SATISH SHARMA - not just Rotigraphy.: The IHRA Definition almost certainly violates the Equality Act, following the Miller judgment.

https://x.com/pauleholden/status/2107039600984174905

The political and media class, including grand-standing participants in the Labour Together project, are going to go into overdrive condemning the Greens for their Zionism-is-racism motion, accusing the Greens of virulent antisemitism.

But it'll just reveal their utter hypocrisy - and their own anti-Jewish prejudice.

The whole political and media class has repeatedly supported the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism. During the Corbyn period, they united in condemning the Party for being reluctant to adopt it in full. Eventually Corbyn's team relented and it was adopted. 

The Tories also adopted the definition, and Theresa May decided it would be integrated into government policy. Both the Tories and the Labour Party under Starmer pressured councils to adopt it, which many did. Wes Streeting ensured it was adopted by the NHS.

Labour and the Tories adopted the IHRA Definition into their Rule Books. The effect of this was that any person expressing views that violated the IHRA Definition would be expelled for antisemitism; practically, both parties have agreed to "filter" and exclude anyone expressing views violating the IHRA.

The problem?

The IHRA Definition includes 11 examples. Cumulatively they say that anti-Zionism is antisemitic. This is the key illustrative example in the Definition: "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."

To reiterate: you cannot be a member of the Labour Party or the Tories if you express anti-Zionist views. 

Setting aside (for now) how that totally excludes Palestinian anti-Zionists, it also practically means anti-Zionist Jews are excluded from both parties on the grounds that they are antisemitic.

According to the Institute for Jewish Public Policy Research's October 2025 survey, 12% of all British Jews identify as anti-Zionist.; 13% identify as non-Zionist. The figures are polarised further by age. 24% of British Jews aged 20-29 are anti-Zionist, as are 20% of British Jews aged 30-39. Less than half of British Jews aged 20-29 are Zionist.

To reiterate: the Labour Party and the Tories now say that 12% of all British Jews are not welcome in their Party; that 24% of Jews aged 20-29 are unwelcome. 

This is not an abstract issue. Since the adoption of the IHRA Definition in 2019, and accelerating under Starmer since 2020, the Labour Party has extensively investigated, suspended and expelled Jews for antisemitism for expressing anti-Zionist beliefs (often very cogently and respectfully expressed).

I have read over 100 letters from anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jews to the Labour Party after they were suspended or expelled. They are almost always heartbreakingly dignified defences of their views. By 2023, Jewish people were 6 times more likely to be investigated for antisemitism than non-Jews in the Labour Party.

The media class celebrated this. It was treated as proof that Starmer had resolved the "antisemitism crisis." The systematic exclusion of anti-Zionist Jews was not just tolerated, it was encouraged. 

On the extremely rare occasion when Labour Party grandees were asked about this, their response was brusque. When Ruth Smeeth was asked about anti-Zionist Jews in JVL feeling unsafe in Party meetings, she said tough. 

So when the media class and Labour politicians take to the soapbox over the next week, feel free to ignore them. Because they have all cheered on and celebrated the systematic exclusion of Jews from political life for anti-Zionist views. 

The kicker: they've all been violating the Equality Act, because anti-Zionism is a protected belief, as found by the tribunal in David Miller's case.  The IHRA Definition almost certainly violates the Equality Act, following the Miller judgment.  That's right - they've been excluding Jews for expressing a belief protected by law. And when this all shakes out, it'll be the IHRA Definition that is ruled unlawful, not the Greens' motion