In a special investigation for the Canary, journalist Charlie Jaay looks at the issue of antisemitism being weaponised – speaking with academics, activists, and NGOs.
Headlines such as ‘Antisemitism hits all-time high in explosion of hatred against British Jews’ and ‘Antisemitic incidents quadruple in UK since Hamas attack in Israel’ have again been splashed over the pages of our mainstream press. While the Canary has recently reported on two British journalists arrested for speaking about Israel’s human rights abuses in Palestine, many other areas of our society are also being prevented from speaking up, too.
The Community Security Trust (CST), a British charity that ’provides security to British Jews, records antisemitic hate crime data and analyses the activities of antisemitic extremist political movements’, documented a record number of antisemitic incidents in the first half of this year, whilst their Antisemitic Incidents Report states that in 2023, reported cases of antisemitism rose by almost 150% from the previous year.
Year after year, antisemitism figures rise despite increased government funding. Back in February, Rishi Sunak pledged to give the organisation record funding of more than £70m over the next four years, as part of the Jewish Community Protective Security Grant.
Should Jewish people be fearful of this exponential rise in antisemitism sweeping our country, or is there another explanation?
‘Confusion and disagreement’ around meaning of antisemitism has never been higher
Antony Lerman, an antisemitism expert, founder and former director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, is also an anti-Zionist Jew. He told the Canary:
Confusion and disagreement about what is meant by anti-Semitism have never been greater. Up until the 1980s, most people monitoring antisemitism didn’t need to have a formal definition, because everyone knew antisemitism is hatred of Jews.
But, particularly since the 1980s, the term has been expanded to include criticism of Israel.
Lerman’s book, Whatever Happened to Antisemitism? Redefinition and the Myth of the ‘Collective Jew’, discusses how Israel and its supporters began framing criticism of the state as criticism of Jews, which could be thought of as antisemitism.
He explains that from the beginning of this century there was a more formal move towards a new definition of antisemitism, equating it with anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel. This included the working definition, which was developed in 2004 mainly by pro-Israel Jewish organisations. However, it was slow to catch on until adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016, just a few months after Jeremy Corbyn – a life-long anti-racist and pro-Palestine campaigner – was elected leader of the Labour Party. Almost instantly, Corbyn fell victim to a politically motivated antisemitism smear campaign by the Israel lobby, falsely labelling him and many in his party as antisemites. Politicians and the corporate media, including the BBC, fuelled this lie, and these allegations eventually led to his suspension from the party in 2020.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism: an ‘anti-Palestinian charter’
Lerman argues that signing up to the IHRA definition of antisemitism is a way of establishing your antisemitism credentials, something he describes as “virtue signalling”. He points out that adopting it requires no action to be taken, but has the advantage of coming from a respected international organisation with ‘Holocaust Remembrance’ in its title.
He noted:
Who would dare question the authority of a definition of antisemitism coming from such a body? But, in my view the IHRA working definition (IHRA definition) is a fundamentally flawed document, an anti-Palestinian charter, as you can turn anything into antisemitism on the basis of what’s in the definition. I think it’s an appalling document, but it took off like wildfire and it’s been amazingly successful.
The IHRA definition was not designed to determine what hate speech is, and has been instrumentalised for political purposes. It says:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
It also includes 11 examples of situations which could be antisemitism. The idea is that these are used to determine if a specific incident is antisemitic. They have sparked much controversy and debate.
Meaning of antisemitism distorted to further Israeli policies
Dr Lewis Turner, chair of the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES) Committee on Academic Freedom, told the Canary:
There are seven references to Israel, in these illustrative examples, and they effectively conflate criticism of Israel and Zionism with racism and discrimination directed at Jews, erroneously essentialise Jewish self-determination as indistinguishable from the State of Israel, and delegitimise Palestinian claims to self-determination and opposition to Israel’s discriminatory policies against Palestinians as antisemitism. It is simply not possible to use the IHRA definition to determine whether or not an individual incident or statement is antisemitic, whilst simultaneously protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom and preventing discrimination.
