EJJP – Correspondence with EUMC, 2005

On 13 October 2005 European Jews for a Just Peace, a federation of Jewish groups in ten European countries, wrote to the European Monitoring Committee on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) expressing its concerns over the latter’s ‘working definition of antisemitism’. Beate Winkler replied for the EUMC on 28 November. The correspondence is reprinted below.

To: Beate Winkler, Director

European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)
Rahlgasse 3
A – 1060 Vienna
Austria

Concerning the ‘Working Definition of Antisemitism’

The 13^th of October 2005

Dear Beate Winkler,

At its conference in London in September 2005, European Jews for a Just Peace, a federation of Jewish peace organisations in ten European countries, noted that the EUMC had produced a highly problematic ‘Working Definition of Antisemitism’.

We have two comments, on process and on content:

On process

We are concerned about the process that gave rise to the Working Definition and we respectfully ask the EUMC to clarify and explain it. It is vital that the European public — especially those individuals and groups whose cooperation you seek — perceive the process to be transparent and above-board. Regrettably, this is not the case with your ‘Working Definition of Antisemitism’.

The document states that ‘Jewish organisations like the European Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, other major Jewish NGO’s and prominent academics’ were consulted. We, however, though a federation of European Jewish organisations, were not consulted (though the American Jewish Congress was) and we know of other NGOs and prominent academics — including experts cited favourably in your March 2004 report ‘Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002-2003’ — who should have been consulted but were not. Nor is it clear how the ‘consultations’ (which presumably gave contrasting emphases to how they would see a working definition) were aggregated to produce the current Working Definition. This is especially problematic given that the Working Definition differs significantly in tone from the definition given in your 2004 report; in our view, the new version is unhelpful if not downright misleading (see below under ‘On content’).

In the interests of transparency, we would like to ask for some very specific information: which Jewish organisations were consulted; which other NGOs; which academics? Moreover, who exactly drafted the working definition in the light of these consultations?

Working definitions of antisemitism — and of Islamophobia and racism in general — are of universal concern (indeed, were they not, the EUMC would have no rationale for its work). We would stress therefore how important it is that they are not perceived as partisan and/or partial.

On content

Problems begin with the very ‘working definition’ provided. Of course antisemitism is ‘a certain perception of Jews’ – but what perception? Nowhere is this discussed, yet what perceptions are allowable, what unacceptable is surely key to any working definition of antisemitism? The earlier EUMC definition recognized that the ideological content of that perception is central to the usual meaning of the word ‘antisemitism’ and outlined that content. Leaving this out opens the door to confusion by failing to distinguish between different kinds – and sources – of hostility to Jews today. The definition contributes to the very problem it should be solving.

The problem is compounded by the list of ‘[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism’, since they are all preceded by the rubric that they ‘could, taking into account the overall context’ be such examples. Equally, one supposes, they might not be. Yet the very inclusion of all of these as examples appears as prima facie evidence of antisemitism – otherwise why are they there?

This list is then followed by a separate list giving no fewer than five examples of how ‘antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context’.

Some of the points in this second list are highly questionable and we must protest vigorously about them. For example:

• ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination’ assumes that all Jews equate self determination with Zionism. Not only is this not true today, it has never been true. There is a long and respected tradition in Jewish history and culture among all those who have wished or wish today for cultural, religious or other forms of autonomy falling short of a Jewish state; for a binational state in Palestine as did Martin Buber and others; or for a one-state solution today, whatever form it might take – a minority view in Israel today to be sure, but held by numbers of respected Jews. To make the assumption that all Jews hold the same views is in itself a form of antisemitism.
• ‘Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation’. This is a formulation that allows any criticism of Israel to be dismissed on the grounds that it is not simultaneously applied to every other defaulting state at the same time. As campaigners for a just peace in the Middle East we can affirm that it is thrown willy-nilly to stifle any and all but the narrowest criticism of acts of the Israeli government that are in prima facie breach of clause after clause of the 4^th Geneva Convention. Or again, the democratic norm that all citizens in a state should be treated equally sometimes sits uneasily with some notions of Israel as a ‘Jewish state’ and it is not antisemitic to point this out or to suggest that Israel should, indeed, be a ‘state of all its citizens’.

