Exaggerators, Manipulators and Arrogant Liars - Who said it and of whom?

Here's an article that first appeared in the now defunct online magazine, Cartoon Kippah.  It's by a thinking person's Zionist called Adam Wagner who is some kind of human rights barrister.  I'm not sure how he squares that circle of support for human rights and being a Zionist but the "exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars" comes from his own take on the infamous Fraser v UCU (PDF) debacle of late 2012/early 2013, so here is the whole article as lifted from the Jews for Justice for Palestinians website:

By Adam Wagner, Cartoon Kippah

April 05, 2013

Sometimes we need an outsider’s perspective to bring into focus uncomfortable truths about ourselves. Just before the Passover festivities, the Employment Tribunal released a 45-page judgment full of Biblical fury which did just that.

The judgment was about a legal claim brought by a maths teacher, Ronnie Fraser, against his teaching union. He claimed that the Union had harassed him in breach of equality laws due to its handling of the Israel-Palestine debate.

The full judgment can be read here (PDF). If you have any interest in Jewish communal politics and in particular how the Israel-Palestine debate is handled, I highly recommend you read it. Perhaps set aside half an hour over a well-earned post-Passover sandwich – it’s worth it, I promise.

I won’t try to summarise Employment Judge Snelson’s findings here, but I would like to draw out a few points. The main one is that the Claimant, represented by solicitor Anthony Julius, lost in a big way. This was a total, unqualified demolition job. As an outcome, it really was ten plagues bad.

The language of the judgment is harsh and at times sarcastic. As a lawyer, you can take it from me that it doesn’t get much worse than this. This was a “sorry saga”, the Tribunal “greatly regret that the case was ever brought”, at its heart the case was “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means”. Perhaps worst of all, the claim showed a “worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.”

Let’s just step back for a moment. Just because a judge rules on something doesn’t mean they are right. Judgments get appealed and overturned. Reading this one, and not having been in court for the weeks of evidence, there are at least two possibilities. First, that the Tribunal has taken an irrational or perverse dislike to the claimant, his lawyers and some of his witnesses – that is a real possibility, given how scathing the judgment is. The second is, however, is that the Tribunal has got it broadly right, having listened to the extensive evidence and nonetheless dismissed the case out of hand.

As I said, I wasn’t there – this is an evidence heavy case so you really have to have sat through it to reach a proper conclusion. But assuming for the purpose of this article that the Tribunal did get it right, there is a lot here to be worried about.

Preposterous
Let’s take just a single paragraph, number 148. Here the Judge is summarising his conclusions on the claimant’s witnesses who included British Jewish luminaries such as the author Howard Jacobson. Some gave “careful, thoughtful, courteous evidence”. Others however, “seemed more disposed to score points or play to the gallery rather than providing straightforward answers to the clear questions put to them.” Again, ouch.

Particular criticism was reserved for Jeremy Newmark, the Chief Executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, a committee of community grandees:

We regret to say that we have rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark concerning the incident at the 2008 Congress… Evidence given to us about booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers at Congress debates was also false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted. One painfully ill-judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark’s preposterous claim, in answer to the suggestion in cross- examination that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a ‘pushy Jew’ stereotype was being applied to him. The opinions of witnesses were not, of course, our concern and in most instances they were in any event unremarkable and certainly not unreasonable. One exception was a remark of Mr Newmark in the context of the academic boycott controversy in 2007 that the union was “no longer a fit arena for free speech”, a comment which we found not only extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing.

Wow. Here are some words you never want to hear in litigation: “untrue”, “false”, “preposterous”, “extraordinarily arrogant”, “disturbing”. To recap, this is the Chief Executive of an organisation which is arguably now the main ambassador of the Jewish Community to the wider British community. This may all be unfair and perverse, but if it is not then we should be worried about the implications.

Then came the MPs. Not just any MPs, but Denis MacShane and John Mann, both well known to the Jewish community; Mr MacShane chaired the The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, Mann authored the Football Association Taskforce on Tackling Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Again, it’s bad:

We did not derive assistance from the two Members of Parliament who appeared before us. Both gave glib evidence, appearing supremely confident of the rightness of their positions. For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand). Mr Mann could manage without even that assistance. He told us that the leaders of the Respondents were at fault for the way in which they conducted debates but did not enlighten us as to what they were doing wrong or what they should be doing differently. He did not claim ever to have witnessed any Congress or other UCU meeting. And when it came to anti- Semitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is …” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us. Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking.

