A parliamentary petition calling for a public inquiry into “pro-Israel influence on politics” should have been rejected, say Jewish leaders.
The wording has been condemned as “deplorable” by a Labour MP and according to the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) draws upon “antisemitic conspiratorial tropes”.
The petition submitted by a member of the public on the official parliament website urges: “Call a public inquiry into pro-Israel influence on politics & democracy.”
It adds: “We are concerned about reported Israeli state-linked and pro-Israel lobbying activity in UK politics.
“We believe it is important to determine the scope and impact of any such influence campaigns.”
The number of signatories has passed the 100,000 threshold which requires officials to consider holding a debate.
A parliamentary committee rejected a request to remove the petition by the JLC, who claimed its language risked legitimising antisemitism.
Labour MP Luke Akehurst said: "It is deplorable that a petition is allowed to be hosted on the parliamentary website which repeats an antisemitic trope about the world's only Jewish state somehow exerting undue influence over British politics."
Russell Langer, director of public affairs at the JLC, wrote to the chair of parliament’s Petition Committee, Liberal Democrat MP Jamie Stone, citing rules that submissions should be rejected if they are “defamatory or libellous, or contains false or unproven statements”.
Langer said the petition should be rejected under parliamentary standards, warning it “invites suspicion of covert or improper activity by unnamed organisations”.
He said: “Conspiratorial references to an alleged ‘pro-Israel’ influence over British institutions draws on a well-established set of beliefs about ‘Jewish power’ that are widely recognised as antisemitic.
“In the context of deadly attacks on Jews in the UK and abroad, the publishing of this petition on Parliament's website is completely irresponsible.”
However, Stone rejected the request. In a response published on the House of Commons website, he said “additional time and care” were taken in considering the petition due to “the sensitivity of the topic and the context of recent attacks against the Jewish community,” but that it would remain online.
He said standards “do not prevent petitioners from expressing critical or controversial views, nor do they require petitioners to provide evidence to support their ask".
He said he had discussed the concerns with the committee and suggested earlier petitions calling for public inquiries showed there was precedent.
Drawing a comparison with petitions relating to Russia and China, Stone said: “No assessment is made of the merits of petition asks and petitions are only rejected where there is judged to be an unequivocal contravention of the petitioning standards. It is for these reasons that it was judged that the ask and text of the petition complied with the standards and recent precedent.”
It has yet to be formally confirmed whether the petition will be debated in Westminster, though one communal source said it is now likely.
If scheduled, Stone said he hoped the debate “will be an opportunity for Members of the House to share measured, evidence-based views on this topic.
“Members who share your concerns regarding this petition will be very welcome to voice this in the debate. I would expect all Members – regardless of their views on the ask of the petition – to have sincere regard for the wellbeing and safety of the Jewish community and the potential impact of the language they use.”
To get more news, click here to sign up for our free daily newsletter.