Why a debate over how to define anti-Semitism has reached the United Nations

2023/04/18 Leave a comment

Good overview:

An international debate over what should be considered anti-Semitism — centred around a controversial definition that critics say chills legitimate criticism of Israel — has reached the United Nations.

Last week, a group of 60 human rights and civil society organizations wrote to the leadership of the UN, urging it not to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism.

They say the IHRA framework “has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism.”

Among the letter’s signatories are three Canadian organizations: Independent Jewish Voices Canada, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East and United Jewish People’s Order of Canada.

The high-profile appeal is just the latest twist in a now-years-long debate around the definition.

Mainstream Jewish groups and governments have urged the UN to officially adopt the IHRA’s working definition. To this point, the international body has insisted it has no plans to do so.

It has been adopted, meanwhile, in other jurisdictions around the world, including several in Canada.

Here’s a look at how the issue has become such a heated topic of debate.

What is the IHRA and why is its definition of anti-Semitism important?

The IHRA is a Europe-based, intergovernmental organization founded in 1988 with the aim of uniting governments and experts to advance and promote Holocaust education, research and remembrance worldwide. Canada has been a member since 2006.

In 2016 organization issued a “working definition” of anti-Semitism, which describes it as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The definition is accompanied by a set of 11 “contemporary examples” of anti-Semitism, seven of which refer to the state of Israel. These include “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” and “applying double standards by requiring of (Israel) a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

The definition was adopted unanimously by IHRA’s 31 member states in 2016, and has since been adopted by some 865 entities around the world, The Jerusalem Post reported.

Why is the definition controversial?

Critics of the IHRA do not necessarily take issue with the IHRA’s working definition. Rather concerns stem from the 11 “contemporary examples,” which some say can be used to label any criticism of the state of Israel as anti-Semitic, creating a chilling effect in civil society and in academic settings.

Supporters of the definition say it is a key measure in the face of rising antisemitism. Following the release of the joint letter addressed to Guterres, other human rights groups, including the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), reaffirmed their support for the IHRA.

Amid a recent surge in anti-Semitism in Canada and elsewhere, “it is despicable that self-proclaimed human rights organizations are expending resources on a campaign to harm efforts to address this hatred,” said CIJA president and CEO Shimon Koffler Fogel in a written statement provided to the Star.

“Like any other minority, the Jewish people have the right to define what hate looks like against them and the IHRA definition is the most widely accepted definition of anti-Jewish hatred. Rejecting IHRA damages the fight” against anti-Semitism, the statement continued.

However, the IHRA definition’s detractors have said its inclusion of could have a negative impact on human rights.

“If IHRA was adopted by the UN, it would put a chill on the ability of Amnesty, UN experts and other groups to accurately report their findings, and prevent UN bodies from discussing them,” Michael Bueckert, vice-president of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), told the Star.

Aaron Lakoff, the spokesperson for Independent Jewish Voices Canada, said his organization has “documented dozens of cases around the world in the last few years, including here in Canada, where the IHRA definition has been used to silence or threaten human rights advocates and Palestinians speaking out against Israeli apartheid.”

How wide is support for the definition?

Fogel, the president of CIJA, said the IHRA definition has broad support around the world.

“The Government of Canada, more than 20 provinces and municipalities, as well as the UN’s own former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief and countless others around the world have supported the definition, recognizing its vital educational role in identifying and addressing the various mutations of this ancient hatred,” he said in a statement.

“What could be more legitimate than a definition developed through a nearly 20-year consensus driven process that brought together the world’s foremost scholars on antisemitism, government officials, and activists?”

Still, critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, counter that presenting the IHRA definition as a “consensus” is inaccurate. In a January letter urging the American Bar Association not to adopt the definition, those critics said it has been challenged by anti-Semitism “experts, rabbis, and scholars of Jewish studies, Jewish history, and the Holocaust, by Palestinians who have borne the brunt of its application, as well as by experts on fighting racism and free speech.”

In 2018, Jewish Voice for Peace — a U.S. organization dedicated to foreign policy based on peace, human rights, and respect for international law — released a joint statement signed by 40 Jewish groups opposing the adoption of the IHRA definition.

