Over the past few months, we have witnessed the ongoing violent assault against residents of Gaza by the Israel Defence Force. Across the Arab world and beyond, Israel has been characterised as a satanic state guilty of the most gruesome genocide. Millions of pro-Palestinian supporters have joined protest marches in capital cities; in addition student protestors on university and college campuses have set up encampments demanding that their institutions divest funds from companies connected with the Jewish state. Jew-hatred has exploded everywhere.
In response, Jewry is united in condemning pro-Palestinian supporters. Attacks on Israel are viewed by many Jews in Israel and beyond as modern manifestations of underlying Jew-hatred. An equation is drawn between anti- Zionism and antisemitism. Critics of Israel are overwhelmingly described as modern-day antisemites. The World Jewish Congress, for example, recently stated:
The term anti-Zionism refers to modern-day opposition to Zionism—or, simply put, the denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. Whether motivated by politics, religion, or ignorance, those who espouse anti-Zionist views help to perpetuate a subtle form of antisemitism.
But is this equation accurate? Is anti-Zionism antisemitism? That is the question I want to address this evening. But before trying to offer a comprehensive definition of antisemitism—which could provide an answer to this question— let us briefly survey the various reasons Jews have been hated through the centuries.
Antisemitism through History
Let me begin with the ancient world. The history of Jew-hatred began in ancient Egypt where, according to the Hebrew Bible, Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians. In the Book of Exodus: Pharaoh orders the slaughter at birth of all male Hebrew children. One Hebrew child, however, is rescued by being placed in a basket on the Nile. He is found and adopted by Pharaoh's daughter, who names him Moses. Later it is he who frees his people from bondage.
The same applies to contempt for Jews in the book of Esther of a foiled plot to annihilate the Jews hatched more than 2,000 years ago in ancient Persia. Haman, prime minister to the Persian King Ahasuerus, is insulted by the Jew Mordecai, who refused to bow to Haman. Haman convinces the king that all Jews are rebellious and must be destroyed. Unbeknownst to Haman, Ahasuerus’s queen, Esther, is a Jew and Mordecai’s niece, Esther, appeals to Ahasuerus for her people’s lives. The king issues a new decree allowing the Jews to defend themselves. As a result, Haman and his family are executed, and the Jews kill 75,000 would-be attackers.
Turning to the the Hellenistic period, the initial indication of a negative attitude toward Jews took place at the beginning of the third century BCE in the writings of an Egyptian priest called Manetho. Manetho turns the story of the Exodus upside down. In the Bible it is an act of liberation of the Jewish people by God from Egyptian bondage. In Manetho's anti-biblical history, it is an expulsion of the Jews from Egypt at the command of the Egyptian gods, because their country has to be purified of unclean people.
I want to turn next to Christian antisemitism. Like earlier forms of Jew-hatred, Jews were despised because of who they were. They were different from Christians because they did not believe that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah and were regarded as responsible for his death. The Early Church Fathers had a particularly intense personal dislike of Jews. Tertullian, for example, argued that the Gentiles had been chosen by God to replace the Jews, because they were worthier and more honourable. Origen condemned contemporary Jews for not understanding their own Law, insisting that Christians were the "true Israel", and blaming Jews for Jesus' death. Augustine of Hippo argued that Jews should suffer as a perpetual reminder of their murder of Christ. Like his anti-Jewish teacher, Ambrose of Milan, he defined Jews as a special subset of those damned to hell.
In the Middle Ages, antisemitism escalated. Beginning in the 13th century. many Christians were convinced—despite the lack of evidence—that Jews poisoned wells to cause plagues. During this period it was also widely believed— again without proof— that Jews killed a child before Easter because they needed Christian blood to bake matzo (unleavened bread). Throughout Europe if a Christian child were killed, accusations of blood libel would arise no matter how small the Jewish population. And the Church often portrayed the dead child as a martyr; sometimes the children were even made into Saints. Antisemitic imagery was also frequently used in Christian art and architecture. In all these cases, Jews were innocent victims of Christian contempt for those who refused to accept Jesus as their saviour.
