IHRA's Definition of Anti-Semitism

[Sparhafoc]

This is in the news at the moment with respect to the UK Labour Party's part acceptance of the definition.

For clarity, the definition reads:

1) Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

2) Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as 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.

3) 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.

4) 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).

5) Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

6) 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.

7) 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.

8) Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

9) Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.

10) Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

11) Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

I personally think that many of these are easy to grant and logically do entail antisemitism, i.e. 1, 2, 3.

However, I also think there's a very troubling component here whereby, on the one hand the definition attempts to strongly delineate the difference between Jews and Israel (i.e. 11), but on the other makes accusing Israel of specific crimes equivalent to accusing Jews of specific crimes (i.e. 7 & 8). That seems directly contradictory to me; cake and eat it. I don't see Israel being equivalent to Jews. I consider the citizens of Israel to be Israelis, only some of which are Jews.

Further, if the State of Israel commits crimes against Palestinians which remind people of the horrific treatment of Nazi Germany, then why is it 'anti-semitic' to make that analogy? It's not necessarily anything to do with anti-semitism at all, but rather disgust with the actions of a nation state's treatment of minorities.

I feel that Labour is going to end up signing up to this because they will be continuously characterized as anti-semitic if they don't.

What do other people here feel about these points and about Labour's choices.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I agree with your point about the contradictions in the definition.

I also can never understand why anyone doesn't bring up anti-sephardism as a counter-point - the same definition as outlined could be done for anti-sephardism as a means to compare, and enshrine, it into their platform. That way, no-one could accuse them of bigotry, as antisemitism and anti-sephardism would be equally important.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

It is an interesting topic (albeit one perhaps a little tangential) about Zionism, white European Jews, and the confrontation with the Arab world.

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-the-right-wing-and-arab-jews-1.5345356

Israeli elections are a subject for the psychologists. It’s not an Ashkenazi vs. Sephardi demon, but rather a demon that is both religious and ethnic. It’s the Arab demon that Netanyahu has always known how to trot out when he’s under pressure. This demon was used against late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on the argument that “he has no Jewish majority” in the Knesset for concessions in peace negotiations, ultimately leading to his murder over “tribal honor.”

One should remember that Zionism is a white European national movement. This Ashkenazi Zionism, which established the country in an ongoing confrontation with the Arab world, created a serious emotional crisis for Jews from Arab countries. The more the Arab-Israeli conflict intensified, so did the complexity of the situation faced by Jews from Arab lands.

The people with the political, economic, social and cultural clout have no problem declaring proudly, “We are Europeans. We are refined, not like you Moroccans.” On the other hand, what are Jews whose entire existence is Arab supposed to do? In the intensifying national confrontation between European Zionism and the Arab world, Jews from Arab countries were pushed aside. They therefore began referring to themselves as Mizrahim (literally “Easterners”) among other things. Anything to escape the term “Arab,” which connotes national enmity.

Recent events have seen Israel's new Jewish Nation State law making Hebrew the state language and essentially downgrading Arabic. Coupled with that is this notion that the right to exercise national self-determination is unique to the Jewish people... and it's very hard to see an argument that doesn't acknowledge this as implicit apartheid. The notion of Israeli citizenship is being tied to being a European Jew, where Arabs are national enemies and consequently even Jewish Arabs are second class citizens.

So what happens if governments around the world sign up to an agreement where they're not allowed to criticize this? I don't believe Israel should have special treatment. If it acts in a shitty way, then it should be called out for it, regardless of a painful history.

 

[Khalsa]

Honestly, Israel was granted nothing. All they're doing now is what they were working towards for decades. Israel isn't really bothered with what other governments thing or what agreements they would or wouldn't sign.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Honestly, Israel was granted nothing. All they're doing now is what they were working towards for decades. Israel isn't really bothered with what other governments thing or what agreements they would or wouldn't sign.

I'm not really clear about anything in your reply as none of it seems to respond to anything written previously.

Could you explain your point about Israel being 'granted nothing'?

I think it's indisputable that Israel has been working towards certain goals for decades, but current events have given certain factions more leverage to enact their versions of those goals, and I don't see them as desirable.

I would, however, disagree with your final sentence: Israel, of at least its top ministers, have repeatedly shown they care a lot about what other governments think, or what they sign. In fact, the Israeli lobby in many Western nations has a disproportionate power compared to its formal ties and relations with those countries.

My sense is that, putting the US aside, many succeeding governments of Western nations have fallen into a kind of sunken costs mentality where too much has already been committed to pull out now.

 

[Sparhafoc]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45414656

The UK Labour Party's ruling body has agreed to adopt in full an international definition of anti-Semitism, after months of rows.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition was incorporated into Labour's code of conduct in July - but not all its examples were included.

The party will now incorporate all 11 examples, its National Executive Committee (NEC) has decided.

It's frankly amazing how easy it is to coerce people and groups into producing decreed language.

A Labour statement said: "The NEC has today adopted all of the IHRA (the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) examples of anti-Semitism, in addition to the IHRA definition which Labour adopted in 2016, alongside a statement which ensures this will not in any way undermine freedom of expression on Israel or the rights of Palestinians.

Let's hope not, because Israel's treatment of Palestinians is despicable, and the world must hold them to account for their actions. Friends don't let friends be dicks.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Even having performed the demanded hoop jump, it's not enough. Now Aberavon MP Stephen Kinnock is calling out Corbyn on a radio program demanding he 'show remorse'.

This is the highest stacked flimsy bullshit I've ever had the misfortune to see. If our ministers of parliament are not allowed to exercise free speech and freedom of thought, I can't see how such ideals can exist anywhere in society. Nothing Corbyn said is criminal, hateful, or even wrong in any sense of the word. He's entitled to express his opinion, he's entitled to consider the victims to be the party worthy of supporting, he's not obliged to produce speech on demand under the pretext of not doing so making him a racist/anti-semite.

This is a very troubling sight for me living so far away and seeing this attack on the edifice of our essential freedoms.