In 2020, Independent Jewish Voices shared an open letter from over 650 Canadian academics voicing their opposition.

What does the man who wrote the definition say?

Kenneth Stern — an anti-Semitism expert at the American Jewish Committee and the very person who drafted the IHRA’s working definition — has been one of its biggest critics.

“It’s not the definition that’s the problem,” he told The Times of Israel in 2020. “It’s the abuse of it.”

“It sets up a system in which administrators have a reason to either condemn or try to suppress pro-Palestinian speech because their job is to keep the university from being sued,” Stern said.

Where does the UN currently stand?

The UN is currently developing its own plan to respond to rising anti-Semitism, which is expected to be released in June. At this time, the international body has no plans to officially use the IHRA’s definition.

However, last winter, Secretary-General António Guterres recited part of the IHRA’s definition during a Holocaust memorial speech, prompting Israel’s ambassador to the UN to declare that Guterres had “effectively recognized” the definition.

In November, a report released by Prof. E. Tendayi Achiume, the UN special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, said that although the IHRA definition is legally non-binding, “its de facto influence on the policy and practice of governments and private actors has contributed to violations of the human rights of freedom of expression, assembly and political participation, among others.”

What is the joint letter asking for?

In its letter, the coalition of organizations expresses strong support for the United Nations’ commitment to combating anti-Semitism, but urges the international body to ensure that its efforts “do not inadvertently embolden or endorse policies and laws that undermine fundamental human rights, including the right to speak and organize in support of Palestinian rights and to criticize Israeli government policies.”

The letter points to two alternative definitions of antisemitism, which “while acknowledging that criticism of Israel can be antisemitic … set out more clearly what constitutes antisemitism and provide guidance surrounding the contours of legitimate speech and action around Israel and Palestine.”

One of those alternative definitions is the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, developed in 2020 under the auspices of the Van Leer institute in Jerusalem, and released in 2021. The declaration, which makes explicit that the movement to boycott Israel is not in and of itself anti-Semitic, was developed in response to the controversial aspects of the IHRA definition.

“In this critical moment, as Israel’s far-right government moves forward to annex the occupied Palestinian territories and consolidate its repressive, apartheid rule over the Palestinian people, it is essential that we give our full support to human rights defenders, and reject attempts to silence their voices,” Bueckert of the CJPME told the Star.

Source: Why a debate over how to define anti-Semitism has reached the United Nations

Filed under Antisemitism Tagged with , , , , , ,

An anti-Semitism expert says that progressives ‘have the right to exclude Zionists’

2022/09/13 Leave a comment

Stern, one of the authors of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, has been consistent on the use and abuse of the definition:

A leading expert on anti-Semitism has said that university campus groups “have the right to exclude Zionists.” Writing in the Times of Israel, Kenneth Stern argued that, although it may be “hurtful” and counterproductive, the right of progressive groups to exclude advocates of the occupation state must be respected. Stern is the US attorney who took the lead in drafting the highly controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism.

His intervention follows the growing debate around the exclusion of Zionist students from progressive spaces. Founded on the ethno-nationalist ideals of Zionism, Israel has long been viewed in progressive circles as a racist country that advocates settler colonialism and ethnic cleansing. This view has become more widespread in recent times after major human rights groups accused Israel of committing the crime of apartheid.

With Zionism increasingly being viewed as a racist, imperialist ideology, groups advocating for equality, human rights, the rights of minorities and progressive values, in general, are more frequently excluding supporters of Israel from their spaces. This has happened despite protests that Zionism and affinity with the apartheid state are intrinsic parts of Jewish identity. Critics, however, have long questioned this argument and rejected the claim that a political ideology should be treated as a “protective category” in the same way as gender, religion and race are.

The recent row over the IHRA definition is largely a demand by pro-Israel groups for wider society to support their claim that Zionism and support for the state of Israel be accepted as such a category. It is a form of exceptionalist pleading which is rejected wholesale when other groups in society make similar demands. For instance, the political ideology of “Islamism” or the desire to create an “Islamic State” are not only violently opposed and condemned, but any Muslim who insists that their political views and religion be granted special protection is also dismissed out of hand, and rightly so.