As I said, wow. These are MPs who have been lionised by the Jewish community, and in particular the Jewish Chronicle (perhaps not incidentally, Anthony Julius chairs the JC board, a point highlighted by the Judge). ”And on the topic of that Parliamentary Committee”

157… The Respondents defended themselves courteously but robustly against treatment by the Parliamentary Committee the fairness of which was, to put it at its very lowest, open to question.

The sarcasm drips off that final sentence, doesn’t it? Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that contrary to the claimant’s arguments, the Union’s meetings were “well-ordered and balanced” and that almost the entire case was “manifestly unmeritorious”. Most importantly, the Tribunal rejected out of hand the argument that “a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment” can amount to a protected characteristic.

Lessons not learned
Where does this leave us? It is tempting to see this “sorry saga” as no more than an unfortunate and hubristic litigation fail, or an “act of epic folly” as the Jewish Chronicle’s ‘Ask the QC’ QC Jonathan Goldberg commented. But I think there are wider lessons here which we would ignore at our peril.

Anyone who follows Jewish communal politics and reads the JC will recognise many in the cast of characters as well as the arguments. Anti-Zionist or pro-Palestinian campaigners are regularly branded as anti-Semites. Despite the good work of organisations like Yachad, this is still a regular and well-supported narrative at the centre of much of the Jewish communal response to criticism of Israel. But that approach – which really amounts to communal comfort food – has clearly failed. And yet it is still wheeled out: watch, for example, this stirring but flawed recent speech by the Chief Rabbi to AIPAC, an American pro-Israel lobby. They hate us, so they would say that. Etc.

Of course, some criticism of Israel is linked to or motivated by anti-Semitism, but isn’t it time to stop using vast resources to paint legitimate debate as racial hatred? As well as failing miserably as an pro-Israel argument, this approach also risks fatally undermining work against real anti-Semitism. Aren’t we just a little bit ashamed for major communal leaders and organisations to have backed a claim showing a “disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression”?

In a prediction of Michael Fish quality, the JC originally said of the case that unless UCU repented its “clear antisemitic behaviour”:

we could be set for this decade’s version of the Irving trial – a specific case which acts to crystallise broader themes and issues

It certainly did crystallise broader themes and issues. But not the ones the cheerleaders hoped for. As said above, it is possible that this Tribunal reached a perverse decision. No doubt some will say so once the recriminations begin to fly. I imagine some will even accuse the Judge of anti-Semitism. But assuming for a moment that he was right, we should, as a community, be embarrassed by this ruling. It involved not just the looney fringe but central figures in the community, who have been branded exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars. More importantly, the ‘anti-Zionism equals racism’ argument is plainly bankrupt and has no purchase in wider society. We should move on to something which might actually work. And that is the lesson of this sorry Passover saga.

Adam (@adamwagner1) is a barrister specialising in human rights & medical law. He is founding editor of UK Human Rights Blog….”

So what really happened to FUCU II?

I've just found another JC article about the aborted Moty Cristol against Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust case.

It was again by Martin Bright and significantly it was written before the disastrous outcome of Mr R Fraser v University and College Union.

So let's have a look at the article from the Jewish Chronicle dated, November 15, 2012:

Across the country, strikes are being organised in the heath service by public sector union Unison. Just this week, the union described plans to cut 50 per cent of nursing staff at NHS Direct as a “disaster”. The Department of Health and Unison are effectively at war. All the more bizarre then, that they are united in their fight against Moty Cristal, an Israeli conflict resolution expert, whose invitation to run a workshop at Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust was withdrawn in May.

There's a point to this in an article that has nothing to do with strikes or austerity:

I have tried this week to discover why Unison and the Trust have decided to prioritise fighting an expensive legal case during such straitened times. Neither was prepared to comment while the case was ongoing. This is patent nonsense: this is not a criminal trial and there is no jury to prejudice. But I can understand their reticence. It must be extremely embarrassing that a rare point of common ground between NHS managers and Unison is their determination to justify boycotting a respected international expert, simply for being an Israeli. Meanwhile, the Department of Health and ministers have thus far refused to intervene for fear of further inflaming Unison. 

