Campaign Against Antisemitism’s analysis is that Ms Moller’s actions and statements amount to breaches of the International Definition of Antisemitism and qualify as antisemitic discourse according to our methodology.
By stating that the situation in Palestine reminds her of “Hitler’s extermination of the Jews” [3], Ms Moller was “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”
By suggesting that it is incumbent on Jews in all countries to call for international companies to withdraw investment from Israel [1a], she was “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.”
Zionism is an expression of national self-determination for Jews, and since the establishment of the State of Israel, of support for the maintenance of that state. However, the allegation that Zionism is an inherently far-right and racist ideology was promulgated by the Soviet Union in the post-war era until 1989, as part of a deliberate and explicitly antisemitic campaign to persecute Jewish citizens who wished to practise their religion and/or leave the Soviet Union — especially to emigrate to Israel — as well as to demonise and undermine Israel on the foreign stage for global strategic gain. A singular purpose of this propaganda was to drive a false distinction between “Jews” and “Zionists”, in which the latter is the enemy of the former, and the embodiment of many older antisemitic tropes. By sharing an article which promoted the view that “Zionism [is] the real enemy of the Jews” [2a]; which asserted that Zionism was the only cause of contemporary antisemitism [2c]; and whose author stated that he was only prevented from becoming “anti-Jew” through acquaintance with Jews whose own loathing of Zionism and Israel he considered acceptable — who had not, in his opinion, been “brainwashed” [2d], she was disseminating material which was demonising Zionism, and as such was “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination…”
By suggesting that Jews are in a “moral void”, only to be redeemed by speaking out against “the greatest horror of our time” [1a]; and by sharing an article which referred repeatedly to the “Zionist lobby” (thereby deploying a trope regarding the hidden power of diaspora Jews or Israel which originated in the antisemitic propaganda of 1970s Soviet Russia) and claimed that Israel controlled US politics via American Jews [2b], she was “making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.”
Given that those who are most involved in combating antisemitism, and those most prominent in having made well-evidenced claims of antisemitism in the Labour Party are Jewish, by signing a letter which claimed that the purpose of International Definition of Antisemitism “was nothing to do with opposing antisemitism”, but rather that it had been designed entirely for the purposes of protecting Israel, thereby imputing an entirely political motive to its authors [4]; by signing and sharing a petition which claimed that the true motive of a Jewish charity fighting antisemitism was to protect Israel by making false accusations against its critics [5]; by sharing a petition which claimed that accusations of antisemitism against Jeremy Corbyn were “made by persons solely engaged in political maneuvering to damage the Labour Party” in order to “ensure a continuance of Right Wing politics in the UK” [6a]; and by characterising allegations of antisemitism made against Jeremy Corbyn as “bullying” which was intended to “kill off…the only person standing up to Israel who can make a difference” [6b], she was both directly deploying and disseminating material which was deploying the so-called ‘Livingstone Formulation’, by accusing Jews who cite evidence of antisemitism of lying, conspiring or having deceitful motives in doing so, when there is clear evidence that there have been breaches of the International Definition of Antisemitism. This further constitutes “making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews…”
Moreover, by sharing material which asserted that those making claims of antisemitism were “nakedly right-wing” [5] or intent on ensuring “a continuance of right-wing politics” [6], she was advancing an antisemitic trope which has gained currency in left-wing discourse which allows the views and concerns of Jewish people not only to be dismissed, but which also seeks to demonise them by association with political groups already demonised on the left, either by employing the generalised term ‘right wing’, or by explicitly linking them with the Conservative Party, which is often associated with the notion of ‘evil’ in left-wing discourse.
We further note that the report of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) following its statutory investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party, in which Campaign Against Antisemitism was the complainant, includes a section entitled “Types of antisemitic conduct that amounted to unlawful harassment” with a subsection entitled “Suggesting that complaints of antisemitism are fake or smears”. This subsection states that: “Labour Party agents denied antisemitism in the Party and made comments dismissing complaints as ‘smears’ and ‘fake’. This conduct may target Jewish members as deliberately making up antisemitism complaints to undermine the Labour Party, and ignores legitimate and genuine complaints of antisemitism in the Party. These comments went beyond simply describing the agents’ own personal experience of antisemitism in the Party.”
Additionally, in its report, the EHRC made clear that its judgements apply to all political parties and emphasised that the European Convention on Human Rights does not protect racist speech, which may include antisemitic speech.
On this basis, the EHRC found that denying antisemitism in the Labour Party and making comments dismissing complaints as “smears” or “fake” — such as allegations that complaints of antisemitism are “part of a smear campaign by ‘the Israel lobby’ to stigmatise critics of Israel as antisemitic, and…intended to undermine and disrupt the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn MP” — are not protected by the fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In other words, such comments are not protected as freedom of speech at all, but amount to unlawful harassment of Jewish people.
Furthermore, the EHRC specified certain examples of antisemitic conduct which would be unlawful on the same basis within the relevant context.
Ms Moller’s comments and dissemination of material deploying the so-called ‘Livingstone Formulation’ as described above; her “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel” [1a]; her dissemination of material alleging that Israel “controls” American politics [2b]; and her comparison of the situation in Palestine with “Hitler’s extermination of the Jews” [3] appear, under our analysis, to be captured within the examples given in the EHRC’s report.
Ms Moller has claimed to be a “child survivor of the Holocaust”. Even if this is correct, neither being born Jewish, being a practising Jew, nor, indeed, being a Holocaust survivor changes the nature or effects of statements that manifestly and objectively disseminate antisemitic discourse, as is demonstrably the case with Ms Moller.