Even though the use of the IHRA definition stifles free speech and academic freedom, it is often framed as an essential tool in combating antisemitism. As of 1 April 2024, 45 countries, mainly in Europe, have ‘adopted’ it, the UK being the first.
Our government, police forces, local councils, banks, businesses, the majority of universities, and even soccer teams have endorsed it, and it is utilised by both government and non-government agencies to train police, prosecutors, and judges. Although advertised and promoted as ‘non-legally binding’, it is increasingly used by public and private bodies as if it were law, especially to counter anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel.
Professor Haim Bresheeth, an anti-Zionist Jew, historian and filmmaker, is also founder member of Jewish Network for Palestine. He believes the IHRA definition is designed to distract from Israel’s actions. Bresheeth told the Canary:
It’s one of the smartest tricks of the Israeli Hasbara– the Israeli propaganda machine. Instead of talking about the genocide in Gaza, instead of talking about the many war crimes of Israel and Zionism, we are talking about something else- antisemitism. So it’s already succeeded in moving us from the real crimes of Zionism to another issue altogether, which is indeed related and important. Israel and its many partners in crime are using the IHRA to confuse people into thinking and believing antisemitism is anti- Zionism. Many are accepting it, and a whole lot of the elite are supporting this major lie. This means that Palestinians cannot defend Palestine, because they are immediately dubbed antisemites. The same also applies to everyone else who supports Palestine.
CST blames Hamas’s 7 October attack for the record high figures in its report, describing it as “a trigger event, which had a seismic effect on antisemitic incident levels in the UK”. However, as Bresheeth points out:
If supporting Palestine and opposing Zionism is antisemitic, then of course there is a record rise in this. People are so inflamed about the situation in Gaza that they are actually taking to the streets, writing articles, speaking on social media, to speak up against Israeli war crimes, for the simple fact they are being human and supporting the Palestinians. This, according to the IHRA, is antisemitic.
Zionism: not a religious movement, but a nationalistic political one
Massoud Shadjareh, chair of the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC), stresses that by equating antisemitism with anti-Zionism the IHRA definition is used to silence critics of Israel, and shield the country from criticism of its actions. He told the Canary:
Of course, antisemitism is as abusive as any other form of racism, and should be challenged by all of us. But misuse of it, in the protection of the state of Israel and what Israel is committing in the form of apartheid, genocide, war crimes and illegal occupation- which are all proven, is totally unacceptable. The vast majority of Zionists in the world are not even Jews. They are Christian Zionists and others, who are committed to that political ideology. So, to say anyone who is anti-Zionist or anti-Israel is antisemitic, really goes against all the facts and figures.
Shadjareh says that he, his colleagues, and even his Jewish friends have been targeted as antisemites just for “opposing the very clear abuses by Israel”. The IHRC put a Palestinian flag in front of their building, as a means of supporting the Palestinians, but this led to complaints and vandalism of their building. The campaign was so vigorous that police advised them to take down the flag, which they claimed was endangering themselves and their premises. Similar happened at the University of Birmingham:
Power of the Israel lobby
He said:
What’s so antisemitic about a Palestinian flag? They can make it unlawful for Palestinians to have their flag in the occupied Palestinian territory, but they can’t force that on all of us everywhere else. But these are the ‘antisemitic’ incidents they add to these reports. There is a huge infrastructure used to silence any opposition to the state of Israel. Part of that is the CST, which is financed mostly by our government, part of that is the Zionist Federation, and part of that is those elements who claim to represent all Jews.
The IHRC sent an open letter to the home secretary and police chiefs, complaining that:
Enabled by their Zionist financiers abroad, far-right elements have weaponised the tragic murder of three young girls in Southport to incite the country into pogroms against Muslims and people of colour.
This led to 50 members of the House of Lords claiming the remark to be antisemitic, as it perpetuates harmful antisemitic stereotypes of a ‘shadowy Jewish conspiracy controlling the world’. But, Tommy Robinson has been a key instigators of the recent far-right race riots, and he hates Muslims. We also know his benefactors are Zionists. This is the truth. It is fact. The issue of antisemitism has nothing to do with this.
Shadjareh argues that:
The Times of Israel says the rioters are supported by the Zionists. Why are they allowed to say this but I can’t and, as a non-Israeli, and non-Jew I get called antisemitic. The names of those who complained about us are almost identical to those who told Barclays not to cut its ties with Israel. They are supporting the state of Israel, but hiding behind antisemitism.
Barclays: a case in point
Barclays, along with other high street banks, holds billions of pounds worth of shares in companies selling military technology and weapons to Israel, provides them with loans, and has been the target of a long-running BDS campaign:
However, more than 50 members of the House of Lords recently wrote to the bank’s chairman, urging him not to cut financial relations with Israel. They argued that the BDS campaign against Israel “often crosses into antisemitism through inflammatory language and endorsements of violence” and to give in to the demands of “political activists” would “severely damage Barclay’s reputation”. A few days previous to this, Yali Rothenberg, the accountant general of Israel, told the bank:
It’s crucial that leading global financial institutions, such as Barclays, choose to resist boycotting Israel and support its legitimate right to self-defence as a leading Western democracy.
Shadjareh said:
At a time like this, while the biggest genocide of our lives is being committed by the state of Israel, this group of people – CST, the Zionist Federation, the Jewish Board of Deputies, the Chief Rabbi, and others – prevent any criticism by labelling all those supportive of Palestine as either antisemites or terrorist sympathisers. It’s shocking they get away with it, and it’s shocking that groups like CST are embedded in our police departments. At the present time, there is no way any of these people, including members of the House of Lords could defend the state of Israel, except through this hidden agenda. How else could you justify, protect or support a state that, every night, is committing genocide in front of our eyes.
An ‘increasingly restricted civil space’
According to the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC), making unfounded allegations of antisemitism and terrorism are indeed methods intentionally used to silence Palestinian rights advocates or organisations, and isolate and stile their work, and can also result in their defunding.
The mechanisms of silencing vary but are in force across countries in Europe, as last year’s report by the United Nations Human Rights Council details. It states that there is an:
increasingly restricted civic space resulting from an intentional strategy, pursued by the Government of Israel, of delegitimizing and silencing civil society. This includes criminalizing Palestinian civil society organizations and their members by labelling them as “terrorists”, pressuring and threatening institutions that give a platform for civil society discourse, actively lobbying donors and implementing measures intended to cut sources of funding to civil society.
According to the document, certain departments of the Israeli Government, including the Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy and the Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, are also “working towards delegitimising civil society locally and internationally”. In addition, Likud Members of the Knesset have recently set up a lobby to fight against antisemitism and delegitimisation, which focuses on combating the ‘undermining’ of Israel by foreign countries that finance human rights and civil society organisations.
IHRA definition used to undermine work of human rights organisations
Using the IHRA definition to successfully distort the meaning of antisemitism and suppress criticism against it, Israel with the help of many western governments has been able to continue, unabated, with its war crimes in Gaza and settler colonial project in the West Bank, whilst delegitimising and undermining the work of its critics – including that of international lawyers, the UN, and the ICJ.
Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B’Tselem have found themselves targeted by allegations of antisemitism under the IHRA definition due to their critical reports on Israel’s human rights record. Much of their research into Israel’s practices – whether in the form of reports on settlement expansion, treatment of Palestinians, or military actions – is construed as antisemitic, leading to attempts to discredit their work.
A spokesperson for Amnesty International UK told the Canary:
The IHRA definition of antisemitism has never been fit for purpose. The definition’s overly-broad nature means that legitimate – and indeed necessary – criticism of Israel’s human rights record can be labelled antisemitic, with free speech and respect for international law both suffering as a result. The Israeli authorities and their apologists regularly weaponise the notion of antisemitism when Amnesty and other critics of Israel’s appalling human rights record speak out, and the Israeli government uses the term as an all-purpose shield. This is highly cynical and risks undermining the fight against real antisemitism.
Groups like NGO Monitor, a right-wing Israeli organisation, have accused Amnesty of disproportionately singling out Israel for condemnation. This has led to situations where detailed and well-researched reports, like Amnesty’s Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: a cruel system of domination and a crime against humanity, are dismissed or labeled as antisemitic under the IHRA definition, as one given example of antisemitism is:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, for example, claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
Critics argue that these accusations, which have been directed at, among others, the United Nations, the International Court and international lawyers, are a means of deflecting criticism and maintaining a narrative that aligns with pro-Israel interests.
