Itamar Mann and Lihi Yona, writing in the Guardian March 23, 2025, argue that the new definition of antisemitism is being used to promote Christian Nationalism and that rather than protect Jews it actually endangers them.
The article clearly
explains the two positions on antisemitism:
Following the horrendous Hamas
attack of 7 October 2023, and the subsequent war and utter destruction of Gaza,
two sharply contrasting positions have emerged.
On the one hand, many Jewish
organizations and advocates have seen the emerging pro-Palestinian protest
movement as a manifestation of antisemitism, a classic example of the
over-scrutinization of Israel,
and the denial of Israel’s right to defend itself.
On the other hand, many critics
of Israel and of Zionism argue against this conflation and in favor of their
right to support the Palestinian struggle. For them, labeling anti-Israel
positions as antisemitic is a way to silence dissenting opinions and to prevent
an honest discussion of Israel’s actions in Gaza.
In 2016 the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) published a working definition of antisemitism wich has been adopted by 46 countries including Canada and the United States. The core definition is straightforward:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which
may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations
of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish community institutions
and religious facilities.
Attached to the definition
is a list of examples of antisemitism (see the link below). Here are a few of
the examples:
·
Holding
Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel
·
Manifestations
might include the targeting the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish
collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any
other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
·
Applying
double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected of demanded of any
other democratic nation.
·
Denying
the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the
existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
I have no problem with the definition or the examples given. It’s the interpretations of some that I question.
I have argued previously
(Feb 6 post “Gaza”) that neither Jews or Palestinians living around the world
should be blamed for what is happening in Gaza. Any targeting of them is
misguided and wrong.
The “targeting of the
state of Israel” is a tricky issue. What criticism is considered “similar to
that … against any other country”? Russia is certainly being criticized for bombing
Ukraine – can Israel be criticized for bombing Gaza? Israel can argue that
Hamas started the Gaza war while Russia’s similar claims about Ukraine are
laughably false. Does that make a difference?
I also agree with the
example of double standards. Is Israel really being held to a higher standard
than other democracies?
Is it a double standard to expect Israel to follow the Geneva Conventions of warfare when Hamas (and Russia) do not? When other countries commit war crimes they are condemned; when Israel commits war crimes it is condemned. Where is the double standard here?
Is it a double standard to
expect Israel to give up land they won in the 1967 war when Russia was allowed
to keep Crimea? Again, Israel can claim that the Arab nations started that war
while Russia can make no such claim. Does that make a difference? The reason
Russia is being “allowed” to keep Crimea is that no country is willing to risk
nuclear war to kick them out, not because everyone thinks they won it “fair and
square”.
Is the reporting of the Gaza
war an example of a double standard? Why does the media focus on the Palestinian
casualties and not on Israelis? Well maybe because there haven’t been 60,000
Israelis killed in the last year and a half, and Jerusalem and Tel Aviv haven’t
been bombed to rubble. If they had been I have no doubts that the media would
have covered it, likely in much more detail than that of Gaza.
The Hamas attack of
October 7 was well covered by the media. Israel had the world’s sympathy. Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even got a hug from President Joe Biden. But Israel
squandered all that sympathy and good will after only a few days with its
brutal retaliation.
The example of the right
to self determination is another complex issue. Can this be interpreted to mean
that anti-Zionism is antisemetic? There are Jews worldwide who don’t support
the existence of the state of Israel. Does that make them antisemites? Shouldn’t
they be allowed their own opinion?
I can agree that denying
the state of Israel the right to exist is antisemitism. The extremist Palestinian
view that the Israelis should be removed and the land “from the river to the
sea” be returned to them, is wrong. But equally wrong is the extremist
Israeli view that Israel should annex both Gaza and the West Bank. Their motto
is also “from the river to the sea.”
The real problem though
with this issue is that it is used as an excuse to stifle debate on Israeli
policies, including the Gaza war. Any criticism of Israel’s destruction of Gaza
is immediately labeled as antisemitism.
Jerry Nadler, the most
senior Jewish member of the House of Representatives, accuses President Trump of
exploiting the fight against antisemitism as a ruse to control universities.
Nadler said “Trump obviously doesn’t give a damn about antisemitism, this is
just an expression of his authoritarianism”.
Nadler warned that
restricting free speech on campuses would harm Jews as well. “Whenever
freedom is curtailed, Jews in particular become victims”. He also said that
ironically Trump’s crackdown on antisemitism would make American Jews less safe.
“There are always antisemites looking for an excuse to react, so this is
dangerous and it certainly does not help at all”.
Nadler added that if Trump
was really interested in fighting antisemitism he would fire numerous
antisemites that have been appointed to high government positions, naming
Kingsley Wilson as an example. Nadler also pointed out the firing of senior investigators
in the Education Department’s Civil Rights office, who could have helped deal
with anti-Jewish hate on campuses.
I would add to this list
that if Trump was serious about fighting anti-semitism he should condemn the
use of Nazi symbols and speech among his followers. He won’t of course because
he needs his Nazi followers as much as he needs the Evangelical Christians.
Kenneth Stern, writing for
the Guardian back in December 2019 deplored the use of the IHRA definition,
of which he was the lead drafter, to stifle speech on American campuses. Trump,
in his first term, had just signed an Executive Order adopting the definition
in interpretation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Stern wrote:
It was never intended to be a campus hate speech code,
but that’s what Donald Trump’s executive order accomplished this week. This
order is an attack on academic freedom and free speech, and will harm not only
pro-Palestine advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the academy
itself.
Back then Stern said he
was “worried that administrators will now have a strong motivation to suppress,
or at least condemn, political speech for fear of litigation.” That fear
was more than justified. Trump is now using threats of funding cuts to force
universities to his will. He is also kidnapping students for pro-Palestinian speech
and detaining or deporting them with no due process.
For Trump, antisemitism is
just another tool to further his thirst for power.
Update April 7
A similar article appeared in the NYT today by Michael S. Roth, president of Wesleyan University in Connecticut.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/opinion/trump-jewish-antisemitism-wesleyan.html
Sources
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/05/jerry-nadler-trump-antisemitism
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
ReplyDeleteIsrael has no right to exist. The land and occupants are Palestinian. Zionists have been busy exterminating or pushing out the rightful occupants of Palestine. Israel is a racist apartheid state.