WHY THE IRE FOR IHRA?

If the accompanying examples are the problem, let’s address the examples. Because if you’ve got a problem with these, you’ve really got a problem.

Tarzan no like Israel

*

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance adopted its “working definition of antisemitism” in 2016, after more than a decade of discussion. The IHRA working definition was then accepted by the European Parliament and has been adopted by other national and international bodies, as well as local governments, universities, nongovernmental organizations and other groups.

Unlike almost any other effort to confront various forms of racism, the definition of antisemitism has been especially controversial.

Maybe I should clarify that last statement: Fighting racism and discrimination is often controversial — among bigots.

The people who physically blocked schools from being racially integrated, the people who mobilized to stop women from being recognized as equal under the U.S. constitution, those who give their all to stop LGBTQ+ people from being treated as equals under the law, these are examples of anti-discrimination efforts being “controversial.” If by “controversial” we mean moral troglodytes defending their antediluvian ideas.

What I meant to say is that, unlike almost any other effort to confront various forms of racism, the definition of antisemitism has been especially controversial among activists who advance justice and equality for all other peoples.

The IHRA definition is controversial among self-defined progressives who find fault with the definition of antisemitism in ways they would never find fault with the definitions any other group developed to define their experiences with discrimination.

Let me put an even finer point on it …

Unlike every other group on the planet, when Jews put forward a description of their experience with discrimination, a vast swath of people who, in any other circumstance would defer to the experience of the affected group, instead dispute the perspective of that group and dismiss their work as an effort to win a political battle.

Let me make the point even sharper …

When Jews define their experiences with discrimination, progressives accuse them of scheming to deceitfully influence public opinion to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. In other words, they antisemitically accuse Jews of exploiting antisemitism to “silence” criticism of Israel.

It is a core characteristic of antisemitism to view Jews as devious, manipulative, scheming, cunning and calculating.

It is a core characteristic of opponents of the IHRA definition to see it as a devious, manipulative, scheming, cunning and calculating plot to deflect criticism of Israel.

As I said, fighting racism and discrimination is often controversial — among bigots.

Let’s get to the nuts and bolts of the opponents’ “logic.”

The definition itself is fairly anodyne and doesn’t seem to raise hackles:

“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.”

It’s the accompanying “examples” that opponents usually cite as a problem.

They point out that, of the 11 examples included as an appendix to the definition itself, seven relate directly to the state of Israel.

What they seldom, if ever, do is explain just which of these examples they have a problem with.

If we are going to complain about the examples, let's discuss the examples.

Opponents have an obligation to explain which of these seven examples they reject — an obligation they have steadfastly refused to meet.

The first Israel-related example offered is:

“Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.”

Is this the problematic example? Are critics of Israel afraid of losing their right to deny the Holocaust?

The second example is

“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.”

This dual loyalty canard has been a mainstay of anti-Jewish rhetoric for centuries, positing that “the Jew” is always an alien whose collective, tribal instincts trump their citizenship. Is it their right to invoke this old slander that opponents of the IHRA adoption fear losing?

The third example is

“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.”

Is this the key phrase? Understanding the role that Jewish statelessness played in almost 2,000 years of tragic history is crucial to appreciating the connection of Jewish people to the land and the state of Israel — and it is one motivation of allies to ensure Israel’s continued existence. Is it the wish of IHRA definition opponents to make the Jews of Israel stateless people again that drives their opposition?

The fourth example offered is

“Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

Is the problem with the IHRA definition that it threatens Israel’s critics’ ability to make their case without resorting to demands that they make of no other country? Is it the fear that, after practically ignoring the state-sanctioned mass murderer next door in Syria, the genocide against Uighurs in Western China, the near-countless instances of human-created and natural catastrophes worldwide that are eclipsed due to condemnation of Israel at the United Nations, in activist groups and churches, in social justice movements and academic committees, they will be called out for their compulsive approbation of the one, Jewish state? Essentially, is the problem that they do not want to have a spotlight shone on their gross hypocrisy?

Or is it example number five?:

“Using the symbols and images associated with classical antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.”

Are critics of Israel afraid that their effectiveness will be enfeebled if they cannot plumb the depths of the ancient and deadly accusation of deicide or accusing Jews of cannibalism?

Is it number six?:

“Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

Is it the “right” to deface an Israeli flag by painting a swastika over the Star of David that opponents of the definition fear, to accuse Israeli soldiers of behaving like Gestapo?

The final Israel-related example is

“Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

Is opposition to the definition founded on the fear that critics will not be able to pin blame on their Jewish neighbors for the actions of a government half a world away? Are they afraid that spray-painting “Free Palestine” on North American synagogues or kicking over Jewish headstones will be met with a condemnation these acts do not now evoke?

While critics are correct that seven of the 11 examples included with the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism reference the state of Israel, this does not prove the conspiracy they seem to think it does.

There is not one of these examples that should be problematic to any person of goodwill. Not one infringes on any right to engage in free and fair criticism of Israel or of anything else — especially since these are examples for illustration only accompanying a definition that is itself legally non-binding. Nobody is “silencing” anybody.

Having reviewed the seven examples that justify close to 100% of the opposition to the adoption of the definition, we really deserve to know what it is that bothers opponents of the definition.

Perhaps the irony of the whole matter is that, while we are discussing the definition of antisemitism, the behavior of some of Israel’s critics and opponents of this definition go far beyond the particular animus toward Jewish people and step over a line into a degree of general inhumanity that has no place in decent society.

When a significant body of people are using a free speech argument to defend their right to deny the Holocaust, to accuse Jews of being Nazis, or of killing Jesus, maybe the definition of antisemitism is not so much the issue as a more generalized brutality and loss of basic decency that has crept into our discourse.

Perhaps we are nitpicking over the definition of antisemitism when the larger issue is that a significant swath of people are making it a priority to defend their right to engage in the most depraved, contemptible behavior.

At which point, is “antisemitism” really the best descriptor we have for these people?