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.

Since the war began, there has been a tension between Israel’s two primary goals: the destruction of Hamas and the liberation of the hostages. Many see in Israel’s renewed campaign in Gaza a sacrifice of the latter goal in pursuit of the former. But Meir Ben-Shabbat suggests that Israel’s attacks aim to bring Hamas back to the negotiating table:

The timing of the attack, its intensity, and the extent of casualties surprised Hamas. Its senior leaders are likely still wondering whether this is a limited action meant to shock and send a message or the beginning of a sustained operation. The statement by its senior officials linking the renewal of fighting to the fate of the hostages hints at the way it may act to stop Israel. This threat requires the Israeli political leadership to formulate a series of draconian measures and declare that they will be carried out if Hamas harms the hostages.

Ostensibly, Israel’s interest in receiving the hostages and continuing the fighting stands in complete contradiction to that of Hamas, but in practice Hamas has flexibility that has not yet been exhausted. This stems from the large number of hostages in its possession, which allows it to realize additional deals for some of them, and this is what Israel has been aiming its efforts toward.

We must concede that the challenge Israel faces is not simple, but the alternative Hamas presents—surrendering to its dictates and leaving it as the central power factor in Gaza—limits its options. . . . Tightening and significantly hardening the blockade along with increasing pressure through airstrikes, evacuating areas and capturing them, may force Hamas to make its stance more flexible.

But Ben-Shabbat also acknowledges the danger in this approach. The war’s renewal puts the hostages in greater danger. And as Israel makes threats, it will be obliged to carry them out.