Actually, it wasn't the union that decided to prioritise the case, it was Moty Cristol, the conflict resolution advisor.  He wasn't boycotted for "simply for being Israeli".  An explanation for his disinvitation was already reported in the JC back in April 2012 thus:

"It was considered that the decision to invite a prominent Israeli negotiator would be unacceptable given UNISON and TUC policy on the Middle East conflict, the irrelevance of the speaker to working relationships within a local NHS Trust and the inappropriateness of funding an international speaker at times of such austerity, when front line staff in the trust are at risk of redundancy."

In more recent articles the JC lets on that Moty Cristol was seeking £26.5 k.  Now in the name of fighting austerity, Martin Bright is suggesting that Unison should simply roll over and pay Moty Cristol £26.5.  He is further arguing that in these "times of such austerity" the health trust should simply have proceeded with an event the union deemed irrelevant and costly.  A bit of a logic fail there.

Further, the union's refusal to comment "while the case was ongoing" seems perfectly reasonable, especially given, that there was another ongoing case at the time.  Yes, the FUCU case linked above.

Whilst trying to pull together the various JC articles on this case I noticed one by Marcus Dysch dated August 30, 2013 announcing the scheduling of the trial:

A trial is due to begin at Central London County Court on September 11 [2013]and to last three days. He is expected to be represented by lawyers from the Mishcon de Reya law firm.

So did it happen?  Again Marcus Dysch reports (September 17, 2013):

Judge David Mitchell told Central London County Court that the complexity of the case meant its future in the courts was unclear.....

Following three days of legal arguments.....
Judge Mitchell told Dinah Rose QC, acting for Prof Cristal, that he was “not against” her, but that he was “concerned” by the number of legal issues the sides were debating and feared the case would “simply mushroom into a huge series of issues”.

The judge added a further warning that with appeals likely from both sides, it may end with the case going as far as the Supreme Court.........

He pledged to publish a judgement “as soon as I can”..........

The court had earlier heard that the Trust’s lawyers would argue that Prof Cristal’s claim was “trivial” and that the cost of the litigation was out of proportion with the benefits that he could gain.

So did the judge publish a judgement?  Did the Jewish Leadership Council threaten to withdraw their support.  Did partners in Mishcon de Reya warn any of their over enthusiastic hasbaristas of the dangers of another costly humiliation?

Its a funny old thing but in his article denouncing Unison and the health trust, Martin Bright called on  the government health minister, Jeremy Hunt,  and the then head of the Trades Union Congress, Brendan Barber to force Unison and the health trust to capitulate.  Look at what turned out to be some major hostages to fortune:

like Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Mr Barber has decided to keep his head down over Moty Cristal. Perhaps they think if they avoid the issue it will just go away, or that it is an obscure matter unworthy of their attention. But their hand may yet be forced when the case comes to court. Moty Cristal is by profession a skilled negotiator and, as such, he knows his demands must be very clear and very reasonable. All he wants is an admission of wrongdoing from the health trust and the union and an assurance that it won’t happen again. This will cost them nothing. The alternative is potentially very expensive indeed in terms of hard cash and reputations.

Well the issue did just go away and Cristol wasn't just seeking an apology, he was seeking money too.  But if Martin Bright didn't want the case simply to go away he certainly wanted it to go one way:

Messrs Hunt and Barber could stop this nonsense now.

In the event it was Moty Cristol who stopped this nonsense but who blinked out of his own side, Mishcon le Reya, the Jewish Leadership Council or Moty Cristol himself or indeed all three?

Another FUCU Case Averted?

Well it certainly looks like it.

A couple of years ago, almost exactly, Moty Cristol, according to Martin Bright in The Jewish Chronicle (August 23, 2012):

an Israeli conflict resolution expert and peace activist with a track record of negotiating at a high level with Jordanian and Palestinian officials, was due to speak at an NHS conference in Manchester to advise health service managers and trade union officials.

However his invitation was revoked following objections from the trade union, Unison.  Closer to the time, ie, April 2012, the Anshell Pfeffer reported in the JC (April 30, 2012) Unison's explanation for the decision:

Explaining the decision, Mr Nelson said: "It was considered that the decision to invite a prominent Israeli negotiator would be unacceptable given UNISON and TUC policy on the Middle East conflict, the irrelevance of the speaker to working relationships within a local NHS Trust and the inappropriateness of funding an international speaker at times of such austerity, when front line staff in the trust are at risk of redundancy."