Voices against Israel’s abuses in Palestine silenced
But it is not only human rights organisations that are bearing the brunt of this definition. Employees, academics, and students are also affected, as our places of work and entertainment, schools, universities, and police forces – along with on-line moderators – are suppressing pro-Palestine voices and activity, up and down the country, in a variety of ways.
Afra Sohail, an employee at Lloyds Bank at the time, took to the company’s internal communications channel to voice her opinion, after receiving an HP monitor for work purposes. She was then subjected to investigations and disciplinary hearings, and issued with a sanction which was reported to the Financial Conduct Authority and will stay on her record for six years. She is now suing Lloyds.
It was May 2021. Israeli soldiers had stormed the third holiest site of Islam, and Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza, which killed at least 260 people, was underway. Sohail said:
I was absolutely disgusted and wondered why there was no uproar, and why were these issues not being talked about at work, when other subjects were?
Sohail, who was working from home, had just become aware of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign accusing HP of:
providing hardware to Israel’s military and of being complicit in Israeli ’racial segregation and apartheid.
So, when the HP branded monitor from Lloyds bank arrived at her door, she knew she wanted to return it. She took to the bank’s internal portal, highlighting her concerns and called on Lloyds to question its moral stance, and not be complicit in the violation of international humanitarian law.
Several weeks later, Sohail was asked to go along to a meeting, and was surprised to discover it was about her comments, which had offended a work colleague. She said:
Although I felt there was nothing in them that would offend, I was asked very leading questions, such as ‘Did you know anti-Semitism has increased by 400 percent?’ They beat around the bush, accusing me of anti-Semitism, without putting that label on me. Because I mentioned that Palestinians are given inferior status compared to Israel Jews, who have a lot of benefits, I was being portrayed as a criminal against Jewish people, but I was coming from the perspective that everyone should be treated equally.
Sohail, who no longer works at Lloyds, was accused of going against the group’s anti-racist values. She says it was a distressing time that left her feeling worried and confused. As a result of the allegation, she also lost out on a graduate job promised to her.
Lloyds Bank antisemitism claims were ‘irrational and spurious’
An appeal against the disciplinary action was denied. So, last month Sohail and another colleague in a similar position, both of whom are being supported in their legal fight by the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC), took Lloyds to an employment tribunal, claiming they were discriminated against because of their religious and philosophical beliefs.
While a HR manager at Lloyds involved with the investigations admitted she did not know the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, a lawyer for the women said the posts were not offensive, and the allegation claiming they were antisemitic was “irrational and spurious”.
Sohail said:
As a Muslim I believe oppression and injustice are wrong, and we should stand up against it if we can. My philosophical belief is that Zionism is racism, and it’s wrong and therefore should be opposed. There needs to be safe spaces to speak out about this, without feeling scared, but the state is penalising people and trying to put them down. We all need to come together collectively and speak out about this injustice, without facing repercussions, because silence will only perpetuate it further.
The closing submissions for this case are taking place in October.
Last November, Bristol’s Arnolfini Gallery cancelled two Palestine Film Festival films, saying they put a strain on the legal requirement for arts charities to remain apolitical. An angry backlash resulted, in more than 1,000 artists vowing to boycott the venue. Arnolfini eventually apologised unreservedly, saying freedom of expression was important and the decision was “based on the information and understanding we had at the time, but now believe it was wrong”.
But their apology, which stated “the International Court of Justice has described Israel’s actions in Gaza as plausible acts of genocide”, has now been picked to pieces by UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), because it contains “dangerous untruths”. UKLFI denies any genocide and claims Arnolfini was a platform for “one-sided Palestinian voices” and it needs to “remain non-political”.
Bresheeth said of the situation:
The Jewish organisations supporting Israel say there is no genocide but this is a denial of such proportions, that we haven’t seen anywhere else, and it’s really quite amazing that people would even accept this as information- but they do! Jews in this country, who support Israel’s actions, believe Israel is acting in self defence, and that Jews are in danger, everywhere, but this is completely false.
