturer, had expressed his view that Zionism is “inherently racist, imperialist, and colonial.” He argued that Zionism inevitably leads to practices such as apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide in the pursuit of territorial control. However, he clarified that his anti-Zionism does not equate to opposition toward Jewish people.
The panel acknowledged Miller’s expertise on Zionism.
Two Jewish students had raised complaints regarding a 2019 lecture in which Miller identified Zionism as one of the five pillars of Islamophobia. The Community Security Trust, a group combating antisemitism, condemned Miller’s remarks as a “disgraceful slur.”
A university-commissioned review found no evidence that Miller had expressed hatred towards Jews. However, in February 2021, Miller sent an email to the university’s student newspaper, describing Zionism as a “racist, violent, imperialist ideology premised on ethnic cleansing” and accusing the university’s Jewish Society of being an “Israel lobby group.” A separate review found these statements to be offensive, and a hearing deemed them “wrong and inappropriate.” Miller was subsequently dismissed for gross misconduct.
After his appeal was rejected, Miller took the university to a tribunal, which he won earlier this year.
Regarding Miller’s anti-Zionist views, Judge Pirani said: “We conclude that they have played a significant role in his life for many years. We are satisfied that they are genuinely held. He is and was a committed anti-Zionist, and his views on this topic have influenced his life for many years.”
The tribunal found that Miller’s beliefs met the criteria of being “worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity, and not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others.”
While the judge criticized Miller’s public expression as “extraordinary and ill-judged,” he noted that Miller’s dismissal was based on the manifestation of his beliefs. The judge further stated: “What [Miller] said was accepted as lawful, was not antisemitic, did not incite violence, and did not pose any threat to any person’s health or safety.”
The tribunal concluded that Miller’s comments in his email contributed to his dismissal. As a result, his compensation, to be decided at a remedy hearing, will be halved.
In Miller’s dispute with the University of Bristol, John Mann, then Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism, expressed strong concerns in a letter to MPs and the Union of Jewish Students about the decision not to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
In response, pro-Palestinian and civil rights activists argue that the IHRA’s non-binding definition, adopted by the UK in 2016, has been misused by Zionist groups to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel in British universities. In a statement issued in 2022, 128 scholars—including prominent Jewish academics from Israeli, European, UK, and US universities—claimed that the definition had been “hijacked” to shield the Israeli government from international criticism.
Former UN Special Rapporteur on racism, E Tendayi Achiume, stated that it is being “wielded to prevent or suppress legitimate criticisms of the State of Israel, a State that must, like any other in the United Nations system, be accountable for human rights violations that it perpetrates.” Achiume further noted, “Those primarily harmed as a result are Palestinians, as well as human rights defenders advocating on their behalf,” in a 2022 report.
In the UK, where two-thirds of academic institutions have adopted the definition, studies indicate that it has created a chilling effect on freedom of speech. The British Society for Middle Eastern Studies and the European Legal Support Centre analysed 40 cases involving UK university staff or students accused of antisemitism across 14 institutions. Their report, published last year, found that none of these accusations led to legal action.
In a recent case, renowned British-Palestinian surgeon Ghassan Abu-Sittah faced allegations of antisemitism after he posted on social media equating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler, the main architect of the Holocaust. Abu-Sittah, who spent 43 days treating the wounded in Gaza City last year, was denied entry into Germany to speak at a conference and prohibited from appearing via video link. He was also barred from entering France, where he intended to address the upper house of Parliament.
(Photo credit:Cemal Yurttaş/AA
READ MORE
GAZA RELATED COVERAGE
Top story: Muslim American voters: Key to swinging the presidential election?
Editorial: Israel’s atrocities unmask West’s grotesque inhumanity toward non-Europeans
Vote for third-party candidates, scholars urge Muslim Americans
Suspended MP claims Labour colleagues stay silent on government’s Israel support out of job fears
More than 100 Muslim Labour councillors demand arms embargo on Israel
US health workers estimate death toll in Gaza is 119,000
Uncertainty grips Israel: Only 27% see Gaza victory as global reputation sinks
Ex-Biden officials launch PAC to challenge US stance on Gaza
Pulitzer winner rejects prestigious award in solidarity with Palestine
