The Antisemitism Wars:

Ex Uno, Plures: out of one, many

the smoke and mirrors of Zionist propagandists' self-corroboration

Tom Suárez






(NOTE: The following text originally appeared as "Smoke and Mirrors" in the 2018 book The Antisemitism Wars, edited by Karl Sabbagh)


October, 2018  (updated March 2020)

Zionism, future historians in a hopefully post-racist world will declare, was the most pernicious form of anti-Jewish racism (or "antisemitism" as it was then commonly called). The reason, they will say, is self-evident: Zionism sought to achieve its immoral goals by claiming that it and the Israeli state were one and the same as Jews as Jews. In other words, Israel's crimes were not being committed by people who happen to be Jewish, but by Jews because they are Jews. And even more cynically, Israel empower itself by claiming that since it, the state, is synonomous with Jews as Jews, to criticize it is to express hate against Jews as Jews.

And that's where we still are at this point in history. We are still in the world where the word "antisemitism" itself is used to
enable Zionism to commit its crimes in the name of Jews.

I.
What follows is an account of my experience with that word — antisemitism — used as a weapon to empower the Israeli state in its crimes. It is one person’s experience, but it is a microcosm of how the Israeli state and its propagandists have used those six syllables to hold hostage British, US, and European democracy, and to empower Israel's ongoing subjugation and ethnic cleansing of non-Jews between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. As with the vast majority of people with similar stories, it is my involvement with human rights in Israel-Palestine that brought me face-to-face with the ugly word.

Indeed the entire story can be summed up by pointing out that the word is only thrown at the opposite: anti-racists, those seeking modern, secular equality. It is never applied to actual antisemites, such as emerging neo-fascist leaders in Eastern Europe, because they are by definition pro-Israel, pro-Zionist.

II.
A decade ago, my interest the British Mandate period in Palestine led me to Britain’s National Archives. Several years’ study of that great institution’s relevant source documents culminated with the October 2016 publication of my book, How terrorism created modern Israel. Arabic and French editions were published in 2018 and 2019. I continue to monitor the National Archives for newly declassified material related to the topic, and continue to request release of such material slated to be locked away for some years.

My first university talk based on this research took place soon after publication, at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). The lecture was intended for students, but two well-known pro-Israel activists, David Collier and Jonathan Hoffman, gate-crashed and commandeered the event. Security was called; but instead of removing the saboteurs, the saboteurs ‘removed’ Security. Amidst screams of ‘antisemitism’, Hoffman feigned assault by a guard, at which point the Security personnel, not wanting to be in the morning’s headlines in a fabricated story of an ‘antisemitic attack’, walked away. The ‘antisemitism’ pandemonium brought the meeting to an untimely close.
[1]

The guards ‘escaped’ without harm, except for a rough online video falsely labelled as one of them “assaulting” Hoffman. My own keepsake was a falsehood-ridden article fed to the popular tabloid, the
Daily Mail, whose headline announced “Israeli Embassy’s fury after anti-Semitic hate speaker gives talk at a top London university”, and a secondary article "Violinist Turned Hate Speaker".[2]

For the two ringleaders, this was routine. They have been active in stopping even top academics like Richard Falk from speaking, and Collier in particular has been in the news regarding the crippling of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn on Israel's behalf — though I hold Corbyn responsible for embracing the charade in an ignorant attempt to save his political career.

The great irony of the Daily Mail article, and much of what followed, behind their outrght lies, is that quotes (deliberately mis-)attributed to me were actually quotes (and misquotes) from WWII-era US & UK Intelligence and by Jews in Palestine, including Jews who had fled Nazi Germany only to find parallels in the Zionist settlements in Palestine.
I was merely reporting history.
Public knowledge of me and what I represented developed entirely through the saboteurs' smoke and mirrors. Lies were propagated in myriad guises to create a network of pseudo-corroboration. Across the Atlantic, the two antisemitism merchants would appear as academics and professors, and be trusted and quoted by real academics.

