This article was originally published in Ha’aretz on December 20, 2016, and is re-posted with permission from the author. Professor Dina Porat is the chief historian of Yad Vashem International Institute for the Study of the Holocaust, head of the Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry at Tel Aviv University, and a member of the Louis D. Brandeis Center Academic Advisory Board. Opinion || Definition of anti-Semitism Is a Threat to No One but anti-Semites How did the definition, that few (if any) were familiar with, turn into a hotly controversial, international issue? By Dina Porat This week British Prime Minister Theresa May announced that she would adopt “the working definition of anti-Semitism,” due to an increase in the number of anti-Semitic incidents and because the battle against anti-Jewish prejudice is an important part of her efforts to build a fairer society. Last week that definition was discussed at a UNESCO conference in Paris, and later in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). At both conferences there was mention of the adoption (for the first time) of the definition by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in May in Romania. Each of the organizations has dozens of members. Prof. Dina Porat At the UNESCO conference director general Irina Bokova and IHRA chairman Mihnea Constantinescu recommended adopting the definition, and expressed opposition, if indirect, to the decision approved in the organization’s plenum (and by the United Nations General Assembly), to the effect that Jerusalem’s history and present are exclusively Muslim. History must not be distorted, they said. We have to disseminate the factual information and preserve Jerusalem’s legacy as a city sacred to the three monotheistic religions. A clause in the definition of anti-Semitism, which discusses denying the right of the Jewish people to self determination, made it possible to say at the conference that self determination means identity, history and roots, whose denial – in reference to the ancient Jewish people of all groups – is discrimination, if not anti-Semitism for its own sake. Now the United States has introduced an initiative to approve a law calling for awareness of anti-Semitism – the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act – and a stormy discussion erupted on the subject, since until now adoption of the definition has not been legally binding. During the discussion there was mention of another adoption of a working definition of anti-Semitism, over a year ago, by the U.S. State Department. The European Union appointed a coordinator for the fight against anti-Semitism, Katharina von Schnurbein, who is promoting the use of the definition, and in Austria the justice minister recently announced that the definition will be part of the training of new judges and prosecutors in his country. How did the definition, that few (if any) were familiar with, turn into a hotly controversial, international issue? This is a definition whose wording is a product of the joint work of organizations, scholars and activists, and the member countries – including both Jews and non-Jews. It’s a practical definition – one page in length – that does not go into the identity and motives of anti-Semites or a description of their image of Jews. It determines, in one sentence, that “Antisemitism is 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.” This is followed by a series of examples: incitement to harm Jews, myths about their imaginary power, Holocaust denial and accusations of dual loyalty. In the end, examples of statements against the State of Israel that are defined as anti-Semitism, such as “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” A few years ago the definition was removed from the website of that EU monitoring body, perhaps for technical reasons, as its directors claim. Since then, leading personalities and organizations, Jewish and non-Jewish, have been trying hard to reinstitute it, and, as mentioned, lately there have been results. That may be happening due to the constant effort, and perhaps because in Europe, where fascist and totalitarian regimes flourished, the attitude towards legislation differs from that in the United States, and therefore a definition of anti-Semitism that serves as a basis for identifying activity, or for legislation to counter it, could open the door to a definition of Islamophobia, as well as hatred of Christians, blacks, Roma and other minorities. The need for such tools has increased in light of the wave of refugees and immigrants arriving in Europe, one reason being that the rise of violent anti-Semitism makes it difficult for countries that must pay for the protection of Jewish communities: Disturbing the public order often begins with the Jews, but it has already been proven that it doesn’t end with them. The need for these tools may also arise because there is a growing realization that some anti-Zionist statements have made use of anti-Semitic motifs. Such statements have already been condemned by Pope Francis and French Prime Minister Manuel Valls. The working definition, according to scholar David Hirsh, does not pose a threat to anyone except anti-Semites.
