Rushing for ways to define criticism of Israel as antisemitic


December 14, 2016
Sarah Benton

This posting has these items:

1)The Independent: By limiting criticism of Israel, Theresa May’s new definition of antisemitism will do more harm than good, Ben White thinks the IHRA definition is the problem but it’s her praise for Israel as a state that “guarantees the rights of people of all religions, races and sexualities” which is stupid to the point of absurdity;
2) IHRA: IHRA working definition of antisemitism, this definition from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance seems unexceptionable. Criticism of Israel defined ‘as a Jewish collectivity’ is antisemitic. Otherwise not;
3) Haaretz: American Jewish Establishment Stifles Free Speech to Silence Zionism’s Critics. Peter Beinart on the growing criticism of Zionism as a supremacist ideology – and the establishment rush to redefine such Anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism;
4) Jewish News VA: Defining Anti-Semitism. Robin Mancoll’s review of Kenneth L Marcus’s book in which he avers “The BDS movement is not new; it only extends age-old anti-Jewish hatred in new settings”;


Israel protects itself behind a wall beyond which no criticism from foreigners can pass. Photo by AFP/Getty Images

By limiting criticism of Israel, Theresa May’s new definition of antisemitism will do more harm than good

When I participated in a debate at the University of Birmingham on Israel and Palestine a few years ago, organisers told us not to use the term ‘apartheid’, for fear of falling foul of a definition of antisemitism recently passed on campus – the same definition now given a new lease of life by Theresa May

By Ben White, The Independent
December 13, 2016

Prime Minister Theresa May today announced that the UK is formally adopting a definition of antisemitism agreed on earlier this year by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

This definition is not new, however, and it poses a familiar threat to legitimate criticism of the State of Israel.

The text of the IHRA definition is based on, and very similar to, a draft document first circulated by a European anti-racism agency in 2005, only to be subsequently abandoned as not fit for purpose.

That particular definition, drafted with the help of pro-Israel advocacy groups, was the subject of serious critique for its conflation of genuine antisemitic bigotry on the one hand, and criticism of or opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel on the other.

It is that definition which has now been resuscitated, and endorsed by a Tory government that has already sought to intimidate Palestine solidarity activism and undermine civil society boycotts.

I have experienced for myself how such a definition can have a chilling effect on free speech.

When I participated in a debate at the University of Birmingham on Israel and Palestine a few years ago, organisers told us not to use the term “apartheid”, for fear of falling foul of a definition of antisemitism recently passed on campus – the same definition now given a new lease of life.

In fact, the definition endorsed by May is almost identical to the one at the heart of a free speech furore in the US, pitching pro-Israel senators against groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Jewish Voice for Peace, who oppose efforts they see as intended to stifle pro-Palestine activism.

Writing in Israeli newspaper Haaretz last week, American Jewish commentator Peter Beinart suggested that such efforts “to classify anti-Zionism as antisemitism, punishable by law” are a direct response to the growing number of “progressives” who “question Zionism”. [see below]

Beinart dismissed the idea that “denying Israel the right to exist” constitutes antisemitism, noting that “political Zionism – the belief that Jews enjoy the greatest safety and self-expression in their own state – has always been controversial even among Jews.”

Such views are not uncommon in US or even Israeli publications, but rarely appear in British papers. This lack of critical thinking and dissent when it comes to Israel and Zionism – especially in terms of understanding the Palestinians’ decades-long experience – now seems unlikely to improve.

However, efforts to censor can often backfire. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, for example, has used the Israeli government’s attacks to secure high-profile backing for the right to boycott from legal scholars and European diplomats, among others.

For Theresa May Israel is a state that “guarantees the rights of people of all religions, races and sexualities”[!]

Interestingly, the Prime Minister announced the adoption of the new definition of antisemitism at a meeting with the Conservative Friends of Israel, where she described Israel as a state that “guarantees the rights of people of all religions, races and sexualities”.

Such a claim is met with scorn by the Palestinians, many NGOs championing human rights, and Israeli activists, who are familiar with historical mass expulsions, institutionalised discrimination, and a half-century long military regime of colonisation and displacement.