III.
In today’s climate, the charge of antisemitism is its own proof. There is no exorcism that can entirely rid someone of its ghosts. Like the McCarthyism of 1950s United States, being identified as an antisemite is akin to having the plague: you are shunned even by people who don’t believe it, for fear of being contaminated and shunned as well.

Yet ‘antisemitism’ is an inherently more sinister witch-hunt than McCarthyism. The word ‘communism’ was exploited by regimes both flaunting and criminalising it; but communism itself is a political and economic theory. One can, ultimately, declare, yes, I am a communist to call the accusers' bluff. The accused has no such luxury with 'antisemitism', like all racism an inherent evil.

Since the antisemitism industry is ultimately a weapon in Israel’s war against Palestine, Palestinians and their supporters are in its crosshairs by definition. Fear leads vulnerable students in university Palestine clubs to behave as though they were guilty, for example cancelling their own event in response to fabricated charges.

One student group at a major UK university uninvited me with obvious fear when the
Daily Mail article was compounded by a swastika that appeared on a dormitory door. ‘Antisemitism’ was waiting for an opportunity to squash the student organisation, and I would give it the excuse.

Another student group, aware of my
Daily Mail infamy, first declared that my Israel Apartheid Week talk would go ahead no-matter-what, even if the venue had to be moved outside the campus. But as the date neared, the organiser was so unnerved by a campus crackdown against voices critical of Israeli crimes that she abruptly broke contact.

But the actual scale of destruction is far greater than the paper trail would suggest. There is no way to tally academic events that are never even proposed because of fear. Nor is there record of self-censorship; for example, I cancelled a talk at a struggling human rights organisation out of worry that I might put their already challenged funding in danger.

When the SOAS duo filed a complaint against me with the university, I contacted the administration and offered to face my accusers in their presence. SOAS is accustomed to charges of antisemitism and assured me there was no need; yet the accusers then exploited their own ‘news’ of their own complaints to frighten students from further projects.

The SOAS saboteurs "corroborate" their own smears.
Next, they filed a formal complaint with the Charity Commission. This was of course dismissed as well, but here again, their purpose was not a verdict against me. They knew they had no case. Their purpose, rather, was the existence of their complaint itself: simply lodging the complaint enabled them to 'independently corroborate’ their allegations. They themselves were the authors of a headline in the Jewish News: “Charity Commission investigating anti-Semitic Suarez meeting at SOAS”. The pseudo-corroboration then reached the major media when the Independent uncritically repeated the story and refused my request for reply.[3]

Their next brainstorm was a Freedom of Information request, a fruitess shot-in-the-dark to find ‘dirt’ on me.

Neither disrupter was present when I spoke at the House of Lords the month after SOAS, but nonetheless Hoffman filed a formal complaint with the HoL, with two allegations: one, that the talk was ‘antisemitic’; and two, that it was a book launch (which would have been illegal in the HoL). For evidence of the first, he supplied a barely intelligible list of alleged falsehoods in my book (
here).

The HoL took the complaint seriously. After three months of investigation and interviewing attendees, both allegations were entirely dismissed (HL Paper 142).
[4]

IV.
Next, the Quakers were dragged into the saboteurs' efforts.

Quakers first held meetings in Jesus Lane in Cambridge in the 1650s. When in 2017 I was asked to give a talk at Jesus Lane Meeting House (the original parts of which date from 1777), I was honoured and marked it down in pen.
[5]

On a Friday, six days before that talk, Jesus Lane received a letter from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a pro-Israel front organisation that cynically claims to represent ‘the Jewish Community’, ordering them to cancel my talk. The next day, Hoffman called Jesus Lane and “demanded” (his word) that the booking be cancelled, and reinforced this ‘demand’ by email. There was no explanation as to why he and the Board of Deputies waited until the eleventh hour to demand cancellation of a talk that had been publicised for two months, and the short notice made it impossible for Jesus Lane to address the issue through its own internal processes.

As a consequence, the issue was raised at a Meeting for Worship for Business on Sunday. “Under pressure of time and with incomplete information,” as Jesus Lane elders later explained the result, it was decided to err on the side of caution and cancel the booking.

