Far away from the carnage in Gaza there’s a small army of lawyers in Britain battling against critics of Israel. UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) uses its members’ legal skills to combat “attempts to undermine, attack and/or delegitimise Israel, Israeli organisations, Israelis and/or supporters of Israel”.

But how, exactly, does it go about that? I've been taking a close look and the result is a four-part report exploring different aspects of its activities.

Below is a short summary of key points. Click on the links to view the full story ...

 

Part One: The complaints department

● One of UKLFI's specialities is writing legalistic letters complaining about public expressions of support for the Palestinians. The targets of its letters have included art galleries, a hospital, a cinema, a museum, a church, student unions, local councils and a football club.

● Some of UKLFI's letters have demanded cancellation of pro-Palestinian events, hinting at legal action under the Equality Act if they go ahead. 

● Ostensibly, the aim is to promote good community relations and ensure the law is observed, but others see the effect as stifling free speech. Some openly accuse UKLFI of bullying and intimidation.

Click here for the full version of Part One
 

Part Two: Siding with the hardliners

● UKLFI is well connected in Britain’s legal establishment. Nine of its 10 patrons are King's Counsel and six of them are members of the House of Lords.

● Twice in the last year UKLFI has given testimony to parliament on legal matters relating to Israel. However, its interpretations of international law are wildly out of line with those of the UN, the ICJ and successive British governments.

● Among other things, UKLFI claims Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is lawful and Israeli settlements there are legitimate. There are also "good arguments", it says, that Palestinian East Jerusalem is sovereign Israeli territory.

Click here for the full version of Part Two
 

Part Three: A war against charities 

● UKLFI has repeatedly complained to the Charity Commission about charities that work on Palestinian issues, accusing them of breaking the rules and, in some cases, of having links to terrorism.

● UKLFI has used the charitable rules with some success to block BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) activity on campuses, since student unions are usually registered as charities.

● Through its own charitable arm, UKLFI hosts webinars with guest speakers, for "educational" purposes. One was a talk by Naomi Khan from Regavim, the notorious pro-settler organisation which uses drones to monitor construction work by Palestinians and Bedouins then takes court action against any that lacks an Israeli permit. 

● In another UKLFI webinar, an American law professor spoke about the “scurrilous apartheid charge” against Israel. “Unlike South Africa’s apartheid system, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not about race,” he said. According to Kittrie, “race” refers only to physical characteristics such as skin colour.

Click here for the full version of Part Three
 

Part Four: Protecting Zionism

● Since Zionism inspires many of the Israeli government’s policies, supporters of Palestinian rights often see it as fair game for criticism. Part Four examines claims by UKLFI and others that Zionism is (or should be) legally protected as a “religion or belief” and discusses two important cases where employment tribunals wrestled with this issue.

● One of them, in 2011, involved the University and College Union (UCU) and Ronnie Fraser, a lecturer who claimed the union had harassed him on account of his Zionism. The tribunal rejected his claim after determining that Zionism is "not intrinsically a part of Jewishness" and is therefore not protected.

● The second case, earlier this year, involved David Miller, a controversial sociology professor who had been dismissed from Bristol university, amid allegations of antisemitism. Miller told the tribunal he regarded Zionism as “a settler-colonial and ethno-nationalist movement that seeks to assert Jewish hegemony and political control over the land of historic Palestine”. The tribunal determined that anti-Zionism is a protected characteristic and also accepted Miller's claim that he had been discriminated against on account of his anti-Zionist beliefs.

● The outcome of the Miller case caused some alarm in the Jewish community but Jonathan Turner, UKLFI’s chief executive, saw it as an opportunity: “Recognition that anti-Zionism (even in its most extreme form) is a protected characteristic should ensure that Zionism is also treated as a protected characteristic.” Since then, UKLFI has claimed in several letters that Zionism is indeed a protected characteristic – though there has been no judicial ruling to that effect.

Click here for the full version of Part Four