Alex Hearn claims to oppose antisemitism but undermines the fight against it

JVL introduction

Allegations of antisemitism so often misquote and misrepresent the words of those they are accusing.

Here we have a good example of such misrepresentation and then of doubling down when the original misrepresentation is exposed, digging an even deeper hole.

This from the director of Labour Against Antisemitism (LAAS), an organisation which has done so much to whip up fear among Jews.

As Rivkah Brown pointed out, LAAS was responsible for having “filed a huge number of complaints about antisemitism during Corbyn’s tenure as Labour leader”.

In 2018 LAAS chair Euan Phillips was boasting of sending “over 6,000 cases to the compliance unit in just over a year and the rate isn’t slowing (in fact the opposite).”

It beggars belief that anyone takes these self-appointed guardians seriously.

RK

Alex Hearn is a director of Labour Against Antisemitism (LAAS) and a vocal defender of Israel. After Amnesty International published a report accusing Israel of the crime of apartheid in February 2022, which ran to 278 pages, Hearn wrote a rebuttal of less than 800 words—of which only about 250 words focused on Amnesty. According to Hearn,

‘Amnesty’s report alters the very understanding of apartheid to shoehorn Israel in, and finds Israel guilty of the original sin of existing. Amnesty appears to want to remove the remaining Jewish presence, the Jewish state, from the Middle East. The aftermath of the impact of Nazism in the Middle East is still being felt and its legacy seems to be reflected in the latest Amnesty report.’

It may surprise readers to see an organisation as reputed and respected as Amnesty being casually linked to Nazism; it may also surprise readers to see such a long and detailed report dismissed with such carelessness, particularly when it echoed the findings of other authoritative human rights bodies, including Human Rights Watch and B’Tselem; but it will be shown that this is not the only time that Hearn has been reckless and irresponsible in his approach to evidence. It seems that he is more interested in confirming his prejudged conclusions than discovering what is true.­­­­

A recent illustration of this tendency was Hearn’s misrepresentation of a Dutch protest in solidarity with Palestine. We present his remarks on X (formerly Twitter) on 10 March, which responded to a Sky News post (‘BREAKING: Pro-Palestine protests take place outside the opening of a National Holocaust museum in Amsterdam, where Israeli President Isaac Herzog is in attendance.’):

‘If you find yourself protesting the opening of a Holocaust museum, then maybe you are the bad guys. This flyer posted by “Freepalestine Maastricht” shows how they deliberately targeted the Holocaust museum (cynically tokenising Jewish group for cover). It doesn’t even mention Herzog who in any case holds a ceremonial role and is not even part of the Israeli government. So aside from the disgusting idea of protesting Israel at a Holocaust Museum, we know that this was specifically advertised as a Holocaust museum protest. The excuse of protesting Herzog is untrue and would be ridiculous, like protesting King Charles because of the British govt’.

Hearn makes two claims: first, that the protest was directed at the Holocaust museum, instead of at the presence of Israeli president Herzog; second, that even if the protest was directed at Herzog, it would be ridiculous, because his political role is ceremonial.

First claim. ‘The excuse of protesting Herzog is untrue’. An honest researcher who wants to know the purpose of a particular protest will usually consult the statements of the protest organisers. In this case, the protest was organised by a Jewish group, Erev Rav, whose statements clarify that the protest was unmistakably directed at Israeli president Isaac Herzog, and not the Holocaust museum. In a post on Instagram on 6 March, Erev Rav said:

‘Never again is now! We express our deep concern regarding the upcoming opening of the Dutch National Holocaust Museum where Israeli president Yitzhak Herzog is scheduled to attend alongside Dutch king Willem Alexander. While we honor the memory of our ancestors who perished in the Holocaust and recognize the importance of preserving their memory, we cannot stand by silently while the genocide in Gaza continues to unfold.

‘We are organizing a peaceful protest moment during the opening ceremony of the National Holocaust Museum. We as Jews deserve better than the instrumentalisation of our pain in order to justify an ongoing genocide! The resilience of the martyrs of the Holocaust guide our actions—because even our dead deserve to rest without having their killings weaponized to normalize the genocide of the Palestinian people.

