Commenting on the coming boycott debate at TUC Congress Jeremy Newmark, CEO of the Jewish Leadership Council and Fair Play board member, said:

Despite the anti-boycott stance of many TUC leaders and most ordinary union members, it now looks possible that the pro-boycott camp may succeed in hijacking TUC Conference for their own divisive and discriminatory agenda.

In advance of tomorrow’s debate we hope that delegates and union leaders will reflect carefully and act to ensure that the TUC does not damage its ability to act as an honest broker building bridges between Israelis and Palestinians.

The TUC has a noble record as positive and unifying element in British life and in international relations. The boycott resolution will only create discord and division.

ENDS

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, realeased a statement on boycotts of Israel yesterday. The strong statement, which is below, says “the Government is dismayed that motions calling for boycotts of Israel are being discussed at trade union congresses and conferences this summer”, and that boycotts “obstruct opportunities for co-operation and dialogue and serve only to polarise debate further. Boycotts would only make it harder to achieve the peace that both Palestinians and Israelis deserve and desire”.

Speaking for the Fair Play Campaign Group, Jewish Leadership CEO Jeremy Newmark said:

“It is concerning that matters have reached a point at which senior members of the Government have felt the need to speak out in this manner.  We welcome this clear statement from the Foreign Secretary which, when viewed together with last week’s remarks on boycotts by David Cameron and Nick Clegg, firmly demonstrates that the politics of the boycott movement remain firmly on the extreme fringes of British political life”

Read David Miliband’s full statement below:

Continue reading ‘Foreign Secretary says Israel boycotts make it harder to acheive peace’ »

Speaking at the Conservative Friends of Israel lunch, David Cameron said:

I think there’s something else we need to do which is to say to our academics in this country that boycotts of Israel are completely unacceptable and I think we also need to … say that to the trade unions. I have probably slightly less influence with the trade unions than you do but I’m working on it.

Mr Cameron went on to suggest that his party will help deliver this message to Trade Unions.

Last night, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg delivered the second annual lecture of the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism. In a good speech, he specifically condemned moves to boycott Israeli academics. He said:

“..we need to be much more active, more vocal, in our condemnation of antisemitism.

One issue where that is especially true is academic boycotts of Israeli academics. Totally unacceptable. Whether boycotters realise it or not these modern-day exclusions, based on nationality and tied to religion, carry enormous historical baggage. My party has made it clear we find them morally objectionable, and also counterproductive: the only route to peace will only ever be through dialogue.”

Dear Mr Wallis,

Thank you for clarifying the meaning of your remarks about lawyers backed by those with “bank balances from Lehman Brothers that can’t be tracked down”. We will be reproducing that part of your email that clarifies these remarks on our website, as promised.

We will not be reproducing your whole email, because some of the specific accusations you make against us in the rest of the message are simply untrue. It is unfortunate that you chose to forward these accusations to UCU’s General Secretary and UCL UCU Branch committee.

Similarly, we were upset to hear that a trade union meeting of 60 people debated a motion that claimed we were deliberately trying to “smear [your] name”. This is a serious and false charge made by the original author of the motion.

We have considered your comments:

In our original article, we claim you made remarks linking anti-boycott legal action to untraceable Lehman Brother accounts. We note that you accept making these remarks in your response.

We also state that it was not entirely clear what you meant by those remarks. You have now explained that you were referring to “wealthy individuals” who would no longer have the wherewithal to take action against UCU.

As someone who was present for the BRICUP fringe event, I do not find this explanation particularly convincing, especially as you were speaking specifically at that point about the threats the Union faced from legal action. Obviously, I have no way of knowing what you were thinking when you spoke, but we are comfortable with our original claim – that it was not, at the time, entirely obvious what you meant.

These are the only assertions about you in our report. We stand by our original report and are not inclined to withdraw it. We do not accept your claim that a failure to remove a true and accurate report would indicate complicity in a smear campaign.
Yours sincerely,

Arieh Kovler
Fair Play Campaign Group