• ‘Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel’. This is the flipside of a position, frequently expressed by Prime Minister Sharon and many Zionists, that refuses to make any distinction between the interests of Israel and those of Jews worldwide. Why it is permissible for them to make this elision but evidence of antisemitism when others do so is not clear. It might even be taken as evidence of double standards… In reality it is all too often Zionist rhetoric which fuses the notion of Israel’s interests with those of Jews worldwide and thus fuels what the EUMC identifies (other things being equal) as a potential indicator of antisemitism

This is not to deny that there are circumstances in which criticisms of the state of Israel might indeed be antisemitic. But the presumption should not be that they are. This requires demonstration on a case by case basis.  As formulated this listing fosters a presumption that those who criticise the state of Israel in all kinds of legitimate ways are in fact covert antisemites. We number ourselves amongst such people and we vigorously reject the implication. that we are either antisemitic or ‘self-hating’ Jews in the strongest possible terms. In our experience, such accusations are used to stifle legitimate criticism and the EUMC formulation, by lending any credence to such views, does a disservice to the genuine struggle against antisemitism.

This document is a highly politicised one, reflecting a spilling over of Middle-East conflicts into Europe. All this might be merely academic were it not the very ‘purpose of this document’ is specified as being ‘to provide a practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data, and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism’. The working definition cannot bear this weight. Its effect, if unchallenged, will be to institutionalise theoretical confusions at the practical level.

Thus we, European Jews for a Just Peace, are not willing to accept the EUMC ‘Working Definition of Antisemitism’ as an adequate basis on which to proceed and call on the EUMC to reopen this question if its work is not to lose credibility among many of those who are committed to the fight against all forms of racism and xenophobia, including antisemitism.

Dror Feiler

Chair
EJJP

On 28 November 2005 Beate Winkler replied to the above letter in the following terms (JPG images of the letter follow the transcribed text below):

Mr Dror Feiler
European Jews for a Just Peace
P.O. Box 59506
1040 LA Amsterdam
The Netherlands

Vienna, 28 November 2005
EUMC/BW/ID/ht
Doc.ref.: 8158

Dear Mr Feiler

Thank you for your interest in our work and, in particular, for your contribution to our ongoing initiatives regarding the development of data collection guidelines and a working definition of antisemitism.

The EUMC report on antisemitism, published in March 2004, pointed to a serious lack of reliable and comparable statistical data on antisemitic incidents in the Member States; due largely to the absence of a common working definition and data collection methodology and guidelines. A major task of the EUMC is to work towards comparability by developing common indicators and working definitions and methodologies, which could be used by other international organisations. It is also the task of the EUMC to develop precise and reliable working definitions for data collection in order to improve our understanding of such phenomena, and to provide a clear picture of the situation.

In this context, in November 2004, in Vienna representatives of OSCE/ODIHR, the European Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Committee – Berlin office, and the EUMC discussed the possibility of a common approach to data collection on antisemitism. During the meeting, draft guidelines for data collection on antisemitism and a working definition were discussed in an effort to improve data comparability, and with a view to presenting them to primary data collectors (government and civil society) at both national and international level. Several organizations and individual experts were consulted and contributed to the discussions including: The Community Security Trust, the Consistoire of France, the Stephen Roth Center of Tel Aviv University, the Berlin Anti-Semitism Task Force, the American Jewish Committee the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, the Anti-Defamation League, B’nai B’rith International, the Tolerance Unit of the ODIHR/OSCE, Prof. Yehuda Bauer, Academic Advisor to the International Task Force on the Holocaust, and others.

The draft guidelines and working definition were then elaborated further by the EUMC, with input from expert [sic], in order to assess their functionality and to ensure that they corresponded to the approach presented in the 2004 EUMC Antisemitism Report. The report refered to the possibility that criticism of Israel might be considered antisemitic under certain circumstances therefore requiring careful assessment on a case-by-case basis:

“… One should always keep in mind that concrete instances of verbal attacks on Israel can, in fact, only be judged according to the historical, political, and situational context in which they are launched – and according to who launches them… Therefore, in order to be able to draw any valid conclusions about texts that criticise Israel, we need to conduct thorough and systematic analyses that will highlight different possible interpretations, account for their context of production as well as their context of reception, and make systematic use of the methodological tools provided by different social scientific disciplines” (EUMC Antisemitism Report, 2004, p.241)

The EUMC forwarded their draft guidelines and working definition to its RAXEN National Focal Points for further feedback. More specifically, the National Focal Points were asked to liaise with primary data collectors in their countries in order to provide the EUMC with input regarding the effectiveness and relevance of both to the specific situation in their Member State [sic].

Currently the draft guidelines and working definition, which should be viewed as ‘work in progress’, are under review in the light of feedback received, with a view to redrafting them in 2006. We would welcome your contribution.

With my best regards

Beate Winkler
Director