Earlier this week, a U.S. State Department official declared that the Biden administration “embraces and champions” the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. That definition notably defines certain criticisms of Israel as antisemitic.
Addressing an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) conference on combating antisemitism, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kara McDonald stated:
We must educate ourselves and our communities to recognize anti-Semitism in its many forms, so that we can call hate by its proper name and take effective action. That is why the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of anti-Semitism, with its real-world examples, is such an invaluable tool. As prior U.S. Administrations of both political stripes have done, the Biden Administration embraces and champions the working definition. We applaud the growing number of countries and international bodies that apply it. We urge all that haven’t done so to do likewise. And we commend OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) for using it.
The IHRA definition is based on the 2005 European Monitoring Centre (EUMC) Working Definition and includes a number of contemporary examples of antisemitism. One of these examples 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.”
Government use of the definition has been opposed by a number of Palestinian organizations and progressive Jewish groups, including mainstream pro-Israel groups like J Street.
“If the Biden administration is serious about dismantling antisemitism, it should focus on combatting the machinery of division and fear that’s interwoven with white nationalism and that fuels attacks against Jews for being Jewish,” Jewish Voice for Peace Action Government Affairs Manager Beth Miller told Mondoweiss. “It’s really concerning to hear a representative of the Biden administration publicly embrace the controversial IHRA working definition, which has absolutely nothing to do with Jewish safety and everything to do with silencing and censoring Palestinians. The fight against white supremacy and antisemitism is inextricably linked with the struggle for Palestinian freedom and we need Biden to help connect our communities, not divide them.”
In 2018, over 40 Jewish groups put out a statement criticizing the definition.
McDonald’s comments have been celebrated by Zionist organizations like the American Jewish Committee (AJC). AJC CEO David Harris said that the Biden administration had delivered “a solid reaffirmation of American leadership in the global fight against antisemitism. The IHRA working definition is the gold standard.”
Zionists have worked very hard to anti-Semitically conflate Israel with all Jews and all Jews with Israel and, clearly, their hard work is paying off.
People who choose to be Jewish are free to “self-determine” themselves all they want (“every day and twice on Sundays”), but their religion-based identity does not give them any right – not even if they call it “self-determination” – to be supremacists, to have a supremacist state or to do “necessary evil” unto others.
1 of 2
The letter | Israeli Academics – UK
“Call to reject the IHRA’s ‘working definition of antisemitism'” Jan. 11, 2021, Israeli academics, U.K.
EXCERPT:
“To: Vice Chancellors, Members of Academic Senates, all other UK Academics and Students & Rt Hon Gavin Williamson CBE MP Secretary of State for Education:
RE: “The IHRA ‘working definition of antisemitism’””We, British Academics who are also Israeli citizens, strongly oppose the governmental imposition of the IHRA ‘working definition of antisemitism’ on Universities in England. We call on all academic senates to reject the IHRA document or, where adopted already, act to revoke it.
”We represent a diverse cross-disciplinary, cross-ethnic, and cross-generational group. We all share an extended history of struggles against racism. Accordingly, we have been critical of Israel’s prolonged policies of occupation, dispossession, segregation, and discrimination directed at the Palestinian population. Our historical and political perspective is deeply informed by the multiple genocides of modern times, and in particular, the Holocaust, in which quite a few of us lost members of our extended families. The lesson we are determined to draw from history is that of a committed struggle against all forms of racism.
“It is precisely because of these personal, scholarly, and political perspectives that we are perturbed by the letter sent to our Vice Chancellors by Gavin Williamson, Secretary of State for Education, on 9 October 2020. Explicitly threatening to withhold funds, the letter pressures universities to adopt the controversial ‘working definition of antisemitism’ originally proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).
“Fighting antisemitism in all its forms is an absolute must. Yet, the IHRA document is inherently flawed in ways that undermine this fight. In addition, it threatens free speech and academic freedom, and constitutes an attack both on the Palestinian right to self-determination and the struggle to democratize Israel.
“The IHRA document has been extensively criticized on numerous occasions. Here, we touch on some of its aspects that are particularly distressing in the higher education context. The document consists of two parts. The first, quoted in Williamson’s letter, is a ‘definition’ of antisemitism, which reads as follows: (cont’d)
2 of 2
“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 formulation is both vague in language and lacking in content, to the point of being unusable. On the one hand, it relies on unclear terms such as ‘certain perception’ and ‘may be expressed as hatred.’ On the other hand, it fails to mention key issues such as ‘prejudice’ or ‘discrimination.’ Crucially, this ‘definition’ is considerably weaker and less effective than anti-racist regulations and laws already in force, or in development, in the university sector.
“Moreover, the government’s pressure on higher education institutions to adopt a definition for only one sort of racism singles out people of Jewish descent as deserving greater protection than others who regularly endure equal or more grievous manifestations of racism and discrimination.
“The second part of the IHRA document presents what it describes as eleven examples of contemporary antisemitism, seven of which refer to the State of Israel. Some of these ‘examples’ mischaracterize antisemitism. They likewise have a chilling effect on University staff and students legitimately wishing to criticize Israel’s oppression of Palestinians or to study the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Finally, they interfere with our right as Israeli citizens to participate freely in the Israeli political process.”
Seems to me that this opens the door to criminalization of BDS at the federal level, something I understood was opposed in the Democratic platform and, I assumed, by Joe Biden himself. So, how does the Biden administration reconcile these two seemingly opposing positions?
I think that we should not look as if we were too afraid of this formula, Ill-intentioned as it is. We don’t want to look as if we were admitting that we are expressing a negative perception of Jews. If there is any logic the attempt to make rational argument for the rights of Palestinians into a storm of hatred will fall apart, since no amount of verbal manipulation can make things into what they are not. I appreciate that there may not be logic and that there may be a lot of malevolence but that can happen in any event. The Roger Garaudy business years ago, long before the IHRA had got to work, shows this very clearly.