Edinburgh University could unadopt antisemitism definition after report into its colonial links

The Guardian

a day ago

The University of Edinburgh is considering whether to unadopt an internationally recognised definition of antisemitism that critics say inhibits freedom of speech on the subject of Israel and Palestine.
Edinburgh, one of Britain's oldest and most prestigious universities, is also considering whether to divest from companies accused of enabling alleged human rights violations by Israel.
Both issues are being reviewed by university authorities as a report on the legacy of its historical links with the region is published. The report is part of a broader investigation of the university's involvement in colonialism and slavery.
It recommends that the university divest from companies allegedly complicit in Israel's military actions in Gaza and the West Bank, supports the reversal of its adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, and establish a Palestine Studies Centre to investigate the legacy of the Balfour declaration and offer scholarships to students of Palestinian origin.
The report focuses on the repercussions over the past century of the Balfour declaration, a 1917 statement by the British government in favour of 'the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people'.
As well as being British foreign secretary at the time, Arthur James Balfour was the University of Edinburgh's chancellor – a ceremonial and ambassadorial role – between 1891 and 1930. He had been prime minister from 1902 to 1905.
Balfour played a 'unique role' in 'establishing and maintaining a century-long process of imperial and settler-colonial rule in Palestine, resulting today in one of the longest-standing colonial occupations and apartheid regimes in modern history', the report says.
The IHRA definition and the university's investments were already under review, Sir Peter Mathieson, the university's principal, told the Guardian. The definition was a 'hot topic' and 'contentious', he said. 'There is not a unanimity of view. There are some Jewish people who think IHRA is a helpful definition, there are some people who think it's unhelpful, and so those discussions are ongoing and we haven't come to a conclusion.'
This year's graduation ceremonies have been hit by a series of protests and walkouts by graduates, with about 200 students staging protests at 24 ceremonies; some directly accused Mathieson of complicity in the Gaza crisis. Last year, students occupied the quad in Old College, where Mathieson has his office.
The university was setting up a 'responsible investment group' to examine its financial holdings, he added. Its remit included reviewing 'investments in relation to companies which are allegedly supporting Israel'.
Research on the legacy of the Balfour declaration was added to the broader study of the university's links to colonialism a year after the Hamas atrocities of 7 October 2023, which triggered the war in Gaza.
The report's authors, Nicola Perugini and Shaira Vadasaria, both academics at Edinburgh, told the Guardian the decision to include Balfour's legacy in the research was a 'direct response' to pressure on the university leadership by campus protests over the Gaza war.
The pair, both of whom taught for several years at al-Quds University, a Palestinian institution on the outskirts of occupied East Jerusalem, had already been researching Balfour's legacy for several years. They have been involved in divestment campaigns on campus, and last year Perugini demanded Mathieson apologise publicly after the principal met the Israeli deputy ambassador to the UK.
Balfour's 67-word declaration said: 'Her Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.'
During and after the first world war, Britain and other imperial powers were intent on dividing up the Middle East. Britain controlled Palestine under a League of Nations mandate between 1922 and 1948, during which its forces brutally suppressed Palestinian resistance to increased Jewish immigration in the wake of the Balfour declaration.
The state of Israel was declared within hours of the end of the mandate in May 1948. The subsequent war drove hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes during what became known as the Nakba, or catastrophe. Many Palestinians still blame Balfour for what they see as an act of perfidy and betrayal.
The report's authors argue Balfour espoused openly racist views that explained his attitudes towards the Middle East, and had a record of supporting settler colonialism in Ireland, South Africa and Canada. In 1913, he became honorary vice-president of the British Eugenics Education Society. Some historians also say he was an antisemite who had backed the 1905 Aliens Act, which severely restricted Jewish immigration to Britain.
The academics who oversaw the university review believe Balfour's views can be traced back to racist sciences that they say Edinburgh helped to formulate in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
Although there is no evidence the university was involved in drafting the 1917 declaration, the report's authors maintain it was closely aligned with Balfour's career. It loaned him £12,000 – equivalent to more than £1.8m today – before he became its chancellor, and in 1925 Balfour wore his official university robes when he laid the foundation stone for the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
Vadasaria told the Guardian: 'Balfour signed a declaration that put in place an imperial and settler-colonial structure of racial domination inside Palestine, which has been sustained by military occupation, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide.'
The report points out that the declaration defined Palestinians as 'non-Jewish communities' rather than an Indigenous people with national rights to self-determination, and referred only to civil and religious rights rather than political and national rights. In the Nakba, Palestinians were forced into 'permanent exile that continues into the present'.
Balfour's legacy was 'not merely a matter of historical harm,' it says. 'Indeed, harm to Palestinians today can be seen as an extension of Balfour's legacy in the present. While this violence may have begun with Balfour's declaration, it remains through ongoing policies that continue with the trajectory of imperialism, settler colonialism and the dispossession of Palestinian land and life.'
The Balfour declaration was given an effusive welcome by the Guardian in 1917. Its then editor, CP Scott, had facilitated key introductions between prominent Zionists and members of the government.
The report's forthright language and recommendations, plus the absence of any reference to centuries of Jewish persecution and dispossession that led to the development of Zionism, or the horrific nature of the Hamas atrocities committed on 7 October 2023, are likely to be controversial in a climate of bitter divisions over the war in Gaza.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism was adopted by the university in 2020, 'without broad consultation with students and staff', according to the report. The definition 'violates academic freedom and freedom of speech by framing any criticism of Israel's policies of settler-colonial dispossession driven by state racism as a form of antisemitism', it adds.
Alongside the definition, the IHRA offers what it describes as contemporary examples of antisemitism that critics say are used to protect Israel from legitimate criticism. Supporters of the definition say it is essential in helping to protect Jews from hate crimes and abuse.
In 2020, Gavin Williamson, the education secretary in the Conservative government, threatened to cut funding to UK universities that failed to adopt the IHRA definition. The majority have done so.
On the issue of divestment, the authors say the university authorities have 'adopted a 'conflict agnostic' approach, a term that denies the Nakba and its settler-colonial afterlife'.
This month, a UN report highlighted the involvement of companies from around the world in supporting Israel during its war in Gaza. It noted that the University of Edinburgh was one of the 'UK's most financially entangled institutions', with nearly £25.5m invested in four tech corporations – Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft and IBM – that were 'central to Israel's surveillance apparatus and the ongoing Gaza destruction'.
According to Perugini and Vadasaria's report, the investments have left the university exposed to 'complicity with genocide, crimes against humanity and illegal occupation'. A failure to divest would risk reputational damage and lead to further campus protests, the authors told the Guardian.