THE HON. MRS JUSTICE TIPPLES Approved judgment Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism [2020] EWHC 2951 (QB) “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations or antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” 38. The definition continues by explaining that: “To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations: Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic …” 39. The claimant does not dispute that he was well aware of the IDA definition, its contents and terms before 16 December 2016 (see paragraph 11.2 of the amended defence; paragraph 23 of the amended reply). The claimant was therefore well aware that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. 40. However, in the letter to The Guardian, which was published on 16 December 2016, the claimant wrote (in a letter signed by the claimant and over 60 others) that the IDA definition: “has nothing to do with opposing antisemitism, it is merely designed to silence public debate on Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians …”. 41. Given the claimant accepts he was well aware of the IDA definition, its contents and terms before 16 December 2016, in my view an honest person clearly could express the opinion on 26 February 2017, the date the First Article was published, that the claimant had lied when he claimed in The Guardian newspaper that the IDA definition prevents criticism of Israel. The claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on this issue and the defendant can demonstrate that the third condition under section 3(4)(a) will be met. 42. The claimant has not alleged malice in relation to this publication. Rather, he has relied on the allegations of malice at paragraphs 22 and 26 of the amended reply. The allegation at paragraph 22 is directed at the opinion the claimant was antisemitic, and is inadequate for the reasons set out above. Paragraph 26 relates to the allegation of fact that the claimant had committed several offences and has nothing do with this publication and is, in any event, inadequate for the reasons set out below. The allegations pleaded in the amended reply do not support a case in malice, namely that Mr Falter did not believe that the claimant lied when he claimed in The Guardian newspaper that the IDA definition prevents criticism of Israel. (3) The opinion that the claimant had lied to the Charity Commission when he claimed that the CAA was a right-wing political Zionist organisation that is not concerned with fascist groups who were antisemitic Holocaust deniers 1 3