By November of 2012 Martin Bright in was reporting in the JC (November 8, 2012) that:

Unison, the partner organisation for the seminar, told the NHS Trust that its members would not take part in anything run by the Israeli academic

and that Mr Cristol would now be suing Manchester Health Trust:

Prof Cristal flew to London to talk to lawyers about taking legal action. It now looks likely that the case against Manchester NHS Trust and Unison will be heard in a county court.

Prof Cristal told reporters: “I came here to assess the legal situation. Now I am even more convinced that I am going to pursue the action in the county court.

Significantly it didn't report in that piece on the explanation given by Unison for the disinvitation.  It did however state what it was that Moty Cristol wanted to achieve from his action:

“It is the right thing to do to fight the delegitimisation movement. I was boycotted because I am an Israeli. As a negotiator, I will pursue the action until a decent offer is put on the table”.

He wanted two things, he said: “Public acknowledgement of the wrongdoing of discrimination against me as an Israeli — and the public assurance that this will not be repeated.”

It appears he wasn't boycotted for being an Israeli.  Rather it appears he was boycotted because he is a high profile representative of the Israeli state, now in academia.  And note he is not simply claiming to seek a remedy for anything he has lost but to "fight the delegitimisation movement".  Some people make bones over this.  Some say you can't delegitimise an illegitimate state others say we must deligitimise a state that does after all have international recognition via the UN.  Still others, say we mustn't try or even give the impression that want to delegitimise Israel because its status at the UN is sacrosanct.  I'm with the bunch that says Israel's has no legitimacy but just in case it has then delegitimisation is a perfectly, well, legitimate goal.

But note also that he is saying he wants the Manchester Health Trust to say it did wrong and that it won't do it again.  Note further there is no mention of money.

Anyway, now (today, May 29, 2014) the JC's Marcus Dysch is reporting that Mr Cristol has dropped his action against the Manchester Health Trust:

An Israeli conflict resolution expert has dropped his legal case against a health trust which he claimed had discriminated against him.

Moty Cristal had been seeking damages totalling £26,500 and an apology from Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust after it cancelled a workshop he was due to run for its staff in 2012.

So he wanted £26,500 and a sorry from the aforementioned Trust. I wonder where Dysch got his information from.  Clearly, sensibly, he doesn't rely on the JC.  The article sets out why the case has been dropped:

He [Moty Cristol] said: "I made this decision since the goals that I first set out to achieve have broadly been met. My primary goal was to establish that I had been unfairly treated and discriminated against as an Israeli negotiator."

He said he had received a letter from the health trust’s chief executive apologising for cancelling the lecture. But he originally said he wanted “Public acknowledgement of the wrongdoing of discrimination against me as an Israeli — and the public assurance that this will not be repeated.”  Remember?  He didn't get either of those.  Nor did he get that £26.5 k.

But a more significant aspect might be this:

The JC understands his supporters — including the Jewish Leadership Council — had been prepared to continue backing him, but the court’s initial warnings relating to costs and the likelihood of success had eventually led to his decision to withdraw.

So the JLC was going to continue backing him in his pursuit of public redress plus £26.5 k but he had the magnanimity to withdraw because he didn't want the JLC being stung for costs?  That really doesn't seem likely.  It seems more likely that the JLC told him his cause was hopeless and they were damned if they were picking up the tab especially with the costs of the FUCU disaster possibly still hanging over them.  Or it could be that the JLC really was going to pick up the tab in another fruitless cause but Moty Cristol didn't want to waste his time and face the same humiliation that Ronnie Fraser has gone through.

But Marcus Dysch's conclusion is both interesting and encouraging to those of us who support BDS:

His move also appears to support the belief within the community that the JLC and other organisations will take a new approach to countering boycotters and groups opposed to Israel, using discourse rather than legal process.

 So it appears that lawfare is being quietly dropped and BDS is going from strength to strength.

FUCU II Plaintiff on Negotiating with Iran

If you read the last post you'll know that Professor Moty Cristol is suing the UK public sector union, Unison, because they disinvited him from something or other on account of his role as an Israeli government adviser.  Here he is in Ha'aretz:

When a Western negotiator - who believes that negotiation is only a means to an end - meets an Iranian negotiator - who sees bargaining as a way to pass the time, or just to weaken the other side (especially in a political context) - there is a gap that always benefits the Iranian.

Now change the words Western for Palestinian and Iranian for Israeli and we have the history of Oslo.  We also have an Israeli government negotiator with a breathtaking lack of self-awareness.

If you have trouble accessing the Ha'aretz article, see this blog for a key to the paywall.