Government drive for universities to adopt definition, but recent report finds it ‘not fit for purpose’
In 2020, there was a drive to encourage all universities to sign up to the IHRA definition, with the government threatening to withdraw their funding if they did not comply. As a result, suppression of voices speaking out about injustice in Palestine has been especially severe in higher education settings.
Last year, a report by the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC) and the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES) advised against the adoption of the IHRA definition in a higher education setting – saying it was unfit for purpose.
It analysed 40 allegations of antisemitism against university staff and students between 2017 and 2022, based on the IHRA definition. The report found, in all 38 concluded cases, the accusations of antisemitism to be unjustified.
But damage had already been done.
The damage was already done
Events were cancelled, student groups stamped out, not to mention reputations and careers in tatters and, in all cases, staff and students reported various levels of anxiety and stress.
Although freedom of speech and expression are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, the report found the IHRA definition of antisemitism:
undercut academic freedom and the rights to lawful speech of students and staff, and caused harm to the reputations and careers of those accused.
The definition is now starting to take on the function of a speech code and, as the blurring of antisemitism and anti-Zionism continue, the UK now ranks lower in the ‘Academic Freedom Index’ than any other Western European country. Due to the wide adoption of the IHRA definition, academics and students with critical views of Israel or Zionism can easily be intimidated or silenced because of the fear of being labelled an antisemite.
This results in the chilling of discussion, making it extremely difficult to research, teach, or debate on Israel and Palestine – in relation to the conflict, Israeli government policies, the nature of the formation of the Israeli state, and the nature of Zionism as an ideology and movement.
Clampdown on freedom of expression and academic freedom
According to Dr Turner from BRISMES, since the report findings were published last year, there has been an even greater clampdown on freedom of expression and academic freedom, with regards to Palestine, at universities throughout the UK:
Since October 2023, BRISMES has received numerous reports of university managers seeking to suppress, censor and surveil lawful expression and peaceful events relating to Palestine on university campuses. This includes cancelling events, creating unreasonable bureaucratic hurdles for event organisers, as well as subjecting staff and students to investigations, and even referring students and staff to Prevent based on their social media posts and other instances of lawful expression.
Although the University of Birmingham claims to have a ‘long track record of authorising events on campus, in recognition of the importance of the rights of freedom of speech and assembly’, back in December it prevented the go ahead of an event discussing law in Palestine, because of the inclusion, on the flyer, of watermelons, a symbol of Palestinian solidarity.
A University of Birmingham student, who wanted to remain anonymous because of fear of reprisals, told the Canary:
It was really important that I go to this event, because I study International Law and Globalisation. When the genocide started, the module we were studying was Transitional Justice After Genocide. We learned about previous genocides, such as in Bosnia, but there was no mention at all about Palestine. It was really hurtful for a lot of students there, especially those from Palestine. We really wanted our teacher to talk about how the international law was being broken.
Students wanted to know why, as future international lawyers, they were not being taught properly about this topic. Why was there was not even a mention of Palestine? That is why there was such excitement about the planned event, organised by some lecturers in the law department. Internal lecturers, who were experts in their field, were scheduled to discuss the topic.
The student said:
We also really liked the watermelons on the flyer because, at the beginning of the genocide, all the rhetoric was about Israel, and Israel’s right to self defence. So the watermelons were a good start.
But the night before the event, students received an email claiming it had been cancelled, with no explanation given:
We were all very confused, so we emailed our lecturers, and were told there were issues with how the event was advertised. We all emailed complaints to the Dean, and the head of the law school, saying it wasn’t freedom of speech. Then, all of a sudden they switched the story, and said the event hadn’t been cancelled, only postponed, because they wanted to make it ‘more inclusive’. The teachers themselves said that they were told by management that it was the watermelons that were the issue, not inclusion. We talk about the rule of law, but it seems as though we only apply this to certain groups and certain powers, not to everyone. I am questioning everything now, even the ethics of being a lawyer.