The next morning, a
Jewish Chronicle headline announced “Board halt Israel hate author talk”.[6] It accused me of “peddling antisemitic theories on Israel and Judaism,” and reported that I “rose to notoriety after an hour-long rant on Jews and Zionism” [SOAS]. Repeating the tabloid lies, the article quoted me as saying that Zionist leaders “encouraged antisemitism in Germany to force Jews to move to Palestine”.

The faux self-corroboration continued. When my sponsors, PSC Cambridge, found an alternate venue for my talk but kept it confidential to avoid further disruption, Hoffman used another well-proven trick: he framed my hosts' refusal to tell him where the talk would take place, to report that "Jews were not allowed at the event". Some Jesus Lane Friends were among the audience, and Jesus Lane Meeting scheduled its own showing of a video of the talk.

Meanwhile, Jesus Lane Local Meeting wrote to the
Jewish Chronicle requesting corrections to its misstatements about them. Not only was no response whatsoever received, but the Quakers’ cancellation was seized upon as a new prize of self-corroboration: "the Quakers" — not even just Jesus Lane, but "the Quakers" — were now said to be of the same mind as the saboteurs. On social media and on Amazon, they invoked "the Quakers" to corroborate their own lies.

Jesus Lane Friends Meeting’s elders continued to try to stop the misinformation being spread in their name, but were ignored.

Finally, in September they issued a public statement that read in part:
Elders of Jesus Lane Friends Meeting (Quakers) are concerned at the continuing misrepresentation by Jonathan Hoffman and others regarding the decision made by Cambridge Jesus Lane Quaker Meeting to cancel a talk by Tom Suarez in May 2017 ... Friends (Quakers) who have read the book or seen the video recording of Tom’s talk have no reservations about Tom Suarez or his work.
Yet the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Chronicle responded instead with even greater fabrications at the next opportunity: Bath. I was scheduled to give a talk at Bath's Royal Literary & Scientific Institution.
 
When BRLSI stood firm against Hoffman's harassing calls to cancel my talk, the outraged Board of Deputies used a new
Jewish Chronicle piece to further embellish the inventions about me and about Jesus Lane that it had already refused to correct the year before.[7]

The Board of Deputies feigned outrage that I had been allowed to speak at BRLSI after Jesus Lane Meeting — which it described, oddly, as a “similar institution” — had already “banned” me. The inventions were formidable: BRLSI is not a Quaker institution; Jesus Lane had had already repeatedly made clear that it had never "banned" me and indeed supported me; and Jesus Lane had publicly condemned the stories to the contrary.

To fix these warts in its story, the
Jewish Chronicle named an individual, unknown to me or to Jesus Lane, and with no stated affiliation, who in turn cited one Edmund Rack, a Bath native who died in 1787, thirty-seven years before BRLSI was founded, but who was a Quaker and was involved in forerunner societies.

Herewith the remarkable claim:
The (unknown) individual cited by the
Jewish Chronicle decided on the long-dead Rack’s behalf that he, Rack, would have opposed my speaking at BRLSI, had it existed while he was alive, and Rack was a Quaker, therefore ... it all made sense. This, it was claimed, proved that "the Quakers" were opposed to me. Highly unlikely words stuffed into the mouth of a man who died two and a half centuries ago and therefore unable to refute them, directly contradicting his contemporary philosophical heirs, corroborated their story.

But the crowning insult against Jesus Lane was the headline’s invention that the scandal of my speaking had precipitated a “Quakers row”. Jesus Lane immediately wrote to the
Jewish Chronicle: Neither the Board of Deputies nor the Jewish Chronicle had any right to allege a non-existent “row” in their name. When no response came, Jesus Lane wrote again. Still, the Jewish Chronicle kept its impenetrable silence.