Defining anti-Semitism has again proven its importance – this time, in the UK. Last week, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA), the UK’s leading universities regulator, ruled in favor of a disabled Jewish student’s complaint of campus anti-Semitism. The decision cited the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia’s Working Definition of Anti-Semitism (“Working Definition”) in determining that the anti-Israel incidents had crossed the line into anti-Semitism. This is an important case for Americans to follow, because the OIA adopted a definition that is substantially similar to the definition that LDB advocates in the United States and throughout the world. LDB’s Kenneth L. Marcus urged this approach at a meeting of the UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) just last month in London. The UKLFI, an outstanding legal organization, is continuing to score important victories. UKLFI Member and LDB Advisory Board Member Lesley Klaff The student, assisted by UKLFI members Lesley Klaff and David Lewis, initially brought a complaint against England’s Sheffield Hallam University for tolerating anti-Israel activity on campus that crossed the line from legitimate criticism of Israel into anti-Semitism and harassment. (Klaff is also a member of LDB’s Legal Advisory Board.) This appalling activity, as explained by Klaff, included Facebook posts and tweets, which “inter alia, accused Israel and Israelis of genocide, deliberately killing Palestinian children, deliberately killing other Palestinian civilians, war crimes, atrocities, using chemical weapons, ethnic cleansing, inhumanity, cruelty, behaving like Nazis, sexual and other abuse of Palestinian children (including abduction and human trafficking), stealing Palestinian organs, being racists and fascists, and rejoicing in Palestinian deaths.” Furthermore, according to Ben Cohen’s article in The Tower, the student added that he “felt ‘vulnerable’ on campus. Whenever he wore a Star of David or a kippah, he said, he felt that “people were giving me dirty looks or trying to block my wheelchair.” The University took nine months to consider his complaint before rejecting it, stating that the student was wrongly conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish prejudice and strongly suggested that this was merely an effort to get the University to adopt the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, which had been a requested outcome of his complaint. Following the University’s rejection, the student took his case to the OIA to review the University’s decision. The OIA ruled differently, finding that the materials circulated by the Palestine Society indeed crossed the line from acceptable criticism of Israel into anti-Semitism. Importantly, the OIA cited the Working Definition in making this determination, identifying it as of particular relevance to the question of whether material which criticized Israel “crossed the line.” The Working Definition defines anti-Semitism 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. In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” It is an exemplar definition in that it also provides examples of the new anti-Semitism we see on campuses today, or “antisemitism [that] manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context.” These examples 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 endeavor. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior 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.However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. The Working Definition is one of several definitions – including the definition adopted by the U.S. Department of State, and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) Working Definition – that includes examples of “coded anti-Semitism” (or crypto-racism) in the form of anti-Semitism relative to Israel. In their decision, the OIA criticized the University for failing to address this complaint with seriousness, and ordered the University to compensate the student £3,000 for the stress and inconvenience caused to him by failing to adequately consider his complaint. Interestingly, Sheffield Hallem is the same English university that hosted an outstanding international conference on anti-Semitism just last month. LDB’s Kenneth L. Marcus participated in the conference. This is a victory in the battle against campus anti-Semitism, and demonstrates the importance for universities – in the U.K. and U.S. and worldwide – to define anti-Semitism.
Last week, on May 26, 2016, the 31 member nations of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), under Romanian Chairmanship, officially adopted the “IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism.” This important decision has made the IHRA the first international body to formally adopt such a definition. (Source: www.holocaustremembrance.com) Anti-Semitism is on the rise not only in Europe or the Middle East, but in the U.S., as well. According to the 2015 FBI Hate Crime Report, 57% of religiously-motivated hate crimes in the U.S. were anti-Jewish. (It should be noted how huge that number is, especially taking into context that Jews make up only 2% of the population). On college campuses specifically, the Brandeis Center and Trinity College released an Anti-Semitism Report last February showing that 54% of Jewish college students had experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism. These numbers are shockingly high… and based on the rates of increase in recent years, likely rising. Adopting a definition of anti-Semitism is crucial for universities and government bodies to actually understand, and properly punish, the oldest hatred in the book, so that it can be reduced and removed it before it gets worse. The U.S. State Department has an excellent definition, but unfortunately it is only used for international monitoring. This means that if an anti-Semitic incident occurs in Paris, the State Department might declare it anti-Semitic. However, if the same incident occurs in New York, the State Department would have no such jurisdiction. At the Brandeis Center, we are working with universities and domestic government bodies to adopt a definition of anti-Semitism. We had a huge victory in March when the University of California Board of Regents adopted a Statement of Principles Against Intolerance, which included a contextual statement declaring that, “Anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism are forms of discrimination and will not be tolerated at the University of California.” This was an important victory in that the Regents acknowledged the need to address the problem of rampant anti-Semitism on the 10 UC campuses. The next step is getting the University of California, and other universities nationwide, to follow the IHRA’s good example, and adopt an official definition. The text of the IHRA definition is essentially the same text as the European Union Monitoring Committee’s definition; because the IHRA has adopted it, the definition has now officially been given the international status that it was previously lacking. The IHRA’s adoption was the impressive culmination of a process initiated by Mark Weitzman, Director of Government Affairs at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, two years ago, with help from others including Ira Forman and Nicholas Dean of the U.S. Department of State. Importantly, the IHRA definition includes contemporary examples of anti-Semitism, and discusses anti-Semitism relative to Israel, stating that, “Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” The document concluded by stating: 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. We hope that U.S. universities and government bodies will follow suit. The IHRA press release, included the text of the definition, can be found here.
