Martin Shaw has made another defence of his thesis that the campaign to exclude Israeli scholars from British universities has no connection, either in cause or in effect, to antisemitism. His latest addition to the debate is here.

Shaw begins by asking, again, for evidence of antisemitic 'symbols, discourses and practices of discrimination' connected to the boycott campaign. Why does he choose to ignore the evidence to which he has been directed? Perhaps he doesn't accept some of it. But can he really believe that none of it describes antisemitism which is connected to the boycott campaign or to disproportionate hostility to Israel?

David T gave him a good example of such evidence just the other day on Harry's Place when he discussed the antisemitic rhetoric of one of the former leaders of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Perhaps he should wonder why pro-boycott activists rallied around an antizionist who relied on a piece of conspiracy theory from David Duke's website? here.

Perhaps he should look at David Hirsh's collection of evidence in his YIISA paper, here.

Perhaps he should look at the Community Security Trust's report on antisemitic discourse in the UK, here.

Perhaps he should look at the conspiracy theory of Baroness Jenny Tonge, here.

Shaw could look at Liberal Democrat Chris Davies' resignation for inviting one of his 'Zionist' constituents to "wallow in her own filth" because she contested his analogy between Israel and Nazi Germany, here.

Shaw could look at the language employed by the Reverend Dr Steven Sizer when he accuses the Chief Rabbi of being one of the "people in the shadows" who opposes his boycott, here.

Shaw could look at the rhetoric produced by the leadership of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and their acceptance of Gilad Atzmon as an antiracist, here.

Martin Shaw could try considering seriously what members of the UCU who have resigned over the antisemitism which has been tolerated in the union because of the boycott campaign have written, here.

He should look at David Hirsh's bureaucratic exclusion from the discussion in the union, here.

He could try reading the report of the Parliamentary Inquiry into antisemitism, here. He could read the response signed by 76 union members to the evasive UCU response here.

Martin Shaw could try reading more than 2000 articles on the Engage website, many of which offer the evidence which he asks for, here. Or the Engage Journal, here.

But Martin Shaw does none of this. He offers a re-heated argument about how Israel's universities aren't really universities.

Then he adds his own version of the charge that Israel is like Nazi Germany, complete with his own version of the "Jews should know better" angle:

"Gazan Palestinians in 2008, like Polish Jews in 1939-40, are confined in a small territory and subjected to systematic depradations of their conditions of life. The difference is one of degree, and probable final outcome, rather than of kind. I find it shocking that 70 years after the confinement of Polish Jews in the ghettos, a self-proclaimed Jewish state should be content to confine another people in the manner that the Gazans are confined..."

Martin Shaw then goes on to reproduce his allegation that those of us who are concerned by the relationship between antisemitism and antizionism are acting in bad faith and dishonestly:

"I find it shocking that ... some Jewish socialists should use indiscriminate accusations of 'anti-Semitism' to discredit the outcry against this and other policies of the Israeli state."

Martin Shaw still offers no evidence of our bad faith yet he accuses us of only pretending to be concerned about antisemitism (which he has now taken to writing in inverted commas) when what we are really concerned with is discrediting the legitimate outcry against Israel... Martin Shaw's formulation is an absolutely standard version of the Livingstone Formulation.

Martin Shaw adds, perhaps a little hopefully, "This correspondence is now closed." If only.

DH

UPDATE
Ben Cohen is well worth reading on Shaw's use of the Nazi analogy on Z-word, here. Cohen:

"...Invoking the Nazi comparison becomes all the more egregious when one recalls that this technique is almost always used to bash Israel - rarely any other state. So is this really about honest political critique, or is this about taunting the Jews with their demons? If it’s the former, as Shaw would like us to believe, then are there similar analogies one could make with regard to other conflicts?..."

Hirsh's original piece in Democratiya 13 is here.
The debate in Democratiya 14 between Martin Shaw and David Hirsh is here.
Norman Geras' argument is here.
Martin Shaw's accusation of bad faith is here.
Another reply from Norman Geras here.
Another reply from Martin Shaw here.
Geras's latest response is here.
David T presents (again) some of the evidence that Martin Shaw is asking for here.
Flesh is Grass has a view here.
Martin Shaw again, here.
Ben Cohen on Z-word, here.