Let me turn now to the Spanish Inquisition. By the end of the fourteenth century Jews in Spain had come to be regarded with suspicion and contempt. A large number (known as conversos or Marranos) embraced the Christian faith in order to escape attack. In the next century the Church embarked on a new form of
persecution. The Inquisition was established under Ferdinand and Isabella to purge conversos who were suspected of living secretly as Jews.
At the end of the eighteenth century Jewish life underwent a major transformation as a result of social, economic and political changes. The Enlightenment heralded a new vision of the equality of all human beings, regardless of religion or race. The revolutions in America and France paved the way for Jewish assimilation on an unprecedented scale. Yet this alteration in Jewish existence did not generate universal tolerance. Despite the plea of a number of progressive non-Jewish advocates of Jewish emancipation, the Christian community was not yet ready to grant Jewry full civic and social equality.
According to a number of critics, Jews were not viewed as reprehensible because of their religious past as in previous centuries. It was not the crime of decide that sealed their fate. Rather, their destiny was determined by racial inheritance. Such doctrines, which emerged during the age of the Enlightenment, sowed the seeds of the destructive policies which eventually led to the concentration camps and the gas chambers.
Although Jewish life underwent considerable improvement in the nineteenth century, medieval stereotypes of the Jew continued to animate non-Jewish sentiment. Continually the disparagement of the Jew remained an important literary theme, particularly in connection with the legend of the Wandering Jew. According to Christian myth, the Jewish people were deprived of their ancient homeland for having rejected Christ. The Jew, like Cain, is a fugitive, destined to wander from country to country. In their own eyes, Jews were blameless for this condition. Yet, for Christians, they are guilty of the crime of viewing Christ as a criminal and refusing to help him on his way to Calvary.
In German society, obsession with racist doctrine resulted in the most pernicious form of Judeaeophbia. In the view of various writers, Germanness must be protected from contamination. In this milieu a number of German metaphysicians castigated Judaism and the Jewish nation in terms all too reminiscent of previous centuries. Such attitudes led to the rise of Nazism. Following the defeat in the First World War, the German nation experienced humiliation, economic disruption and cultural disorder. Longing for a return to past glories, Conservatives sought to reconstruct society along traditional lines. In these circumstances the German Workers' Party advanced extreme nationalist policies as well as antisemitic attitudes. As early as August 1920, Hitler compared the Jews to germs. He stated that diseases cannot be controlled unless you destroy their causes. The influence of the Jews, he argued, would never disappear without removing its cause, the Jew, from our midst. These radical ideas paved the way for the mass murder of the Jews in the 1940s.
The IHRA Defition of Antisemitism
These then are the historical contexts of Jew hatred. But how are we to distill a comprehensive definition from these varied examples? How are we to define antisemitism? This was the task undertaken only a few years ago by the International International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA).On 23-26 May 2016 an IHRA Plenary meeting was held in Bucharest to agree on a new, comprehensive definition of antisemitism.
According to the IHRA, 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 individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish
community institutions and religious facilities. To guide the IHRA in its work, a range of examples were given as illustrations. Manifestations 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 a 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).
• 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 (Israel) 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.
The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism has been enthusiastically endorsed world-wide. Of particular importance in this regard is the European Commission's publication of a handbook for its practical use. According to the handbook, dozens of countries, cities, governmental institutions, universities, civil society organisations and sport clubs have used the definition as a resource in projects that seek to educate on the ways that antisemitism appears, as well as for initiatives focused on recognising and countering manifestations of antisemitism.
Criticism of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
Yet, despite its widespread acceptance internationally , there has been fierce criticism of the IHRA definition. Critics of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism argue that this definition shifts the meaning of antisemitism from its traditional focus on hatred of Jews per se – the idea that Jews are naturally inferior and/or evil, or a belief in worldwide Jewish-led conspiracies or Jewish control of capitalism, or some combination thereof – to one based largely on how critical one is toward Israel's policies.
The second part of the IHRA's definition provides eleven examples of contemporary manifestations of antisemitism, seven of which refer to the State of Israel. One example of antisemitism is the claim ‘that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor', while another involves the requirement that Israel behave in a way ‘not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation'. Surely, they argue, it should be legitimate to debate whether Israel, as a self-proclaimed Jewish state, is ‘a racist endeavour' or a ‘democratic nation' without being branded an antisemite.
In this regard a number of lawyers have described the new IHRA definition as having a chilling effect on free speech. Hugh Tomlinson QC, for example, was asked to give a legal opinion on the impact that the new definition could have on freedom of expression and assembly by Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JfJfP), Independent Jewish Voices (IJV), Free Speech on Israel (FSOI) and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC).
Tomlinson stressed that the definition is not legally binding and public bodies are under no obligation to adopt it. Indeed, those that do so must take care in applying it or risk unlawfully restricting legitimate expressions of political opinion, freedom of expression and assembly. Tomlinson insists that the new definition should not be used to judge criticism of Israel as antisemitic unless the criticism actually expresses hatred towards Jews.
Joining this circle of critics a number of Jewish activists have been among the most vociferous in voicing opposition to the new definition. Rebecca Vilkomerson, Executive Director of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) (a group with more than 200,000 online members and sixty chapters across the US), argues that equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism overlooks the long history of Jewish anti-Zionism. Similarly, according to the UK-based group Jews for Justice for Palestinians, fusing ‘Jewishness/Israel/ Zionism' enables antisemitism to become a weapon for imposing conformity on dissidents within the Jewish community.
A number of professional organisations have also voiced concern, such as the British Society for Middle East Studies. In addition, more than 100 Palestinians and Arab academics and intellectuals have argued that the IHRA definition is being used to stifle not just criticism of Israel but also, and more widely, support for Palestinian rights. Most recently over 200 international scholars
working in antisemitism studies and related fields drafted the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, a new definition that responds to the IHRA definition and is inspired by the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the 1969 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The aim of this alternative definition is twofold: 1) to strengthen the fight against antisemitism by clarifying what it is and how it is manifested 2) to protect a space for an open debate about the vexed question of the future of Israel/Palestine.
Following the publication of the Jerusalem Declaration, defenders of the IHRA Working Definition vociferously argued that this document was seriously misguided. In April 2021, Emily Schrader wrote an opinion article in The Jerusalem Post stating that the Jerusalem Declaration is aimed at undermining the widely accepted International Holocaust Remembrance Association definition. She described the controversy around the IHRA definition as the result of a campaign by several fringe Jewish groups who were falsely claiming it censors free speech and silences Palestinian advocacy. She emphasized the use of the IHRA defini-tion by national governments and other prominent groups, and described the JDA as a group of academics walking on 508eggshells to try to define what antisemitism is not in order to appease a more extreme group that has become increasingly and aggressively more antisemitic on the far Left.
Here then is a major clash about the definition of antisemitism. In the past manifestations of Jew-hatred were clear and obvious. Jews were vilified through the centuries because they were viewed as Christ-killers. In the last century the Nazis embarked on a campaign of extermination based on racial rather than religious grounds. But with the creation of the state of Israel, there has been a major shift in orientation. As we have seen, the IHRA definition
of antisemitism emphasises that Jew-hatred now embraces various forms of criticism of the Jewish state. Critics of the IHRA definition (both Jewish and non-Jewish), on the other hand, argue that this modern definition of antisemitism is misguided and curtails freedom of speech. This debate about the nature of antisemitism is of vital significance as world Jewry faces the uncertainties of the future.
Conclusion
You will ask me where I stand regarding this debate about the viability of the IHRA definition.Was the IHRA right to include criticism of Israel within the defintion of antisemitism? Or am I on the side of the critics of this new definition? The current crisis in Gaza brings into focus this issue. Defenders of the IHRA definition both in Israel and the diaspora regard critics of Israeli policy as antisemites. If they are Jewish, they are viewed as selfhating Jews. If they are non-Jews, they are antisemitic goyim.
In my view, this is a distortion of the concept of antisemitsm. As we have seen, for over two thousand years Jews were innocent victims—they were hated essentially because they were different from the gentiles among whom they lived. Anti-Zionism, however, is not antisemitism. It is hatred of Israel because of its political aims. The IHRA definition has deliberately weaponised the concept of antisemitism so it can be used against opponents of the Jewish state.
