Shush! Don't mention genocide!

Three copies of the ad were displayed side by side on a billboard

An advertisement containing the word "genocide" has been removed from a billboard in London after pro-Israel lawyers claimed it posed a threat to public order.

The objection came from UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) which campaigns against “attempts to undermine, attack and/or delegitimise Israel, Israeli organisations, Israelis and/or supporters of Israel”. One way it does this is by threatening legal action against expressions of support for the rights of Palestinians.

The ad that prompted UKLFI's intervention had a five-word message in a pretend-Arabic typeface on a background photo of green olives. It said:

See it,
Say it,
Genocide

This was an apparent adaptation of "See it. Say it. Sorted" – the British Transport Police slogan urging passengers to report suspicious objects.

Three copies of the ad were displayed side by side on a billboard in Huntingdon Street, a quiet play street in Islington.

UKLFI claimed the billboard "was being used to display anti-Israel propaganda which is divisive, offensive, intimidating and distressing to Jewish residents in the area and likely to promote antisemitism".

It also suggested that the billboard's owner, BuildHollywood UK, was committing an offence under Section 5 or Section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Section 5 prohibits "any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".

Section 18 prohibits displays of "any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting" and intended to stir up racial hatred or likely to do so.

BuildHollywood UK did not respond to a request for comment.

Not 'genocide', just a 'conflict'

Last September UKLFI succeeded in getting references to genocide removed from the publicity for a Palestine-related art exhibition which formed part of the London Design Festival.

The original publicity had three sentences mentioning genocide:

"This exhibition dives into Palestinian culture and heritage, highlighting its resilience amidst genocide and displacement."

"The work proposes Palestine as an urgent touchstone of our times as artists and creative practitioners, reflecting on both the challenge and urgency of producing work within the context of the ongoing genocide."

"The aim of the exhibition is to highlight Palestinian culture and heritage, bringing to light its endurance amidst the violence of displacement, colonialism and genocide."

Following UKLFI's intervention, "genocide" in the first sentence was replaced by "war". In the second sentence "genocide" was replaced by "conflict", and in the third sentence "genocide" was removed altogether.

In its complaint letter, UKLFI described the references to genocide as an example of "Holocaust inversion" – an attempt to portray Israelis as “the new Nazis” and the Gazans as “the new Jews”. It added: "Holocaust inversion is potentially the most significant component in the incitement of racial hatred against Jews, because Nazism is considered to be the epitome of evil."

UKLFI director Caroline Turner said later that she was pleased the London Design Festival had reacted quickly and removed the references to genocide: "We were anxious not to curb freedom of expression so we are pleased that we have resolved this issue.”

It's difficult, though, to see the results of UKLFI's action as anything other than a curb on free expression.

'False propaganda'

In claiming that the allegations of genocide are motivated by antisemitism UKLFI seeks to de-legitimise alternative explanations: there's no evidence of genocide, it says, and such talk is simply "false propaganda".

“It is very important to understand why the allegations of genocide are being advanced," Natasha Hausdorff, legal director of UKLFI Charitable Trust told a parliamentary committee last April. “It is not because there is any currency to the allegations – any real evidence to base them on.” All the allegations against Israel were based on fabricated or manipulated casualty figures, she said.

The courts have yet to give a definitive ruling but, to ordinary folk not intent on "Holocaust inversion", Israel's wholesale destruction of Gaza, the mass killings of women and children, plus the genocidal language from senior Israelis and others, all point to an obvious conclusion.

To describe Israel's actions as genocide is not, as pro-Israel columnist Melanie Phillips puts it, the opinion of “a few cranks”. It's a reasonably-held view, based on substantial evidence, and people have a right to talk about it.

'Genocide' ad withdrawn from New York Times

Last December the American Friends Service Committee – a Quaker organisation – attempted to place an ad in the New York Times which said: “Tell Congress to stop arming Israel’s genocide in Gaza now!”

When the paper's advertising department suggested "genocide" should be changed to "war", the Quakers refused and the paper replied that “various international bodies, human rights organisations, and governments have differing views on the situation" and "in line with our commitment to factual accuracy and adherence to legal standards, we must ensure that all advertising content complies with these widely applied definitions.”

The organisation then cancelled its ad. “We feel a moral obligation to call a genocide by its name," Joyce Ajlouny, its general secretary, wrote later in an article for The Nation.

Freedom of expression

The New York Times's view is not shared by the Britain's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), however. Last April the Camden New Journal, a local paper in north London, published an ad containing the G-word. It announced a series of meetings organised by the Camden branch of the Abu Dis Friendship Association and began with the words “Ceasefire now! End the genocide!”

Camden advert — The advertisement that caused the complaint

A reader complained that the reference to genocide was “spurious” and “inflammatory” but the ASA declined to intervene. A spokesperson explained:

“We recognise that, while there are many opinions about this issue, advertisers have rights of freedom of expression under the law …

“We have to carefully balance protecting the public from ads likely to cause serious or widespread offence with the importance of not unduly restricting the expression of views on matters of public debate.”