PURELY COMMENTARY essay
The Working Definition of Antisemitism Needs No Rewrite
S
ince 2005, government and nonprofit professionals tasked with combating antisemitism have championed the widespread recognition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Ira N. Forman Working Times of Israel Definition of Antisemitism. Prior to 2017, the IHRA Working Definition was largely uncontroversial in the United States except among pro-Palestinian activists and a few voices on the extreme left. However, during President Donald Trump’s term in office, the definition became more of a target for criticism. In the last few weeks, two alternative definitions have been proposed that seek to modify or replace IHRA. Both of these new definition projects — the Nexus Task Force out of the University of Southern California and the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) — appear to have been motivated by how the Trump administration, as well as far-right organizations and individuals, employed IHRA. On a number of occasions, the Trump administration misrepresented the Working Definition. Jared Kushner, for instance, published an op-ed in the New York Times claiming that the Working Definition makes clear that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism.” This is
4
|
simply not true. Indeed, the document never even uses the word “Zionism.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was widely criticized for abusing IHRA by attempting to use it as a justification for designating three human rights organizations that have criticized Israel as antisemitic. However, it is important to recall that the IHRA definition was not a creation of the Trump administration. The original text of what became the “Working Definition” was drafted back in 2005 for the European Union’s Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. It was designed to respond to an emerging form of antisemitism, an antisemitism that utilized old anti-Jewish memes but substituted the word “Israel” or “Zionist” for the word “Jew.” (This form of antisemitism was notably present at the 2001 Durbin Conference.) Indeed, it was the Obama administration’s State Department that took a
leadership role in supporting a modified version — what is now the IHRA definition — in 2010. ANSWERING THE CRITICS Some of today’s critics of the IHRA definition believe that any definition of antisemitism should focus on right-wing nationalist antisemitism, believing that this is the only consequential form of hatred of Jews. However, such a position misreads the nature of contemporary antisemitism. Those who study the problem note that countries can have multiple forms of antisemitism that come from different ideological sources, and the predominant form can shift very quickly. The IHRA definition covers examples of antisemitism arising out of multiple sources — from the antisemitism that emanates from right-wing nationalist movements to that which comes from the extreme left. Some opponents of IHRA
protest that the definition equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Such a claim, however, amounts to a misunderstanding of the document. While the definition lists a number of examples when criticism of Israel may be construed as antisemitic in nature, it clearly states that in all cases the context of the activity needs to be carefully considered. The Working Definition was not developed to be a blunt tool to curb criticism of Israel but rather to be a set of guidelines to help understand where speech or actions cross a line and can be construed as antisemitic. Furthermore, IHRA does not endorse the banning of speech, even speech that is critical or hostile to the State of Israel or Zionism. Nor do its main proponents in the United States — such as the major Jewish community organizations — advocate the abridgment of the First Amendment right to free speech, even for antisemitic speech. The JDA describes the IHRA definition as “unclear” and “widely open to different interpretations.” Yet one of the virtues of the Working Definition is that, precisely because it is open to some degree of interpretation (particularly interpretations based on careful consideration of context), it has been able to garner support from Jewish community organizations, governments, as well as a huge range of civil society insticontinued on page 8
APRIL 15 • 2021