The student the Canary spoke to claims the event still has not happened, and all has gone quiet.
‘Silence in the face of oppression only perpetuates further injustice’
Rebecca Ruth Gould, distinguished professor, Comparative Poetics and Global Politics at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, and author of Erasing Palestine: Free Speech and Palestinian Freedom, found herself at the centre of the UK’s first major conflict over the definition of antisemitism and the censorship of Israel-critical speech, in 2017.
Frustrated and outraged by the injustices she witnessed in 2011 while living in Palestine and commuting to Israel, in 2011, Gould penned ‘Beyond Anti-Semitism’ which argued that the long history of antisemitism and of the Holocaust, forms the background against which Palestinian lives have been sacrificed since the creation of the state of Israel.
She wrote:
No people’s past should be allowed to determine another people’s future.
Five years later, while a lecturer at the University of Bristol, one of her students who identified as a Zionist found this piece of work online and wrote to the student newspaper, denouncing the piece and labelling Gould an antisemite. The Telegraph then spotted the piece, and wrote an article. A huge backlash followed. Gould was accused of Holocaust denial, and the Board of Deputies of British Jews called for her to be sacked.
She points out that although fear of being perceived as antisemitic stifles necessary criticism of Israel’s policies, speaking out against its injustices is crucial. Gould told the Canary:
Silence in the face of oppression only perpetuates further injustice… At a certain point I realised my ability to speak out about Palestine was central to my reason for existing on this earth. I could not relinquish my voice without surrendering my own humanity. My only option was to write openly about what happened, and in doing so, hopefully to empower and embolden others to speak out as well.
Miller’s employment tribunal ruling: anti-Zionist belief is not racist or antisemitic
We should all speak out for what we believe is right, and should feel encouraged to do so by the recent of David Miller’s employment tribunal, as it has now become much harder for universities and workplaces to sack anti-Zionists for expressing their viewpoint.
Miller’s anti-Zionist belief – that Zionism is inherently racist, imperialist and colonial – was ruled, by the tribunal, not to be racist or antisemitic, and qualified as a philosophical belief, protected under the Equality Act 2010. Miller, who was unfairly dismissed from the University of Bristol in 2021 because of his viewpoint on Zionism, suffered an organised campaign to silence him, mainly by Jewish student groups and the CST. In a lecture, Miller had mentioned Zionism as being a driving factor in promoting Islamophobia. The Community Security Trust, which has found its way into British universities by employing National Student Security Co-ordinators, called Miller’s lecture a “false, vile, antisemitic slur”.
This ruling has reinforced the need to move away from the politicised IHRA definition, which equates antisemitism with Zionism and criticism of Israel. As the ELSC/BRISMES report stated, it is not fit for purpose. In the workplace, universities and wider society, legal protections are already in place against racially-motivated behaviour of all kinds – including antisemitism – are covered by Equalities legislation, such as the Equalities Act 2010, and by internal codes of conduct – and these are very effective when implemented correctly.
The above are just a few examples of the many times in which the IHRA definition of antisemitism is used in an attempt to silence criticism of Israel and any debate around Palestine, and to hide all that the Palestinians endure. These are also the incidents that make up the annual CST reports, and contribute to the ‘explosion of hated’, so often wrongly reported in the press.
Critics say IHRA definition harms fight against antisemitism
By automatically branding opposition to Israel as antisemitic, the Israel-focused IHRA definition is also very harmful to the real fight against antisemitism, and this is extremely worrying for Jewish people such as Lerman.
Bresheeth concluded that:
I’m the son of two holocaust survivors from Auschwitz. I’m totally against antisemitism. The Israel lobby is the strongest lobby in this country, and at the moment there’s a very systematic approach that’s trying to demonise those supporting opposition to what’s happening in Palestine.
They are selling this criminality as the way to be Jewish, but Jews have never done this in 2000 years of history.
It’s not Jewish. There’s nothing Jewish about Israel.
All Jews really must oppose this, in the name of what’s happened to them.
What Israel is doing now, is definitely adding to the problem of antisemitism and will indeed make the problem worse.
Featured image via the Times – YouTube
