British Palestinian voices have been virtually excluded from five years of public debate over antisemitism and Palestine advocacy.

But these fanatics don't want to control 99% of the discussion. They demand 100%. So:
https://antisemitism.org/caa-submits-complaint-to-ofcom-over-channel-4s-segment-claiming-international-definition-of-antisemitism-silences-criticism-of-israel-with-no-input-from-mainstream-jewish-r/

Here's a peak at how they fabricate and sustain that 'mainstream . . . consensus': https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/one-academics-bid-to-undermine-the-fight-against-antisemitism/

Let's count the fabrications and falsehoods in this one short passage.

1. The Channel 4 segment was by no means 'devoted to' criticising the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. Just watch for yourself. It was one among a number of issues discussed - from perspectives that are rarely heard:

2. There is no such thing as 'the International Definition of Antisemitism'. There is a non-legally binding Working Definition of Antisemitism that was adopted by the IHRA in 2016 which has since been formally adopted, in different forms, by around one-fifth of UN member states.

3. The EHRC Report explicitly did NOT reach a finding against Labour of 'victimisation'.

4. The EHRC's findings of unlawful acts did not imply or rest on any finding regarding 'extent'. In fact, it found TWO (2) cases of unlawful harassment - both absurd, but that's another matter.

5. The EHRC did (absurdly, dangerously) determine as unlawful harassment the characterisation of antisemitism complaints -- one, some or all? It did not specify -- as 'fake' or 'fabricated'. It did not make the same finding regarding use or abuse of the IHRA Working Definition.

But if the CAA believes it an 'antisemitic formulation' to warn that the IHRA Working Definition is being used to silence debate, why doesn't it commence proceedings against Kenneth Stern -- the lead author of the definition? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/13/antisemitism-executive-order-trump-chilling-effect

6. They are so absurdly petty, they can't bring themselves to acknowledge that the Jewish Labour Movement was also a complainant.

It's not just the CAA that is compulsively dishonest about all this. Here is Dave Rich of the CST, sticking the knife into his former supervisor: https://www.thejc.com/comment/opinion/david-feldman-should-not-be-encouraging-those-who-denigrate-jews-1.509689 Again, findings of harassment -- the EHRC made precisely two -- imply nothing about 'scale' or 'growth'.