It is precisely because awareness of those facts is growing that the Israeli government and its friends and allies are desperate to smear and shush – even if it means compromising the fight against genuine antisemitism with muddled definitions.



IHRA working definition of antisemitism

In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:

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. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

 Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

 Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective —such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

 Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

 Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:

“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.”

 Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

 Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

 Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

 Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

 Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

 Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

 Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.



American Jewish Establishment Stifles Free Speech to Silence Zionism’s Critics

According to the Senate’s new Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, Henrietta Szold, Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber could also be defined as Jew-haters.

By Peter Beinart, Haaretz premium  
 December 07, 2016

With every passing year, the American Jewish establishment poses a greater threat to free speech in the United States.

The reason is simple. With every passing year, Israeli control of the West Bank grows more permanent. And so, with every passing year, more American progressives question Zionism.

After all, if Jewish statehood permanently condemns millions of West Bank Palestinians to live as non-citizens, under military law, without free movement or the right to vote for the government that controls their lives, it’s hardly surprising that Americans who loathe discrimination and cherish equality would grow uncomfortable with the concept.

And the more those Americans voice this discomfort, the more establishment American Jewish organizations work to classify anti-Zionism as antisemitism, punishable by law.

The latest example is The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, which the Senate passed unanimously on December 2. The Act – pushed by AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Federations of America – instructs the Department of Education’s Civil Rights office to follow “the definition of antisemitism set forth by the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat antisemitism of the Department of State in the Fact Sheet issued on June 8, 2010.”


Palestinian and Israeli activists flee tear gas fired by Israeli soldiers during a demonstration against Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank, on November 17, 2016. Photo by Majdi Mohammed/AP

Sounds innocuous enough. Until you look at what the Fact Sheet says. Following the definition hatched by Soviet dissident turned Israeli right-winger Natan Sharansky, the Fact Sheet defines anti-Semitism as, among other things, “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist.”

This is nuts. Across the world, numerous peoples desire “self-determination.” Kurds have been seeking their own state since the late nineteenth century, roughly the same period when Jews hatched Zionism.

So have Basques. Sikhs have been agitating for their own country, in Punjab, since India’s creation. The Igbos of eastern Nigeria actually created one, Biafra, for three years between 1967 and 1970.

There are reasonable arguments in favour of these efforts at self-determination. There are also reasonable arguments in favor of requiring Kurds, Basques, Sikhs and Igbo to live in multi-ethnic countries based upon a national identity that supersedes their own.

Either way, bigotry has nothing to do with it. If opposing a people’s desire for self-determination makes you bigoted against that group, then a lot of American Jewish leaders should report themselves to the Department of Education’s Civil Rights office right now.

After all, Palestinians want their own state. Many American Jewish leaders oppose it. Why aren’t those leaders bigots under the very principle they’re trying to write into law?

The truth is that political Zionism – the belief that Jews enjoy the greatest safety and self-expression in their own state – has always been controversial even among Jews. In the early twentieth century, many Orthodox Jews called Zionism a violation of Jewish law.

 

 

Henrietta Szold and Martin Buber

 

Many American Reform Jews argued that Jews were a faith, not a people, and thus had no homeland other than the United States. Other prominent Jewish thinkers – including Judah Magnes, who founded Hebrew University, Henrietta Szold, who founded Hadassah and the philosophers Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber – argued that a Jewish state would dispossess Palestinians and bring war. They argued for a binational state instead. That didn’t make them anti-Semites.

As the twentieth century progressed, these arguments against Zionism faded. The Holocaust buttressed the case for a country of Jewish refuge. Israel became an established fact, and in many ways an extraordinary success.

Then, in 1993, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat declared that “The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.” In 2002, the Arab League offered to “sign a peace agreement with Israel” if it returned to the 1967 lines and found a “just” and “agreed upon” solution to the Palestinian refugees.

Once even Palestinian and Arab leaders publicly declared that they could accept a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian one, the historic debate over Zionism dwindled.

It is returning in the twenty-first century because a Palestinian state was never born. (A failure for which both sides deserve blame). That failure, combined with decades of Israeli settlement growth, has convinced many progressives that a Palestinian state is now impossible.