Canada has just passed a resolution that defines and prioritizes combating anti-Semitism. In an article for the Jerusalem Post, Irwin Cotler, former justice minister and current MP of the Canadian parliament, discussed the importance of such a resolution. Last February, Cotler and Jason Kenney, the minister of multiculturalism, presented the resolution to Canada’s House of Commons. “The resolution had three components,” Cotler said. Irwin Cotler at the Jabotinsky Center (Photo from Wikicommons) The first component was a condemnation of the anti-Semitic incidents occurring more and more frequently around the world. This may sound like a no-brainer, but it brings up the important point that violence against Jews has been on the rise in the past decade and takes a strong stance against it, especially when taken with the second component of the resolution, which was to “make the combating of anti-Semitism a priority both in its domestic policy and in its foreign policy,” according to Cotler. Many anti-Semitic incidents go largely unreported, from attacks on synagogues and Jewish cemeteries in Europe to drawings of swastikas on American college campuses. The attack on Charlie Hebdo’s headquarters in Paris last January sparked international outrage and discussion, but an almost equally deadly assault on a Jewish school in Toulouse in March of 2012 was all but forgotten months later. Forgotten, that is, by everybody but Jewish school systems around the world, many of which, my own former day school included, added security measures in wake of the attack. A strong condemnation is necessary in the face of a world that shrugs off anti-Semitic violence as inevitable. The third component was to “reaffirm… the 2010 Ottawa Protocol, which is one of the most important parliamentary documents we have in terms of an action plan.” The Ottawa Protocol on Combating Anti-Semitism, which was pursued by and relied on testimony from LDB president Kenneth L. Marcus, gives a clear definition of anti-Semitism, which it took from the European Union Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia’s (EUMC) definition (the EUMC has since been replaced by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, or FRA). This definition clearly includes attacks on the right of the Jewish people to a state in the land of Israel. It condemns the delegitimizing of Israel as a state, the dehumanizing of Israelis or Zionists, and holding Israel to a double-standard to which it does not hold other nations. The protocol rather succinctly sums up this main point by saying: “Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, and saying so is wrong. But singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium – let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction – is discriminatory and hateful, and not saying so is dishonest.” In Cotler’s interview, he mentions four indicators of anti-Semitism that are evident today, all of which are listed in the LDB fact sheet on anti-Semitic discourse. He brings up “genocidal anti-Semitism,” which can be found in the policies of Iran and the charter of Hamas, both of which call for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of all Jews. Next he mentions the “demonization of Israel.” This would include the accusation that Israel and all Jews are responsible for all the violence in the Middle East and the world, that Israel is operating an apartheid regime, and that Israel is Nazi state. Third, he says is “the denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination or the denial of the Jews as a people.” And fourth, the attacks on Israel on moral grounds, or “In other words, to portray Israel as the enemy of all that is good, and the repository of all that is evil.” Why is it important that Canada has reaffirmed the Ottawa Protocol’s definition of anti-Semitism? It provides a powerful precedent for the United States to follow. Though the U.S. State Department has adopted this definition, there is one major caveat: the State Department has jurisdiction over every country except for the United States itself. That means that an attack or incident that would be recognized as anti-Semitic and treated as such in court in Paris or Milan would not be given the same recognition in Philadelphia or Miami. The United States, a bastion of civilization and freedom of religion, has worse standards for the definition of anti-Semitism than Europe, which is rife with anti-Semitic tension. For that reason, the Louis D. Brandeis Center has been urging government agencies and universities to adopt this more expansive definition in order to fully protect the rights of students and citizens. What has been happening instead on U.S. campuses is anti-Semitism hiding under the guise of political discussion or, even worse, campaigns for human rights. I am referring to what Irwin Cotler calls “the laundering of anti-Semitism through universal public values.” Many entities, especially academic organizations in America, condemn Israel under the cover of supporting human rights, while tellingly ignoring the blatant human rights violations of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. The Brandeis Center, through educating government organizations and gathering support at universities, is trying to change the climate so the official American definition of anti-Semitism matches that of the EUMC and so that each of these organizations recognizes the importance of putting a stop to it. Anti-Semitism has remained the last chic mode of racism. A way of removing casual prejudice against the Jewish people is to define anti-Semitism as specifically as possible, and introduce that definition into the public mindset.
In its 2013 publication, the Journal of Academic Freedom discussed the topic of academic boycotts, primarily focusing on the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). In her introduction, the Journal’s editor, Ashley Dawson, wrote that the “reviewers of the submitted articles. . . felt [the articles] could have the salutary effect of pushing the AAUP to discuss criteria for responding to violations of academic freedom. . .” on an international level, since the AAUP’s current policy opposes boycotts. However, what followed was a compilation of articles presenting one-sided narrow viewpoints on the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and academic freedom. In response to this biased presentation, several scholars came together to present a series of response papers. In “The Very Foundations of the University”, the Brandeis Center’s Kenneth L. Marcus and Sitara Kedilaya outline the alarming yet growing position of several academics: that the Jews are the most dangerous threat to the university. Too many academics embrace the narrative that Zionists threaten the university by suppressing speech contrary to their nefarious interests, especially their conspiracy to hide crimes inflicted by Israelis on innocent Palestinians. Such warnings resonate with age-old stereotypes of the Jews as fantastically powerful, diabolically conspiratorial, and cosmically dangerous. According to these anti-Israel scholars, the Zionist threat consists of orchestrated complaints by pro-Israel students who insist that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. To assert this position, these scholars too narrowly construe the true definition of anti-Semitism, and therefore must deny that anti-Semitism is the serious problem on many university campuses that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights says it is. In other words, they must create a safe haven for those anti-Jewish bigots who cast their anti-Jewish rhetoric in terms of Israel. (more…)