A row has broken out over a meeting about Israel at a University of London college that one man described as "anti-Semitic".
Jonathan Hoffman, vice-chairman of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain, made the claim in a blog relating to a meeting at the School of Oriental and African Studies.
But others have insisted the meeting was fair and there were no anti-Semitic undertones. Other Jewish audience members spoke without being heckled.
Mike Cushman, who was part of the audience, said: "It was an extremely serious and positive meeting.
"The jeering was directed at Jonathan Hoffman because of his individual beliefs, not because of his religion.
"It is worth noting many of the audience were of Jewish origin."
Also in the audience was Naomi Wimborne Idressi. She said: "I am a Jew and I am very sensitive about anti-Semitism. There was no anti-Semitism at the meeting.
"It was a meeting which was fervent about human rights. There was a lot of learned discussion."
Mr Hoffman had criticised the appearance of South African trade unionist Bongani Masuku, who has been condemned for hate speech by the South African Human Rights Commission.
In a blog, he described the event as an "anti-Semitic meeting" and wrote: "There were many anti-Semitic statements about Israel as an apartheid state."
After viewing the footage of the meeting, which has been published on the internet, Raheem Kassam, of campaigners Student Rights, said the response to his question constituted racist jeering.
But Ms Wimborne Idressi said he was booed because he is a high-profile Zionist, well known for controversial views on the Palestinian territories.
A Soas spokesman said: "Soas has strict guidelines against hate speech and incitement to violence at public events.
"Event chairs are authorised to stop proceedings if any speaker or audience member breaks the law or engages in speech or behaviour that violates that policy.
"From what is shown in the clip in question, that appears not to have been the case at this event."
Correction: This is a revised version of the story. The original reported the claim of anti-Semitic behaviour without making clear that it was strongly contested. The story was the subject of a ruling by the BBC's
Editorial Complaints Unit.