BRICUP statement on David Miller’s Recent Post
JVL Introduction
This statement from BRICUP, the UK group leading the academic boycott of Israel, amplifies the argument made in JVL’s statement on David Miller’s recent tweet.
Miller’s tweet, regardless of his intent, has had the unfortunate effect of diverting attention and energy from the necessity to campaign against Israeli Apartheid.
As BRICUP’s statement makes clear we also, ” make no judgment about David Miller’s personal and political views. Neither his personal attitude to Jews nor his political intention in posting this message make any difference to the consequences his statement is likely to have.”
Like BRICUP, JVL continues to believe that his dismissal from the University of Bristol was unjustified. It has significantly weakened the criteria for dismissal of academics with dangerous implications for free speech in all contentious areas and and not just in relation to Palestine/Israel.
MC
This article was originally published by BRICUP web on Fri 18 Aug 2023. Read the original here.
BRICUP statement on David Miller’s Recent Post
On 7th August, David Miller posted material on Twitter (renamed ‘X’) that has produced concern and discussion among individuals and organisations (including BRICUP) that had supported him throughout the attacks on him and his subsequent sacking by the University of Bristol. The attacks on him had alleged antisemitism.
Before commenting on David Miller’s posting we need to set the context and the historical moment at which he chose to do so.
Since 1948, Palestinians inside Israel have been discriminated against, and those expelled in a process of ‘ethnic cleansing’, and their descendants, have been consigned to refugee camps and denied the right to return to their homes. Since 1967 the colonial project has been extended to the West Bank and Gaza, with the former illegally settled and the latter turned into a prison camp. Murderous military assaults on the camps and on Gaza kill hundreds of Palestinians annually. Meanwhile, Palestinian universities are systematically harassed, and sometimes closed for protracted periods, by the occupying Israeli authorities.
Today, the ultra-Right Israeli Government is in a process, not just of expanding the illegal settlements but of preparing the formal annexation of the occupied West Bank into Israel. We see in tandem the intensification of the campaign of violence and intimidation against Palestinians by organised gangs of illegal Jewish settlers, protected and aided by the Israeli Army. Palestinians are cohering in popular mutual solidarity to defy these acts of intimidation and murderous attacks.
In an attempt to undercut criticism of its ongoing colonisation, Israel’s supporters are aggressively promoting the discredited IHRA ‘Working Definition’ of antisemitism. The aim is to silence Palestinian voices and to disable Palestine solidarity. The UK university sector has been a major target of this campaign, with universities facing intense pressure to adopt the IHRA and silence critics of Israel. The recent report of the European Legal Support Centre documents how this has worked across Europe.
BRICUP is active in opposing the adoption of this misleading and discredited definition. We do so in defence of the academic freedom to investigate both Israeli policy and the political ideology and practice of Zionism, and of the political freedom to campaign for the political and human rights of Palestinians.
One element of BRICUP’s efforts has been our active support for David Miller, then a Professor at the University of Bristol, when he was attacked aggressively for his criticisms of Israel and of Israel’s Zionist supporters in the UK. Responding to intense political pressure the University of Bristol eventually dismissed Miller from his chair. He was twice cleared by the University’s chosen legal expert, so the charge of antisemitism could not be sustained. Instead the cited grounds for dismissal were breaches of the University’s policy on respectful relations with students. This dismissal, based not on the facts of the case but on the University’s felt need to respond to the attacks on it, constitutes one of the clearest breaches of academic freedom for many years.
BRICUP was right to support Miller against dismissal, and continues to do so.
However, in BRICUP’s view Miller’s recent social media statement (reproduced below) is completely unacceptable. In it he affirms that Jews are no longer discriminated against, that Jews are ‘over-represented’ amongst cultural elites (cultural, economic, political) world-wide, and hence are now themselves in a position to discriminate against marginalised groups.
Miller ignores the persistence of antisemitism across Europe and in the Americas, and its increase over recent decades with the rise of populist movements, and the resurgence of fascist organisations. Moreover, his supposed ‘facts’ are highly susceptible to an antisemitic interpretation; indeed, for historical reasons they are almost bound to be interpreted this way. He uses some of the most historically prominent elements of antisemitic rhetoric. His assertion of ‘over-representation’ inevitably encourages hostility towards Jews. And in treating ‘Jews’ as a homogeneous entity, his post deploys the characteristic feature of all racisms.
We make no judgment about David Miller’s personal and political views. Neither his personal attitude to Jews nor his political intention in posting this message make any difference to the consequences his statement is likely to have. As an organisation that rightly defended David Miller against the attempt to dismiss him because of his criticisms of Israel, we urge him now to delete this message, and to apologise for its content.
