Progressive opponents of Israel are leaning on the Biden administration to muddy the definition of what counts as anti-Jewish hate.
Progressive opponents of Israel are leaning on the Biden administration to muddy the definition of what counts as anti-Jewish hate.
T he International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism is pretty clear-cut:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
Accompanied by eleven examples, including denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (i.e. Israel’s right to exist), applying double standards to Israel’s behavior, and comparing Israel to the Third Reich, the definition effectively clarifies that much of how anti-Israel activists behave is, in fact, antisemitic.
For this reason, we should not be surprised that progressive groups critical of Israel have been urging the Biden administration to leave the IHRA’s definition out of its national antisemitism strategy, which is set to be released in the coming weeks and to include over 200 policy plans and recommendations.
According to Jewish Insider, “an individual with knowledge of the process said that major mainstream Jewish groups have been advocating for the IHRA definition’s inclusion in the White House strategy.” But progressive leaders instead want to defer to a 2021 letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, signed by Representatives Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.), Mark Pocan (D., Wis.), Andy Levin (D., Mich.), Jamie Raskin (D., Md.), and Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.), which rejected the IHRA’s definition and proposed alternatives. One such alternative, the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, claims that the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel is not necessarily antisemitic and that a hostility to Israel “could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or it could be the emotion a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the state.” Would the definition say the same thing about those Palestinians who celebrated the September 11 attacks, or who hold antisemitic beliefs? Are these just valid emotional responses to Israeli oppression?
Moreover, the Jerusalem Declaration states that comparing “Israel with other historical cases, including settler-colonialism or apartheid,” is not antisemitic, but that “denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality,” is. The declaration tacitly accepts, therefore, the validity of comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, the claim that Israel commits human-rights violations, and, effectively, Israel’s existence as a Jewish state (hence the “in accordance with the principle of equality” clarifying clause).
Another definition recommended by progressive representatives in their letter to Blinken, the Nexus Document, takes this a step further by expressly permitting “paying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries,” on the basis that “some people care about Israel more” and “Israel has a special relationship with the United States and receives $4 billion in American aid.” Yet the “special relationship” is special for a reason: Israel is America’s central democratic ally against terror and extremism in the Middle East, actively fighting regional threats to American national security.
These nonsensical definitions are not as widely used as the IHRA’s. The IHRA’s definition of antisemitism, for example, is accepted by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, among 865 other entities around the world (including most Western democracies). Yet the 2021 letter falsely claimed that the two new definitions it recommends “have been formulated and embraced by the Jewish community,” even ascribing the development of the Jerusalem Declaration to Holocaust scholars — and ignoring the fact that IHRA stands for International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an actual, mainstream Holocaust-remembrance institution.
Fighting against the IHRA, progressive organizations such as J Street and Americans for Peace now convey a similar narrative to the 2021 letter. The former claims that a definition of antisemitism that “focuses disproportionately on criticism of Israel does a disservice to Jewish Americans targeted by this hatred,” and the latter points directly to the 2021 letter. But they should know that the real disservice done to Jewish Americans is the clear connection between anti-Israel rhetoric and antisemitism, which are generally one and the same.
Jewish Insider reports that the definition of antisemitism is a central sticking point in the administration’s effort to complete its antisemitism strategy, and the White House task force working on it remains undecided on how to proceed. Biden brags that the strategy will be “the most ambitious, comprehensive effort in our history to combat antisemitism in America yet,” but his self-professed desire to formulate it through conversations with Jews “from diverse backgrounds and denominations” is the reason this mess exists in the first place. By acknowledging and validating far-left groups that pay lip service to Jewish identity even as they accept a false, harmful, antisemitic narrative about Israel, the Biden administration has given credence to their so-called perspective.