V.
At that point I turned to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) to challenge the Jewish Chronicle’s knowingly false reporting and its refusal to allow me or Jesus Lane to respond. The paper was unable to substantiate either the 2017 or 2018 articles, but still stood 100% behind both stories — by changing subjects. The issue was no longer accuracy, nor indeed even my talks, but what the Jewish Chronicle called “the tone and treatment of the story.” For that “tone and treatment” it relied exclusively on a 59-page so-called "Report" about my book co-authored by, yes, the original two saboteurs who were the Jewish Chronicle’s and the Board of Deputies’ sources in the first place. The Report gave the JC "tone and treatment" the facade of published ‘fact’ in pseudo-intellectual format. Source and corroboration were, yet again, the same.[8]

In its next extraordinary stroke of self-corroboration, the Jewish Chronicle argued that its views are “shared by many Jewish Chronicle readers”. The
Jewish Chronicle readership’s sole knowledge of me is via the very "news" that I am contesting; yet the JC seriously argued that the fact that these correspond is proof that they are true. The circular corroboration was dizzying.

For a year, the
JC tried to wear me out with irrelevant, new charges that had no bearing on the issue at hand and which IPSO should have dismissed outright. I continued to respond in detail with video clips and books extracts that directly contradicted the barrage of new, immaterial allegations. Finally, in 2019, IPSO ruled in my favor.

VI.
The Collier-Hoffman "Report" added one new lie to the mix that had previously only been inferred: Holocaust denial. It concluded that I have “disdain ... for the Holocaust and Jewish life in general”, and claimed that I questioned the truth of a survivor of Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor who used Jews for sadistical experiments. This was no mere twisting of words, but outright invention: I have never written or spoken about Mengele, nor did he ever enter into my research in any form. But now further armed with this ultimate lie, its two authors used various online media and Twitter to advertise how my “hatred of Jews runs through the book. Like blood in an animal, the book has no life without it.” Collier’s site included an apparent threat: “We see you. We know what you are.”

The "proof" they cited for Holocaust denial is a footnote in my book
State of Terror, detailing an email exchange I had with the Israeli professor Yosef Grodzinsky regarding IDF Major General Yossi Peled. For a full recounting of this Hoffman-Collier invention, and the footnote reproduced in full, see my dissecting of their "Report".

VII.
The term "terrorism" is amorphously defined to serve political need. Certain ethnicities, certain nationalities, commit terrorism; others commit defence. It was thus eminently efficient for the saboteurs to enlist PREVENT, the British government’s counter-terrorism initiative, to add another layer of sabotage and self-corroboration. Indeed Hoffman had already cited PREVENT to get the Charity Commission to investigate me.

Being neither Arab nor Muslim, my heart did not sink too deeply when I learned that I had been reported to PREVENT. I was on the train to Portsmouth, where I was to speak in a few hours, when Portsmouth & South Downs PSC informed me that PREVENT had banned me from public venues city-wide. Undeterred, my hosts secretly whisked me to the back room of a hotel pub in a neighboring town, along with an audience restricted to people known to them. The quaint hotel made me feel as though I’d stepped back to the 1950s, and we could just as well have been whispering about Marx. But here we were in Britain, trying to discuss British source documents from Britain’s own archives about the British Mandate, closed down by a British institution with British tax money at the orders of individuals acting on behalf of a foreign pariah state.

My sponsors were not intimidated. They demanded to meet with the local PREVENT Coordinator, Charlie Pericleous, and when that meeting was set I returned to Portsmouth to be present. Mr. Pericleous refused to state the evidence against me, refused to reveal who my accusers are, and most egregious of all, PREVENT has to this day refused to issue any statement clearing my name of suspicion, despite repeated requests from me, from Portsmouth PSC, and from the main PSC organisation.

Nor do we know how Portsmouth MP Flick Drummond got involved. The tabloid
Daily Mail reported that she alerted the police to block me, but when I contacted her she replied that her concern was not about me, but about “some trouble from people” who were opposed to me — meaning, who?

The Daily Mail repeats a story handed them by the saboteurs who had PREVENT close down my talks throughout Portsmouth.
To be clear: I have never "accused Jews of exploiting the Holocaust", indeed would unreservedly condemn such a statement.
But the Daily Mail took advantage of the ‘news’ about the cancelled talk to condemn, by association, another man that is a magnet for the six-syllable plague: Jeremy Corbyn. I have never met nor had any contact with Mr. Corbyn, but the Daily Mail lined us up with side-by-side mug shots. The headline read: “Corbyn is urged to cut links with Palestine charity after it hosts anti-Semitic speaker...” Their slurs against me corroborated their campaign against Corbyn.[9]

VIII.
The plague-word now sought corroboration overseas. The popular ethno-supremicist and radical Zionist, journalist Melanie Phillips, devoted an article to warning that "Thomas Suarez is an Israel-hater. He is about to embark on a tour of America."[10]

Then the American Yisrael Medad, former director of Israel’s Media Watch living in the illegal settlement of Shilo, jumped in with what he described as a "rushed" warning to be sure it would reach the US in time to stop me. The reason? In his words, my work is “a dangerous book ... an evil book”.
{11]

And so three professors at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst organised a letter-writing campaign to block me, accusing me of “supporting ‘identity-based hate’ against Jewish people” — ironically, precisely a major issue I was to speak against, but the purveyor of this ‘identity-based hate’ was Zionism.

The sole evidence cited was the 59-page Collier-Hoffman "Report", a document so internally bizarre that I was shocked that any academic would view it seriously no matter their views and even if they knew nothing about me. The President stood firm. The talk went ahead.

But in the days following my talk, it was again the propagandists five and a half thousand kilometres to the east, not my talk right in the university, that determined what I had said. The university's reporter for the 125-year-old Massachusetts
Daily Collegian had not attended, but was sufficiently sure of what I’d said to jump to antisemitism right in the headline and byline: “The anti-Semitism of the Suarez talk is not the way to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - Suarez’s rhetoric is a detriment to the Jewish student body on campus”.

As proof that UMass is not the first school where I received a “backlash from local Jews”, he cited the SOAS talk, apparently not even aware of the irony. Rather, he invoked the very fact that I had spoken at SOAS, with what he called its “history of anti-Semitism”, as corroboration. Even when I gave the journalist a link to a video of the talk itself, proving that I had said the opposite of what he had reported, he refused to amend his reporting.
[12]

An article in the
Amherst Wire used my talk to argue that (as the headline read) “hate does have a home at UMass,” and used entirely fabricated "quotes" from my talk to prove the point: “Zionists allowed or enabled or directly dealt in creating the Holocaust so they could profit off the Middle Eastern Israeli venture”; and “if we wipe Israel off the map, then the entire region will be at peace...” I was most fortunate, however, that Professor of Communication Sut Jhally, executive director of the Media Education Foundation and an expert in communication, advertising, and propaganda, attended the talk, along with Interlink Books publisher Michel Moushabeck. Professor Jhally had a video of the complete talk and Q&A transcribed, presented it to the Amherst Wire, and challenged the paper to find anything remotely resembling the quotes. The Wire removed the article, the sole instance in which a paper has shown any responsibility for what it has published about me.[13]

In a final commentary by a Collegian columnist, Messrs. Collier and Hoffman have suddenly become academics, Collier is now ‘Professor’ Collier, and they, along with the UMass professors who relied upon them, now constituted “a variety of academics” who have “debunked” me.

In short, the "antisemitism" tactic had become a pyramid scheme.
[14]

The
Washington Free Beacon, which self-describes as “dedicated to uncovering the stories that the powers that be hope will never see the light of day”, carried the three professors’ statement and the usual Collier-Hoffman slurs, describing me as “dripping with racial hatred against Jews”.[15] Meanwhile, the conservative American political site HotAir declared me to be a “particularly odious speaker” and wondered in its headline: “Is it time for conservatives to ‘shut down’ anti-Israel campus speakers”.

IX.
There was a recurrent subplot to the ‘antisemitism’ charade that also appeared in new form overseas: the attemt to sabtage my musical life. This began with the original SOAS Daily Mail article, which was accompanied by an ‘informational’ box entitled “VIOLINIST TURNED ‘HATE SPEAKER’ THOMAS SUAREZ”. The box included a reference to what the writer apparently (but wrongly) thought was an important employer, the American Symphony Orchestra. It was an odd choice; but to a non-musician searching my history on the internet, the ASO’s name would seem to be of consequence.