Thus, they argue, the only way West Bank Palestinians can win their rights is in one state – including the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel proper – that does not privilege Jews.

anti-Zionism is growing because deepening Israeli control of the West Bank makes it harder to reconcile Zionism with basic Palestinian human rights

This is not my view. Despite everything, I still consider the two state solution more realistic than the binational alternative. But you don’t have to be an anti-Semite to disagree.

Anti-Zionism never died; there have always been people – Jewish and non-Jewish – who oppose any kind of Jewish state within any borders. But anti-Zionism is growing because deepening Israeli control of the West Bank makes it harder to reconcile Zionism with basic Palestinian human rights.

Faced with the growing number of Americans who deny that Zionism is compatible with liberal democracy, establishment American Jewish groups could try to make Zionism more compatible with liberal democracy. They could publicly challenge Israel’s undemocratic occupation of the West Bank. But that would require confronting Benjamin Netanyahu, and many of their own donors.

So they’ve chosen an easier path: get the Department of Education to define anti-Zionism as antisemitism and thus threaten the campus activists who are challenging Jewish statehood with legal sanction. The Senate bill claims that “Nothing in this act…shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected by the First Amendment.”

But that’s exactly what the bill does. In the words of Michael Macleod-Ball, chief of staff of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington, DC legislative office, it “opens the door to considering anti-Israel political statements and activities as possible grounds for civil rights investigations.”

It’s an old story: When people in power fear a debate, they try to criminalize it. It won’t work. If Zionism means permanent control of millions of Palestinians who lack basic rights, Zionists will gradually lose the contest of ideas in the United States. And the American Jewish establishment – which chose silencing Zionism’s opponents over fighting for a Zionism they could honestly defend – will bear some of the blame.



Defining anti-Semitism

Robin Mancoll, Jewish News VA
December 6, 2016

Author Kenneth L. Marcus will share details from his latest book, The Definition of Anti-Semitism, in which he elaborates on the link between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and how this is impacting the critiques of Israel on university campuses at a Beyond the Book Festival event.

Not expecting to dedicate so much time during his career to the battle against campus antisemitism, the American civil rights attorney left his law firm in 2001 to fight housing discrimination and then to head the civil rights branch of the U.S. Education Department. His work involved protecting the rights of racial and ethnic minorities, women and the disabled. However, during that time and then as director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Marcus discovered that antisemitism was surging on university campuses.

Marcus soon realized that government and university leaders were ill-equipped to deal with the problem, and worked on new policies to address religious prejudice, including guidelines specific to the rise in antisemitism. In 2011, Marcus founded the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all, with a primary mandate to use legal tools to fight campus antisemitism. Today, he serves as the organization’s president and general counsel.

Although a working definition of antisemitism and a connection between antisemitism and anti-Zionism exists, they are not consistently used. For example, the U.S. government applies its State Department definition of antisemitism to incidents that occur outside the United States, but not to those that apply domestically. Part of the problem, according to Marcus, is that antisemitism is not widely understood. Education, he says, should be the first step, but when education is insufficient, more forceful, concerted efforts, including the employment of law and public policy are necessary, which is the specialty of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law.

Anti-Israel activity on American college campuses led by student groups promoting Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns against Israel to isolate the Jewish state, makes students feel uncomfortable and unsafe. These activities also contradict the theory that universities are meant to offer safe spaces for civil debate on the exchange of ideas and education among students and professors.

The BDS movement is not new; it only extends age-old anti-Jewish hatred in new settings. In The Definition of Antisemitism, Marcus traces BDS origins to 1933 and beyond as the Nazi boycott was one of the first steps in the planned extermination of the Jewish people, providing a formal structure to justify the attacks on Jewish businesses. Similarly, Marcus affirms the BDS movement provides a new rationalization in the politically correct terminology of today, for the anti-Jewish boycotts.

Marcus will offer suggestions for college students to use in the fight against on-campus racism, as well as a better understanding of the new forms of antisemitism plaguing the world. His visit will kick off the Community Relations Council and Simon Family JCC’s three part series focusing on antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment on university campuses.

The Definition of Anti-Semitism will be available for purchase and signing after the programme.

See also  ‘Self-determination’ is not a right

© Copyright JFJFP 2024