You would think, however, that if there were one issue on which the Jewish community could reach an overwhelming consensus, it would be what constitutes antisemitism. So much for wishful thinking.
In 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an organization that brings together governments, academics, historians and museum heads to promote Holocaust education and research, adopted a working definition of antisemitism. The definition not only includes the classic form of Jew hatred, but also the newer strain that makes antisemitism seem respectable by whitewashing it as criticism of Israel.
The IHRA definition lists several contemporary examples of antisemitism, among them: drawing comparisons of Israeli policy to that of the Nazis; holding Israel to a double standard by requiring of it “a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation; ”denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination by claiming Israel’s very existence is a “racist endeavor.” On the other hand, legitimate criticism of Israeli policies, the definition affirms, is not antisemitism.
More than 30 countries – including the US, Canada, Israel, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden – as well, as the European Parliament, have endorsed this definition, making it the most widely accepted one in the world. US President Joe Biden’s administration has “enthusiastically embraced” it; UN Secretary-General António Guterres has recommended it.
And yet, none of this was sufficient to sway the left-wing Jewish groups J Street and IfNotNow, which have sharply criticized the definition, nor the dozens of liberal Jewish academics who felt compelled to draft an alternative definition. Their version was unveiled in March by the Nexus Task Force, a project associated with the University of South California’s Annenberg School of Communication and Journalism.
While it’s clear that the Nexus authors are concerned with antisemitism from the far Right – white nationalists – they apparently aren’t troubled by bigotry against Jews having to do with Israel or Zionism. Contrary to the IHRA definition, the Nexus definition states that “paying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries is not prima facie proof of antisemitism.” In other words, there’s nothing unfair about holding Israel – and Israel alone – to a double standard.
But what does double standard mean? In effect, it’s a “higher” standard, which may sound like praise. In fact, it’s a weapon. To hold Israel to a higher moral and behavioral standard – because Jews have a long history of oppression that some argue imposes a higher standard in dealing with others – makes it justifiable to condemn the world’s only Jewish state for actions other countries take but for which they’re seldom criticized.
If I were to demand that Black people be paid “disproportionate attention” and meet a higher standard in their interactions with others, who among the Nexus authors wouldn’t consider me a bigot? Our criminal justice system suffers from just such a double standard. Black Americans, for example, are much more likely to be arrested for drug use even though whites use drugs at comparable rates. Black people typically serve longer sentences than white Americans for the same offenses. There’s a name for these disparities – it’s called systemic racism.
Around the same time that the Nexus definition was published, another group of scholars, mostly Jewish, published the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, which they believe should replace the IHRA definition. Curiously, the JDA acknowledges that Jews must be allowed to “exist and flourish” in Israel but insists that it’s not antisemitic to call for the sovereign homeland of the Jewish people to be replaced by an Arab-majority state.
The JDA also defends the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement as a form of “non-violent political protest.” Its signatories agree that requiring Jews to publicly condemn Israel or Zionism is antisemitic, yet they seem totally oblivious to the fact that a core BDS tactic, particularly on college campuses, is to vilify and marginalize Jews who refuse to disavow Zionism as an integral part of their Jewish identity.
By contrast, a 2019 UN report by the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief declared that “the objectives, activities and effects of the BDS movement are fundamentally antisemitic” (emphasis added) and recommended the adoption of the IHRA definition by all UN member states.
Those who oppose the IHRA definition claim that it seeks to silence all criticism of and campaigns against Israel. It doesn’t and it won’t. The IHRA definition isn’t a panacea, but let’s hope it will help prevent Israel-related antisemitism from seeping into the mainstream.
The writer is director of community relations and public affairs at the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland