A group of over 200 Jewish scholars have released a definition of antisemitism that excludes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS). The move is a direct response to the contentious International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which includes some criticisms of Israel. While many Palestine activists applauded the new definition for taking on the IHRA, they’re also pointing to problems with its framing and voicing concerns over its potential impact.
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) bills itself as a tool to identify and raise awareness about antisemitism. In addition to providing a definition of the term, it also features a set of guidelines for confronting such prejudice. The declaration was developed by Jewish scholars from Jewish studies, Holocaust historians, and Middle East studies. Signatories include Neve Gordon, Richard Falk, and Peter Beinart.
The IHRA working definition of antisemitism was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016. It identifies 11 examples of antisemitism, 7 of which concern Israel. For last five years, various organizations and lawmakers have tried to use the definition as a tool to stifle criticism of Israel and have fought for it to be adopted by educational and government institutions.
The JDA asserts that the IHRA Definition is “unclear in key respects and widely open to different interpretations, it has caused confusion and generated controversy, hence weakening the fight against antisemitism.” In response the JDA offers this sussinct definition of antisemitism: “Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).” The JDA also explicitly rejects the idea that criticism of Israel, opposition to Zionism, or support for BDS is antisemitic. Yet, it also includes “guidelines” on discourse surrounding Israel and Palestine that it considers both antisemitic and not antisemitic.
The Palestine BDS National Committee (BNC) published a critique of the JDA on its website. The statement acknowledges that the JDA provides a “coherent and accurate definition of antisemitism” that can be used as an important tool in combating “anti-Palestinian McCarthyism,” but it also contains multiple criticisms.
One of the BNC’s problems with the JDA is that its focus on Palestine reinforces “anti-Jewish racism with the struggle for Palestinian liberation.” They also point out that it excludes Palestinian perspectives and omits any mention of white supremacy.
“The JDA’s ‘guidelines’ still try to police some speech critical of Israel’s policies and practices, failing to fully uphold the necessary distinction between hostility to or prejudice against Jews on the one hand and legitimate opposition to Israeli policies, ideology and system of injustice on the other,” explains the statement.
Palestine Legal Director Dima Khalidi expressed similar sentiments in a statement released by the group. “The JDA rightly intends to ameliorate the harm that IHRA’s promoters have done in equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism to censor speech,” it reads. “But the new definition risks reinforcing the impulse to decide for Palestinians and their allies what is acceptable to say about Israel and Palestinians’ lived experiences.”
Jewish Voice for Peace Executive Director Stefanie Fox said that the definition was significant, but insufficient. “The JDA is an important tool in countering the discredited and flawed IHRA working definition of antisemitism,” she told Mondoweiss. “However, defining antisemitism does not – and cannot – actually do the work of dismantling antisemitism. Let’s make sure we stay focused on the work that lies ahead – creating a world without racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia or any other kind of bigotry. In short, the world we all want.”
“many Palestine activists are applauding the new Jerusalem Declaration…”
You don’t say! Whoever planned, signed or approved something conceived in occupied Palestinian city al Quds or the Sacred One, and called provocatively and aggressively so, a “fuck-you” to the world as it is not part of the invader Zionist crusader kingdom even by the colonialist powers’ own laws?
It is no different than a German committee releasing a “Reval Declaration” or “Posen Declaration” on the Aryan Character — from occupied Tallinn or Poznan in 1943. No difference at all! Can’t you even see that?
I see you guys are not even worried — lapping up Zionist conqueror bullshit even in their “declaration” titles and trying to be positive at every major setback… What bubble are you living in?
With all due respect … the Jerusalem Declaration is not short, and I for one would not wish it to be longer. It cannot deal with all the problems of Jewish supremacy and Palestine rights. If it can replace, or even seriously challenge, the IHRA definition, dayenu.
Cut the crap. Use logic.
If anyone can afford to stop and even think about “anti-Semitism” while trying to push back against the Zionist invader, no ally can be neglected, be it the weakest and most insignificant.
A vital problem today, for all humanity, is Zionist warmongering.
“Antisemitism” is not even a speck in comparison.
There will be some racists (against “Jews”, too, whatever the definition) among the resisters.
The only thing to do is to welcome all enemies of Zionism and help them by all available means.
Only an organization substantially stronger than the US-Zionist empire machine can afford to have soul-searching about “antisemitism”. Or then, pretend-opposition, hellbent on dividing and destroying the resistance from inside. Propose a logical alternative if disagreeing.
A “Jerusalem Declaration”, provoking all by using the name of Palestinian territory expressly not accessible to the Zionist invaders even in the colonialist powers’ own law, to replace an alphabet-soup definition, is totally meaningless. The only honorable thing to do is to declare “antisemitism” a non-question that may be debated when there is enough leisure for it — after the destruction of Zionism or at least the Zionist entity.