The
Daily Collegian writer took this a step further: he embedded ‘American Symphony Orchestra’ as a metatag in the article. That metatag was not inserted to help searches for the article’s actual topic. It was inserted in the hope of harming my career, of catching the attention of the orchestra's management and my colleagues.

An article in the Evening Standard cited me as a reason why Jewish students at SOAS are "scared to wear the star of David and speak Hebrew". The paper did not respond to my requests for a reply.
Roger Waters has said that musicians are afraid to speak up about Israel and Palestine. If they are merely “afraid” in his rock-music circles, they are altogether petrified in the classical music world. Among the eager distributors of the original Daily Mail piece was the popular music critic Norman Lebrecht, whose music blog Slipped Disc is widely read in Britain, the US, and beyond. An avid Zionist, he has used his site to “out” musicians critical of Israel, and so Lebrecht seized on the original tabloid story to “out” me and — in a tactic analogous to the metatag trick — prefaced it with a list of every ensemble he could find that I have ever been associated with (including one I never was), in an attempt to cripple my career.[16] Lebrecht knows who I am and how to contact me, but made no effort to contact me before spreading the tabloid stories to his wide, musician-targeted audience.

It is not hyperbole to state that due to Lebrecht aline, if I were still in the US relying on the violin to pay the rent, I would have woken up to find life suddenly different.

When I informed Lebrecht of IPSO's judgment against the
Jewish Chronicle, proving that the information he had spread about me was fabricated, he refused to issue a corrective statement on his blog.

I never figured out how the plague-word got to the mayor of Bronxville, an affluent suburb north of New York City. A long-planned talk I was to give in Bronxville was abruptly cancelled with the influence of an email by Mayor Mary Marvin invoking ‘antisemitism’. I offered to meet with the mayor at her convenience, but she refused, and nor would she agree to sample a video of previous lectures of mine. I do not know Mayor Marvin, but I do not believe that concerns about what Bronxville citizens might hear from my mouth was what worried her.
[17]

X.
A particularly effective use of ‘antisemitism’ is to claim that the person is a danger to young people — students. And so news articles in the Independent, Evening Standard, and Mancunion all reported that Jews do not feel safe in school, and all cited me as evidence of this.[18] Not one of these British papers replied to my attempts to respond to the libel.

When the "liberal" Israeli paper
Haaretz grouped me with a supporter of female genital mutilation and a Salafi preacher, the reporter, contrast, did respond to my email and agreed to meet with me while she was in London. She apologised — but would not agree to a correction.

The JewishPress actually attributes these words to me and Israeli peace activist Ronnie Barkan. To emphasis the point, a Nazi extermination camp is pictured to the right of the words Nazi Germany. Yet even in the case of such blatant libel, legal recourse is complicated, lengthy, expensive, and with scarce any guarantee of success.
Next, the Jewish Press managed to outdo the FGM and Salafi preacher: a headline in the paper invented the grotesque quote, “the only good Jew is a dead Jew”, placed it against the words "Nazi Germany" and an image of an extermination camp, and attributed the quote to me and Israeli anti-Zionist activist Ronnie Barkan.[19]

At other universities I was unaware of trouble. I spoke at Columbia University on the fourteenth anniversary of Edward Said’s death — without incident. I spoke at Busboys and Poets, a Washington DC socially-involved restaurant with a lecture space whose owner had fended off a barrage of harassing UK phone calls from Hoffman, who threatened to organise a mass demonstration and boycott of his establishment. The owner refused to be intimidated, and a troll’s Twitter photo of me at the lectern with a nasty caption was the would-be saboteur's meager spoils.

The cynical exploitation of antisemitism threatens to compromise — has compromised — the democracies of the United Kingdom, mainland European nations, the United States, and Canada. Cutting away all the obfuscation, all the propaganda, all the lies, the antisemitism wars are one thing only: a front in Israel’s war against Palestine, holding Jewish identity hostage as a human shield to continue its crimes. All the lies, all the defamation, serve to protect the Israel state from accountability. What F16s can’t do, ‘antisemitism’ can.