‘Join Erev Rav in a Jewish led protest moment happening during the opening ceremony of the National Holocaust Museum on Sunday 10th of March from 11:00 onwards! Location TBA. Ceasefire now! End the occupation!’ (Emphases added.)

On 8 March Erev Rav posted answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the protest: ‘Are you protesting the museum itself?

‘Absolutely not. As Jews we are happy to see the lives and stories of Shoah survivors highlighted. We are protesting the presence of Israeli President Isaac Herzog in the opening ceremony of the museum, as we believe that his presence creates a dangerous symbolism, used to legitimise the current genocide in Gaza. We also believe there are plenty of incredibly accomplished Jewish people based in The Netherlands who could have been invited instead to perform such an official act.’ (Emphases added.)

In another statement on Twitter on 9 March, Erev Rav said:

‘The history of our ancestors teaches us that in times of genocide, we are all obliged to resist. As a Jewish community Erev Rav is deeply connected to the for some secular and for others religious duty (mitzvah) to “never again” stand by as genocide takes places. This is why we unequivocally support the Palestinian struggle against genocide and other crimes committed by Israel. The fact that the Israeli president instrumentalizes the history of the Shoah to legitimize himself and the genocide currently being committed is detestable. It remains to be seen whether the Dutch state is moral and decisive enough to take action in the coming days. Genocide rages on, now is the time of deeds and moral clarity. Never again is now!’ (Emphasis added.)

We see, then, that the protest organisers repeated several times, unequivocally and unmistakably, that their protest was directed at Israeli president Herzog, and that it was his presence they were concerned by—not the opening of a Holocaust museum.

And yet, at the time of writing, Hearn’s initial tweet accusing activists of ‘protesting the opening of a Holocaust museum’ has gained 27,000 likes. By claiming that the ‘excuse’ of protesting Herzog was ‘untrue’, Hearn misinformed perhaps thousands of people. At best, this is a case of reprehensible negligence in the treatment of evidence; indeed, to make his case, Hearn relied on a single screenshot showing only a part of one of the organisers’ statements, with no further context. After being corrected by dozens of people on social media, Hearn added to his initial remarks:

‘My post shows the Free Palestine Maastricht reel. In a desperate attempt to excuse the protest, some have said the original post they got it from also mentions Herzog, as it has other pages. But the original is even worse! They repeat they are explicitly targeting the Holocaust museum opening, by claiming it is some type of a sick tribute to Holocaust victims. This is what they are trying to distract from. A Holocaust museum has opened and they are overjoyed at protesting it.’

We leave it to readers to determine whether Hearn’s attempt to excuse his behaviour withstands scrutiny.

Second claim. Protesting the presence of Herzog ‘would be ridiculous, like protesting King Charles because of the British govt’. Whether or not his position is officially ceremonial, Herzog’s appalling conduct throughout Israel’s massacre in Gaza has earned him fully justified condemnation and reproach. Herzog was even quoted as evidence of Israeli officials’ use of dehumanising language toward Palestinians in the International Court of Justice’s order of 26 January 2024 (para. 52), which found the accusation that Israel is committing genocide to be plausible. If King Charles had been quoted by the world’s highest court for his use of dehumanising language toward the victims of what the court determined to be a plausible genocide committed by Britain, it would certainly not be ridiculous to protest against him.

Both of Hearn’s claims about the protest have been refuted; we will now devote a few words to Hearn’s claim to be a campaigner against antisemitism. Antisemitism is a horrible scourge that must be defeated. In order to fight this scourge, it is imperative that we maintain a distinct and accurate conception of it; misinformation and irrelevancies serve to damage any such conception, and therefore undermine the fight against antisemitism. Hearn, in his desire to attack critics of Israel, has demonstrated to the world his carelessness with respect to opposing antisemitism. It is to be earnestly hoped that Hearn and others like him rethink their approach, and cease to distort evidence so that it better conforms to their political views.

The author is a socialist who prefers truth to falsehood.