A similar example would be if India’s far-right BJP government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and advocates of Hindutva, said that it is racist and anti-Hindu to question their demand to create an exclusively Hindu state. As is becoming increasingly clear, in their quest to refashion India as a Hindu state, Hindutva extremists have placed themselves on a collision course with the country’s secular constitution. No amount of special pleading that India is the only Hindu state in the world should make any difference, but the goal is still no less than the reformation of India as an ethno-religious state affording special rights and privileges to Hindus within a multi-tier system of citizenship. The model state that such Hindus aspire to replicate is Israel. The parallel between the two ideologies is a powerful illustration of the special status granted to Zionism.

Israel and its supporters are granted a privilege that is not extended to any other political community. Public bodies and private institutions across the Western world have not only agreed to their demand, but have also adopted the supposedly “working definition” of anti-Semitism produced by the IHRA that conflates legitimate criticism of Israel and Zionism with anti-Jew racism.

Although Stern does not compare Zionism and its equivalent ideologies around the world, he insists on treating Israel and its founding ideology in the same way as any other political ideology and its followers. The right to criticise freely without being labelled a racist should be preserved, he maintains. He admits that Zionism itself is a contested term but, nevertheless, the feelings about what Zionism means personally for some Jews should not be an excuse to crack down on freedom of speech by labelling people “anti-Semites” for criticising Israel’s founding ideology.

Commenting on the different perceptions of Zionism and the reasons why progressives exclude supporters of Israel, Stern said: “Some progressive students may understand Zionism as a term for Israel’s treatment of Palestinians; others may understand Zionism as most Jewish students do – the right of Jews to self-determination in their historic homeland.”

He explained that a significant and growing number of Jews are “agnostic” about Zionism or are anti-Zionist, which appears to suggest that Zionism and affinity with Israel is not as important to Jewish identity as pro-Israel groups claim.

“Anti-Zionist students may feel that letting a Zionist work among them is the equivalent of overlooking whether someone is a Nazi,” said Stern, “just as some Jewish organisations might feel that letting Jews in who support the Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel is overlooking anti-Semitism.” He disagrees with both assertions, but people on campus must be allowed to define their politics.

Wrestling with the central question of the piece in the Times of Israel — whether it is anti-Semitic to exclude Zionists from progressive spaces — Stern defends the right of progressive groups to be selective. “If a group decides that in order to be a member, one has to have a particular view of Israel and Zionism, the right to make that decision must be respected. Those not invited in, even though exclusion hurts, can find other ways to express themselves, including by creating new groups and coalitions.”

Stern has been critical of the way that the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism has been employed by pro-Israel groups against critics of the apartheid state. His latest intervention is another defence of freedom of association and speech against what many say is a crackdown on pro-Palestine voices and the dangers of conflating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

“Jewish groups have used the definition as a weapon to say anti-Zionist expressions are inherently anti-Semitic and must be suppressed,” wrote Stern in the Times of Israel two years ago. Concerns raised by him then highlight the claim that the fight against anti-Semitism, as American Jewish commentator Peter Beinart believes, has “lost its way“.

Source: An anti-Semitism expert says that progressives ‘have the right to exclude Zionists’

Filed under Antisemitism Tagged with , ,

Bard’s Kenneth Stern: “I drafted the definition of anti-Semitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it.”

2019/12/20 Leave a comment

More good commentary from someone involved in the drafting:

Fifteen years ago, as the American Jewish Committee’s antisemitism expert, I was the lead drafter of what was then called the “working definition of antisemitism”. It was created primarily so that European data collectors could know what to include and exclude. That way antisemitism could be monitored better over time and across borders.

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-Palestinian advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the academy itself.

The problem isn’t that the executive order affords protection to Jewish students under title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Department of Education made clear in 2010 that Jews, Sikhs and Muslims (as ethnicities) could complain about intimidation, harassment and discrimination under this provision. I supported this clarification and filed a successful complaint for Jewish high school students when they were bullied, even kicked (there was a “Kick a Jew Day”).

Source: Bard’s Kenneth Stern: “I drafted the definition of anti-Semitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it.”

Filed under Antisemitism Tagged with , , ,