Tom Suárez, October, 2018 (updated March 2020)

Suárez discuss antisemitism and its claimed definitions (JDA, IHRA) as exploited by the Israeli state. (The Washington Report for Middle East Affairs, April, 2021)


Suárez' lecture at SOAS is brought to an untimely close (2016)

______________________


1. The author was among the people directly facing Mr. Hoffman when the security guard passively approached him. Mr. Hoffman yelled “He assaulted me.” The audience laughed; there was no assault. A Youtube video records the audio but does not show the encounter.

2. Rory Tingle, “‘Zionism is a racist fascist cult’: Israeli Embassy’s fury after anti-Semitic hate speaker gives talk at a top London university,” the Daily Mail, 8 November 2016

3. Jonathan Hoffman, “Charity Commission investigating anti-Semitic Suarez meeting at SOAS”, in The Jewish News, 17 February 2017; the “investigation” then copied by the Independent, in Rachel Pellis, “Jewish students told they ‘do not have the right to define anti-Semitism’ at SU meeting,” 27 January 2017.

4. HOUSE OF LORDS, Committee for Privileges and Conduct, 7th Report of Session 2016–17, Ordered to be printed 15 March 2017, Published by the Authority of the House of Lords, HL Paper 142

5. Organised by Cambridge PSC (Palestine Solidarity Campaign).

6. Lee Harpin, “Board halt Israel hate author talk / Leader praises Quakers after they cancel Palestine campaign group event with State of Terror author,” The Jewish Chronicle, 8 May 2017.

7. Ben Weich, “Quakers row as venue is rented out to anti-Zionist,” The Jewish Chronicle, 20 April, 2018

8. David Collier & Jonathan Hoffman, Hate and Errors a report on a modern antisemitic fraud, September 2017

9. Rory Tingle, “Corbyn is urged to cut links with Palestine charity after it hosts anti-Semitic speaker who accuses Jews of exploiting the Holocaust,” the Daily Mail, 29 April 2017

10. Melanie Phillips, “Has Truth Lost All Meaning”? For Israel-haters, Yes", September 4, 2017

11. Yisrael Medad, "My Right Word", August 31, 2017

12. Joe Frank “The anti-Semitism of the Suarez talk is not the way to discuss the Israeli-/Palestinian conflict,” The Massachusetts Daily Collegian, 26 September 2017

13. Brian Choquet, “Hillel students say hate does have a home at UMass,” Amherst Wire, 4 October 2017 (author has a screen grab of full deleted article)

14. Isaac Simon, “Understanding commentary, Suarez and others,” The Massachusetts Daily Collegian, 4 October 2017

15. Rachel Frommer, “Anti-Israel Speakers Making Rounds at U.S. College Campuses,” Washington Free Beacon, 27 September 2017.

16. Norman Lebrecht, “A violinist attacks Israel for racism ‘like Nazism’,” Slipped Disc, 9 November 2016

17. Months after the aborted talk, Mayor Marvin changed her story and said that she was against my speaking because neither I, nor my topic, was of any interest for the people of Bronxville. Her pre-talk email proves this explanation, itself bizarre, to be untrue.

18. Evening Standard: Rosamund Urwin, “SOAS students ‘scared to wear the star of David and speak Hebrew’,” 19 January 2017. The Independent: Rachel Pellis, “Jewish students told they ‘do not have the right to define anti-Semitism’ at SU meeting,” 27 January 2017. MancUnion: Lily Sheehan, “Jewish students told they ‘do not have the right’ to define anti-Semitism,” 3 February 2017.

19. Danna Harman, “Calls to Bar Israeli Envoy From Speaking at London University Campus”, in Haartetz, 25 April 2017. The “dead Jew” quote was levelled at me and the Israeli anti-racist Ronnie Barkan, in David Collier, “‘The Only Good Jew is a Dead Jew’ (the Suarez – Barkan threshold),” the Jewish Press, 9 June 2017.