EU Kehillah states Edinburgh Jewish Society is ‘not truthfully [...] combating antisemitism’, while ex-Jsoc President claims responsibility for University disengagement with pro-Palestine groups.
On the topic of differing Jewish groups on campus, EU Kehillah stated that ‘ideally, there would be no need for [...] Kehillah alongside the Jewish Society at Edinburgh’ (JSoc), but recognises that JSoc "does not allow for the diversity of Jewish voices’. JSoc is ‘affiliated with the Union of Jewish Students (UJS)’ who have pledged to ‘stand against anti-Zionist Jewish groups". On their official website, UJS cites ‘Engagement with Israel’ as one of their four core values. Kehillah notes that JSoc receives funding from "explicitly Zionist organisations such as Aish UK" and have ‘played an active role in maintaining the IHRA working definition of antisemitism at the University’. Further, JSoc has "taken a stance of non-interaction with Kehillah". Kehillah believes the group is "not truthfully interested in combating antisemitism" but rather in "maintaining the university’s support for Israel".
Former Edinburgh JSoc president and future nationwide UJS President Louis Danker claims responsibility for the university’s maintenance of the IHRA definition, and the ‘disengage[ment]’ between the administration and ‘student protesting groups’ in a post outlining his ‘history of Jewish advocacy’ (slides 5,7). Danker claims that in May 2023, he successfully campaigned to "protect the IHRA definition of Antisemitism in Edinburgh". Kehillah argues that the IHRA "denies any criticis"’ of Israel, conflating "Anti-Zionism with antisemitism". They assert "Palestinian selfhood and existence [...] is juridically erased by the IHRA". The IHRA states that "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded antisemitic". Multiple legal, humanitarian and political bodies have raised issues with the definition’s appropriations and problems, with the creator himself stating that it should not be adopted by educational bodies. Human Rights Watch and 103 other organisations sent a joint letter to the UN in April 2023 detailing the IHRA’s problematic nature and urging against the adoption to effectively combat antisemitism.
Danker claims to have made ‘groundbreaking progress’ in protecting Jewish students and campaigned Edinburgh Uni to ‘disengage from students groups who glorified October 7th’. The administration, however, does not cite ‘glorifi[cation]’ of October 7th as a reason for withdrawing from negotiations with JPS, or potentially Kehillah. Rather, reasons for actively and potentially ‘ceas[ing] all engagement’ with both groups focus predominantly on the ‘increasingly threatening tone’ taken against the administration, citing 30th October and 3rd November in relation to student protest at the Careers Fair and an edited video highlighting the historical legacy of Arthur Balfour at Edinburgh University.
The discrepancy between official University communication, Danker’s manifesto of ‘advocacy’ and the unresolved issue of the IDF soldier raises many questions regarding the nature of official University decision making. Updates on this will be provided when more information is publicly accessible.
Comments