For thousands of years Jews have been hated, persecuted and murdered for being Jews . Given that the scourge of antisemitism appears to be on the rise, there has recently been a concerted attempt on the part of experts to define clearly what antisemitism is so that it can be combatted. The most important work in this area has been done by the 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 or nonJewish 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 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. 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. 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. 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.