Today, the political focus needs to be on the intensifying Israeli colonisation of Palestine, and the struggle of Palestinians against it. Instead, David Miller has provided ammunition to those who seize any opportunity to assert that criticism of Israel is motivated by antisemitism.
David Miller’s Post
The facts:
1. Jews are not discriminated against.
2. They are over-represented in Europe, North America and Latin America in positions of cultural, economic and political power.
3. They are therefore, in a position to discriminate against actually marginalised groups.
This is an odd response to an accurate tweet about Jewish demographics and discrimination made in response to Zionists with a vested interest in exaggerating antisemitism.
I say odd because it acknowledges that it can be misinterpreted but that’s always the case with everything the left posts on this issue as we’ve had an antisemitism smear in operation for years now.
I have to say that presenting it as something that undermines the fight for Palestinian rights rather ignores that we’ve been going backwards on this and on left politics since the smear took hold on a much larger scale. David Miller is one of the few to speak fearlessly about the politics of Israel-Palestine and accommodating bad faith actors over a tweet – not even a speech or article – that isn’t even wrong makes us look ridiculous. Or rather, not me!
Can you be Jewish and an Oppressor
Can you be Jewish and make Vexatious claims of anti semitism against other Jews
Should Israel ever be classed as a Jewish state with its inbuilt crimes against humanity
Does the Jewish community accept that to often the biggest threat to them are the other Jewish community
Safest country in Europe for the Jewish community thanks to JC and others and look what happened to him
There is a uncivil war in your community and you still cant bring yourselves to call the other side out for what they are
Sorry but I really dont think David Miller has got anything to apologise for
I have said before that my problem with David Miller was discovering how strong was his support for and involvement with the government of Iran. I don’t , sadly, think that his recent tweets about the UK Jewish community were inaccurate. It is a pity that he didn’t compress into the space of a tweet some acknowledgement of other Jews who are supporting the Palestinians (and him!), but that’s the big trouble with twitter/X imo. However we have to have some humility and recognise that at present we are a defeated minority.
This split is regrettable, but maybe there could have been a bigger split if no one had voiced any criticism of him at all and let him generalise. BRICUP seems to me to be trying to express solidarity while trying to clarify a difference. Some of the JVL and SWP disclaimers seem to me to smack of panic.
As a general principle, statements issued by acronymic organisations of academics should be ignored.
The only thing David Miller needs to apologise for is descending to childish techno toys to engage in serious debate.
Please consider the following statement:
White men are over-represented in positions of cultural, economic and political power. They are therefore, in a position to discriminate against actually marginalised groups.
Would the above statement have caused the stir David Miller’s statement caused? If not, why so? Is Miller’s statement factually wrong?
First I will compliment both JVL and BRICUP for their relentless and to be continued support in past and present for the beleaguered academic Miller in his brave struggle against the immense pressure from the pro-zionist lobby, be it from people with a Jewish background be it with a Christian background. A pro zionist lobby, that (and I am referring now specifically to the disturbing development deriving from the latest political Netanyahu endeavor) recently entered a whole new dimension within the longstanding settler colonial enterprise of creating an ethno-Jewish state on other people’s territory.
Secondly however, I want to ask you urgently to please invite Miller within the shortest of times, to produce a solid piece on this very JVL site to his own defense, in his own words and with his own arguments, context and his self-declared motives.
By not having invited him to react here and now in the first place, JVL in a way has created herself the painful; time related vacuum in which the very situation of – from the mouth of some participants even hypocritical – public outcry and erratic social media display) has been established, that paradoxically, seems to have been the main argument against his “officially JVL declared controversial” mega-short twitter statement from him.
After all, the longer one does wait with the above proposed invitation, the more – not least as the result of the logical and inexorable laws of the self-fulfilling prophecy – media turbulence will be generated, the more one seems to be in the right to “legitimately” criticize and condemn Miller et. etc..
Yes, one might argue that Miller might have called this situation partly on himself, but give him the benefit of doubt and a platform for his own defense, so we can start a true and honest discussion on the subjects that he raised.
In relation to (1) of David Miller’s tweet it is self evident that he is referring to discrimination by the State in various so called Western Democracies. None of David Miller’s critics are able to assert that David Miller is wrong on this. It is case that while the States in question promote anti Black racism there no evidence that these States promote anti Semitism, the possible exception being Hungary.
In relation to (2) David Millar’s basic assertion has not been challenged. This merely supports the contents of (1) in that if Jews were discriminated by the State is unlikely that they would overepresented in positions of power in various arenas referred to by David Miller.
David Miller’s tweet (3) in my view refers to a potential to discriminate not as Jews but as persons who are able to use State power to discriminate.
It is sad that JVL is undermining its standing by failing to understand the the palpable meaning of language used by David Miller.
In addition why has JVL not given David Miller an opportunity to respond to issues raised by JVL.
And of course these ill-thought out statements from JVL and Bricup, neither of which thought of actually contacting David Miller or entering into a dialogue with him, have brought satisaction to our common enemy, the apologists for Israeli fascism in the form of the Jewish Chronicle.
Academic support for David Miller starts to wane after ‘Jews are over-represented’ claim
Some of Miller’s former backers have disavowed the sacked University of Bristol lecturer and expressed embarrassment for previously defending him
https://www.thejc.com/news/news/academic-support-for-david-miller-starts-to-wane-after-jews-are-over-represented-claim-34ci3Wh9aaM0PptLRc1xyV
Contrary to what the JC assert, JVL have not expressed any embarrassment for defending Miller against his unjust dismissal and continue to do so.
Given their appalling record for inaccuracy, we are surprised that Tony accepted the truth of the JC article without contacting us first.
I have already made two posts on this topic in reaction to JVL’s original statement. One critiqued David Miller for a mistaken and generalising tweet. The second reminding people to play the ball and not the man. David has been through career persecution and still has a lot to offer genuine liberation struggles.
Also we might ask if you take out the first point – because as the Pittsburgh Synagogue attack demonstrates the fight again violent right-wing anti-Semitism is still not won – then how far are you away from a reasonable observation?
In talking about an assimilated white ethnic group, both second and third points have some validity, particularly with regards to the Israel lobby.
For example, when the western news media refers to Jews, they mean white western ones. They are not usually referring to Ugandan Jews, Ethiopian Jews, African-American Jews or even genuine Middle-Eastern Jews. Nor are they referring to those that have had such ethnic self-loathing peddled at them that they have risked the horrifying dangers of skin bleaching.
Implicit light/dark hierarchies, are still a major factor in western racism, which are linked to issues of class oppression and comparative status.
I’m Steve Burgess. 9/11 truther and labour antisemitism witch hunt victim. I’ve seen jvl overdraw their condemnations previously.
While often some specific Jews enjoy economic or social priviledge in western societies and a quick glance at parliament shows a significant overrepresentation of people claiming themselves to be Jewish, Antisemitism still exists. Privilege And the absence of discrimination against Jews is most certainly not universal across the Jewish population as the crude and sloppy miller overgeneralisation
“Jews are not discriminated against.”
Implies.
“They” in statement 3, referring to “Jews”, is again a laughably overdrawn exaggeration.
Miller has proved himself sloppy reckless careless and provocative in a way that is clearly bound to lead to legitimate and well grounded beliefs that he is antismitic. Even if as I suspect , he isn’t.
For example does he REALLY believe that no Jew has suffered ANY discrimination on the basis he is a Jew across the western world recently? The idea is laughable and reckless.
jVL are not doing their previous enforcements for Jewish oversensiivities here. They’re right. It’s a foolish statement.
Until miller withdraws, the rest of the humanitarian pro Palestine community needs to distance themselves from miller’s recklessness while still recognising him as a victim.
Well done jvl. well done brics.
“Fact” 2 takes a bit of research but on its own it wouldn’t have caused such resentment and concern
Why couldn’t miller have simply said “most Jews” “many Jews” or “some Jews”?
Instead of simply saying “Jews are”.
Sloppy.
This is an odd statement from an historian who was trained for years to avoid making false generalisation.
The fact is that holding higher positions which sometimes resulted in discrimination against others was never a guarantee against discrimination for that group. E.g the Jews in Germany before the Nazis and the discrimination against eastern Jews, minorities “elites” in colonial countries which were brought in just for this purpose.
But it was always part of the picture because even these “elites” were small part of the “elevated” community. The rest were actively discriminated against. For every Sacksed there are thousands of unsacksed.
As we witnessed with the labour party.
Prof. Miller does not deny the existence of antisemitism. But “antisemitic actions are, largely, an exception to the rule”. I’m quoting the Chief Rabbi’s statement in the Sunday Times. Indeed, Mirvis affirms: “in the UK the fight against antisemitism is led by the government at all levels…A threat to the Jews is rightly seen as a threat to our entire society.”
The relatively privileged social position enjoyed by many Jews – unlike that of Black people in Britain (surely Dianne Abbott’s point in her recent clumsy letter to The Observer) – has consequences in terms of power and influence.
