The judgment in my employment appeal tribunal case has finally been released, nearly nine months after the case was heard in London in November 2025. Bristol University tried to overturn my landmark legal victory at my employment tribunal, which reportedin February 2024. The Employment Tribunal had found that my anti-Zionist beliefs were “worthy of respect in a democratic society” and were, therefore, protected by equality law. An extract from my latest article: I am delighted to say that Bristol University’s attempt to overturn that judgement has failed, and we have won yet again, solidifying the legal precedent my case set over two years ago. The delivery of the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s (EAT) judgment marks a historic milestone. This landmark ruling is a comprehensive validation of my long-standing academic work, an unmasking of institutional cowardice, and a binding legal precedent that secures the rights of all critics of Zionism and supporters of the Palestinian people across British higher education and in fact in all employment situations in the UK. For nearly five years, the University of Bristol, operating under intense pressure from external Zionist lobby groups, sought to destroy my career, silence my sociological research, and establish a dangerous regime of censorship on campus. By dismissing me in October 2021 under the false banner of gross misconduct, the university administration threw its weight behind a targeted campaign of manufactured hysteria designed to conflate legitimate political critique with racial animus. In rejecting the university’s arguments, the court has delivered a forceful judgment that exposes the structural flaws, bad faith, and utter legal incompetence of the university’s strategy. At the foundation of this case is the recognition of my anti-Zionist beliefs as a protected philosophical belief under Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010. Throughout my academic career as a sociology professor, my research has systematically examined concentrations of power, state propaganda, public relations, and lobbying. A central component of this research has been the Zionist movement and the imperial policies of the Zionist regime. In its judgment, the Appeal Tribunal placed particular emphasis on the coherence and clarity of my beliefs, completely validating the intellectual framework that the university sought to anathematise. The judgment explicitly confirms that it is coherent to describe as “racist” an ideology that promotes — as Zionism does — the establishment of a state for only “one race of people (Group A) in a territory that contained a large number of people of a different race (comprised of Group B)” [Para 65(iv)]. It is a matter of clear historical and sociological fact that the realisation of Zionist ideology involved the “migration of members of Group A into the territory with the support of an imperial power to dislodge an indigenous population” [Para 65(iv)]. By affirming that this viewpoint is a protected philosophical belief worthy of respect in a democratic society, the Tribunal has stripped away the primary weapon used by the Zionist movement to silence dissent. Academics, students, and activists can no longer be lawfully targeted for summary dismissal, disciplinary exclusion, or suspension simply for identifying the structural racism inherent in the Zionist project. Read the full article on @ukcolumn Link in replies