An Anti-Israel Professor Was Fired for His Treatment of Students. So Why Did a UK Court Want to Protect His Anti-Zionist Beliefs?

In 2021, David Miller, a sociologist obsessed by a fanatical hatred of Israel and its Jewish supporters, was fired by Britain’s University of Bristol for failing to “meet the standards of behavior we expect from our staff.” Miller, who since then has worked as a regular commentator on Iranian state-sponsored television, sued for wrongful termination. On Monday, the court ruled in his favor on the grounds that his “anti-Zionism” constitutes a “philosophical belief” for which he cannot be legally fired.

Dave Rich clarifies what exactly these beliefs were:

Miller believes that every Jewish organization, synagogue, school, charity, or youth club anywhere in the world that has a connection to Israel must be “dismantled.” He blithely peddles anti-Semitic tropes and treats all but the small minority of Jews who wholly reject Israel as an enemy to be “defeated.” His beliefs, were they to be put into effect, amount to an all-out assault on global Jewish life as currently constituted.

But, as Melanie Phillips explains, Miller did not lose his job because his employer decided that his anti-Zionism amounted to anti-Semitism:

It was Miller who claimed that he was being hounded by “Zionists” because of his views. But the university didn’t find that. It didn’t fire him because of his views about Jews or Israel. In its disciplinary hearing in September 2021, it found that his actions towards students amounted to gross misconduct for which he should be fired.

The hearing was conducted by the Dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences at the time, Professor Jane Norman. In her dismissal notice, she made no reference to Miller’s anti-Zionism. She concluded instead that his sackable offence was to have grossly breached the university’s rules of conduct. . . . He had singled out students and their societies for criticism which was an “abuse of power”; he had connected one such society to “violence, racism, ethnic cleansing, and making other protected groups feel unsafe”; his tone had been “inappropriate” because he had been “seeking to proselytize and convert others” to his cause “and/or to provoke a public reaction”; and he had not shown “any shred of insight into why others might have found your words reprehensible.”

One has to ask, therefore, why the tribunal was so keen to make anti-Zionism the central element of its ruling.

Read more at Melanie Phillips

More about: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Israel on campus, United Kingdom

Israel Just Sent Iran a Clear Message

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.

Read more at Jewish Chronicle

More about: Iran, Israeli Security