Armbach has clearly repeated the UCU's warped reasoning for rejecting the EUMC working definition of anti-Semitism. This was because they considered that the definition would restrict their campaign to delegitimise the State of Israel by leaving them open to claims of anti-Semitism. The point though that like all abuse on grounds of colour or religion or gender etc, it is the person on the receiving end who determines whether what has been said is prejudicial to him/her. Rightly all British Jews are therefore infuriated at the claims by Mr Flynn against the British Ambassador to Israel simply because he is a Jew.
Armbach by not condemning what is widely accepted by Jews and non-Jews as being an outrageous anti-Semitic slur based it appears on the outlandish and unsubstantiated claims of a known anti-Semite who was frustrated on the abject failure of the ludicrous "Flytilla" of which she was a member aligns himself with those anti-Semites. He should be treated with the utter contempt he richly (pun intended) deserves.