Opponents of the of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism are right to criticise its inclusion of anti-Zionism within its defintion. Arguably the Jerusalem Declaration’s principles consitite the best framework for offering a comprehensive definition of antisemitism. According to this definition:
1. It is racist to essentialize (treat a character trait as inherent) or to make sweeping negative generalizations about a given population. What is true of racism in general is true of antisemitism in particular.
2. What is particular in classic antisemitism is the idea that Jews are linked to the forces of evil. This stands at the core of many anti-Jewish fantasies, such as the idea of a conspiracy in which ‘the Jews' possess hidden power that they use to promote their own collective agenda at the expense of other people. This linkage between Jews and evil continues in the present: in the fantasy that ‘the Jews' control governments with a ‘hidden hand,' that they own the banks, control the media, act as ‘a state within a state,' and are responsible for spreading disease. All these features can be instrumentalized by different (and even antagonistic) political causes.
3. Antisemitism can be manifested in words, visual images, and deeds. Examples of antisemitic words include utterances that all Jews are wealthy, inherently stingy, or unpatriotic. In antisemitic caricatures, Jews are often depicted as grotesque, with big noses and associated with wealth. Examples of antisemitic deeds are: assaulting someone because she or he is Jewish, attacking a synagogue, daubing swastikas on Jewish graves, or refusing to hire or promote people because they are Jewish.
4. Antisemitism can be direct or indirect, explicit or coded. For example, ‘The Rothschilds control the world' is a coded statement about the alleged power of ‘the Jews' over banks and international finance. Similarly, portraying Israel as the ultimate evil or grossly exaggerating its actual influence can be a coded way of racializing and stigmatizing Jews. In many cases, identifying coded speech is
a matter of context and judgement, taking account of these guidelines.
5. Denying or minimizing the Holocaust by claiming that the deliberate Nazi genocide of the Jews did not take place, or that there were no extermination camps or gas chambers, or that the number of victims was a fraction of the actual total, is antisemitic.
Yet the definition makes clear that the following acts are not antisemitic:
1. It is not antisemitic to support the Palestinian demand for justice and the full grant of their political, national, civil and human rights, as encapsulated in international law.
2. It is not antisemitic to argue for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.
3. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants ‘between the river and the sea,' whether in two states, a bi-national state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form.
4. It is not antisemitic to produce evidence-based criticism of Israel as a state. This includes its institutions and founding principles. It also includes its policies and practices, domestic and abroad, such as the conduct of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza, the role Israel plays in the region, or any other way in which, as a state, it influences events in the world.
5. It is not antisemitic to point out systematic racial discrimination. In general, the same norms of debate that apply to other states and to other conflicts over national self-determination
apply in the case of Israel and Palestine. Thus, even if contentious, it is not antisemitic, in and of itself, to compare Israel with other historical cases, including settler-colonialism or apartheid.
6. It is not antisemitic to call for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel.
Here then is a viable definition of antisemitism, one which distinguishes between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Antisemitism is Jew-hatred. Anti-Zionism is criticism of the Jewish state. It is not antisemitism unless it is coupled with hatred of Jews. This is a critical distinction, and vital for making sense of the current world-wide protests against a Israel’s war against the Palestinians in Gaza.
I am Jewish. I am a Reform rabbi. I am a Professor of Judaism. Yet I am an ardent critic of current Israeli policy. I am shocked and appalled by the onslaught against the citizens of Gaza. It is heartbreaking to watch buildings bombed,and innocent children die in the most appalling circumstances. I deplore the fact that we Jews have been despised through the centuries. Antisemitism is humanity’s longest hatred. Yet at the same time I am appalled by the current Israeli government’s policy. The definition of antisemitism must not be allowed to silence legitimate criticism of the Jewish state. I am not an antisemite. I am not a self-hating Jew. Instead I stand with all those who call for Israel to halt its onslaught against the people of Gaza.and seek instead to create a two-state solution to the Middle-East crisis.