How else to explain the role of those establishment-embedded Jewish structures and individuals in the recent rout of a large part of the Left. The establishment has its members and its facilitators and we have been their victims. In a relatively democratic society the power of the ruling class may rely ultimately on physical force but in the meantime it relies for its maintenance and stability on just that social layer in which Jews make up a significant part.
We know, don’t we, that the first minority that these socially empowered Jews use their positions to discriminate against are other Jews, when these others are unmasking the crimes of Zionism against the Palestinian people.
Tactless or not Miller’s statement debunks the idea that the racism that should most concern us is antisemitism. Read the tweet again placing “indeed” or “thus” between each “fact”.
I agree with the article, and would agree the David Miller should remove the Twitter X post.
I am surprised you did not put David Miller’s post in context. Indeed it was the last of a string of FOUR posts:
– Post 1. “If you are not Jewish, do not be cowed by racial supremacists who want to hector you into political subservience.
Judeophobia barely exists these days.
Educate yourself about Zionism and the tactics used by its adherents.”
as a a reply to the following post by @HenMazzig:
“If you are not Jewish, just because you don’t understand why something is antisemitic doesn’t mean it’s not. It means you need to educate yourself of the tropes, conspiracies, and hate Jews face.”
– Post 2. “Zionist propagandists like Hen Mazzig rely on ‘standpoint theory’ to fool naïve liberals and leftists into buying their lies.
They say only Jews can define Judeophobia, based on their ‘lived experience’.
This is a denial of reality.”
– Post 3. “Standpoint theory relies on the bizarre notion that people are magically qualified to speak about things via accident of birth, rather than observing material realities.
Real anti-racism is rooted in looking at the facts.
– Post 4:
The facts:
1. Jews are not discriminated against.
2. They are over-represented in Europe, North America and Latin America in positions of cultural, economic and political power.
3. They are therefore, in a position to discriminate against actually marginalised groups.
My dear friends of JVL,
After just a few minutes of google-researching on the subject of the alleged penal and moral borderline overreaching antisemitic remarks of Miller, I was able to reconstruct some of the all too necessary context (*) of the entire threesome of the remarks and in specific of one of the statements, that has been presented by JVL / BRICUP as the most offending :
The first citation seems to refer to the context of the compilation, used by Miller on Twitter :
Miller : “My comment on Twitter was a response to lies published by the Zionist propagandist Hen Mazzig, in which he used his Jewish identity to browbeat non-Jews into accepting his false definition of Judeophobia.”
The second citation does explicitly refer to the anti-semitism statement, that had been marked as untrue by JVL and subsequently characterized by JVL as a kind of anti-semitism denial (as in holocaust denial).
In May, Miller made similar claims in an interview broadcast on YouTube. He claimed then: “Classical antisemitism doesn’t really exist in our society anymore, beyond a few pockets on the far right and even the far right’s been moving en bloc in the last 20 years away from hatred of the Jews towards fanboying towards Israel and replacing the Jews as their bete noire with the bete noire de jour, which, of course, in the last 20 years since 9/11 has been the Muslims.”
I found these – by JVL now officially declared “offending” – citations on the website of the Jewish Chronicle (which of course might both be a guarantee or the opposite of a guarantee, for a correct representation. I conditionally chose for the first option to make my provisional points.)
My main point (of order, so to speak) is, that JVL should – in order to put her judgement on validation by the accused himself – provide Miller a fair chance to defend himself on this very website, against the rejectionist accusations, made against him by JVL and BRICUP.
(*) Actual situation-related context that is, vs general historical context on the subject of zionism, that you mentioned in this article.
As a supporter of David Miller, who was unjustly dismissed from his position at Bristol University, I am concerned about his statement on twitter, but more about the response it has engendered from those who have opposed the weaponization of anti-Semitism against critics of Israel.
Regarding the former, I do not see any political value from his comments on the purported position of Jews in that it does not advance the cause of Palestinian liberation. In addition, it treats Jews as an undifferentiated group and thereby denies many Jews fall outside his description. On the latter, his critics fail to recognise that discrimination can be distinct of anti-Semitism. While Jews are still the targets of hate speech and crimes, they are not institutionally discriminated in terms of access to employment, education or housing in the UK, as are Muslims or Afro_Caribbeans. On the second point, it is valid to say that some Jews are well placed among the cultural, economic and political elites. However, the insertion of “over” in front of represented can be interpreted as suggesting they have undue influence if not power — a common trope used by rabid anti-Semites. The third point unfortunately can be taken to indicate that Jews use their purported influence against other less privileged groups while denying the reality that discrimination usually is institutional and not committed by members of a social group.
In short, while some of David Miller’s three points can be questioned if challenged, I do not see them as “characteristic feature of all racisms”.