UK Court Rules Fired Professor's Anti-Zionist Views Are 'Not Antisemitic'

An employment court in the United Kingdom this week published its full ruling in the case of David Miller, a University of Bristol professor whose firing due to alleged antisemitism was deemed wrongful by the same tribunal earlier this year.

In February, the Employment Tribunal found that Miller was unjustly dismissed in 2021 from his position as a professor of political sociology at the University of Bristol following complaints by Jewish students who felt "unsafe and unprotected" on campus.

Miller argued before the tribunal that Zionism—the movement for a Jewish homeland in Palestine—"necessarily calls for the displacement and disenfranchisement of non-Jews in favor of Jews, and it is therefore ideologically bound to lead to the practices of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide."

Employment Judge Rohan Pirani wrote in the tribunal's new unanimous 120-page judgment that Miller's views on Zionism are "worthy of respect in a democratic society," are "not incompatible with human dignity," and are not in "conflict with the fundamental rights of others."

Pirani said Miller's stance "amounted to a philosophical belief" and that while it was "ill-judged to express himself in the way he did," his actions were legal, "not antisemitic, did not incite violence, and did not pose any threat to any person's health or safety."

In a social media post on Tuesday, Miller welcomed the tribunal's finding that his beliefs are "protected" and are not—as the University of Bristol attempted to argue—"akin to Nazism."

"It is self-evident that racism is wrong and offensive to human dignity," Miller added. "Zionism, being inherently racist, imperialist, and colonial, is therefore also offensive to human dignity. It is because I believed this and was 'prepared to say it out loud' that I believe I lost my job."

In the tribunal's ruling, Pirani wrote that Miller's views on Zionism were "related to his area of academic expertise and research and were informed by that research and expertise."

According to the decision:

The claimant went on to explain what he regards as the overtly racist and colonial framing within the works of Zionism's founding ideologues. He also references the fact that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have found Israel to be "an apartheid state." The claimant gave examples in his evidence of what he regards as "racist laws" which he claims are a necessary corollary of Zionism and Israel's laws regarding emigration or "return."

"We conclude that [Miller's views] have played a significant role in his life for many years," Pirani wrote. "We are satisfied that they are genuinely held. He is and was a committed anti-Zionist and his views on this topic have played a significant role in his life for many years."

Numerous pro-Palestine academics, artists, media professionals, and others have been fired or otherwise punished in Western nations since before the current war on Gaza for which Israel is on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice. Such incidents have increased dramatically since last October. Jews who support Palestinian liberation and oppose Israeli crimes in Palestine and beyond have not been spared from such repercussions.

The U.K. tribunal's judgment stands in stark contrast to a pair of bills passed since last October by the U.S. House of Representatives declaring that anti-Zionism is antisemitism and affirming the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) controversial working definition of antisemitism, which, while not explicitly mentioning anti-Zionism, includes "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination" and "claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor."

Pirani's ruling cites a professor who noted that the IHRA definition is "controversial," with "some believing that it is imprecise and can be used to conflate criticism of the policies of the Israeli government and of Zionism with antisemitism."