JDA Debate
Since its development the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism has been used as a cudgel to stifle and suppress Palestine activism. It infamously asserts that some criticisms of Israel are antisemitic, so pro-Israel groups have a particular interest in pushing universities to adopt it. After all, that’s where a good deal of BDS organizing takes place in this country.
Recently a group of over 200 Jewish scholars published the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA), which takes direct aim at the IHRA definition.
The JDA has a very concise definition of antisemitism: “discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).” It rejects the idea that criticizing Israel or boycotting the country is antisemitic. However, it also includes a number of guidelines on discourse surrounding Israel and Palestine.
Brian Klug, a senior research fellow at Oxford University and one of the JDA signatories, has a piece at The Nation explaining the need for a new antisemitism definition:
The IHRA definition is unclear, confusing and misleading. It is divisive among Jews and does not help forge a broad anti-racist alliance. It tends to encourage conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, and to inhibit legitimate political speech about Israel/Palestine. In all these respects, the JDA, though far from perfect, offers a better alternative.
While many Palestine activists readily admit that the JDA is a better alternative and can be used as an important tool, there’s been some important critiques of the document.
The Palestine BDS National Committee (BNC) points out that the declaration excludes representative Palestinian perspectives and leaves out any mention of the far right, who are responsible for most antisemitic attacks. The group says the declaration’s focus on Zionism, Israel, and Palestine ends up “unjustifiably reinforcing attempts to couple anti-Jewish racism with the struggle for Palestinian liberation, and therefore impacting our struggle.”
In a useful thread summarizing their critique, the BNC tweeted, “Coupling antisemitism with opposition to Israel’s regime of apartheid and settler-colonialism is unjustifiable. In no other context is there a similar attempt to police speech critical of a state — why should Israel be an exception?”
Here’s Palestine Legal Director Dima Khalidi on the declaration: “The JDA rightly intends to ameliorate the harm that IHRA’s promoters have done in equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism to censor speech,” she said in a statement. “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.”
At the site, Tom Suarez offers another critical view of the declaration and worries that it will end up being wielded in the same way the IHRA is. “My fear is that we, collectively, who have been brutalized by the purveyors of IHRA, will rush to embrace JDA as its antidote; and when the document is used against us, it will be too late, as we’d already agreed to its irredeemably malleable parameters,” he writes.
We also published a piece on the declaration by Tony Greenstein. He finds some of the JDA’s guidelines problematic, but thinks it should be readily used to attack the IHRA:
The JDA is an overwhelmingly positive contribution to detoxifying the debate over antisemitism and the dishonest attempts of Israel’s antisemitic supporters to conflate antisemitism and anti-Zionism. It should therefore be welcomed as a wholly positive contribution to demystifying the question of antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
We should therefore feel free to use this definition and to propose that trade unions, universities and labour parties be encouraged to ditch the IHRA in favour of the JDA. We should be open and explicit. The IHRA is a definition that antisemites support. The JDA is a definition for opponents of antisemitism.
Jewish Voice for Peace Executive Director Stefanie Fox told me that it’s an important development, but shifting the definition of antisemitism can’t be viewed as a substitute for actual activism:
The JDA is an important tool in countering the discredited and flawed IHRA working definition of antisemitism. 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.
Warnock and Israel
Remember the Georgia Senate race? Just a couple months ago Rev. Raphael Warnock was being attacked by former GOP Senator Kelly Loeffler as an antisemitic Israel hater.
The Reverend’s great crime was taking The Bible seriously. During a 2018 sermon, he invoked the Sixth Commandment and suggested that Israel shouldn’t murder nonviolent protestors. “We saw the government of Israel shoot down unarmed Palestinian sisters and brothers like birds of prey,” he declared. “And I don’t care who does it, it is wrong. It is wrong to shoot down God’s children like they don’t matter at all.”
Truly terrifying stuff.
Warnock’s camp clearly thought Loeffler’s ridiculous attacks required swift action and they didn’t feel a mere apology would be enough. He quickly published an editorial in the Jewish Insider expressing his devotion to Israel. “I understand and recognize Israel’s unique historical importance as the greatest proponent of democracy in the Middle East and America’s most important partner in the region,” he wrote. “I understand the many threats that face Israel and as a U.S. senator I will work to ensure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. It is true that I am deeply concerned about continued settlement expansion — I believe it is a threat to the prospect of a two-state solution, which I believe is the only path to enduring peace. I will continue to advocate for self-determination for the Palestinian people because I want to see a Palestinian state living side by side with a safe and secure Israel.”
What if someone is interested in joining a nonviolent boycott movement in an attempt to stop Israel from, say, shooting murdering unarmed protestors? Warnock identified this as a big no-no. He wrote that he strongly opposed the BDS movement because it has “antisemitic underpinnings.”
Warnock even released a video where he denounced BDS, celebrated US military aid to the Israel, and did some Iran fear mongering:
I condemned BDS, its refusal to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. And I support President Obama’s memorandum of understanding [$3.8 billion in aid a year], it’s the largest such commitment made in history. Inasmuch as Israel is… the most important ally in that part of the world, that memo is something I would support. Our aid and support to Israel is something I would advance as a member of the Senate. And there’s no question that Iran cannot get a nuclear weapon. We cannot allow that to happen.
This small waterfall of rubbish was enough to elicit an endorsement from the Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI), a group that insists the vast majority of Democratic voters love sending Israel billions in military aid even though every poll on the subject tells us the exact opposite. DMFI cited Warnock’s opposition to BDS in its endorsement. In a tweet thanking the lobbying group for its support, Warnock invoked Martin Luther King Jr.
“Thank you to my friends at DMFI,” he tweeted. I’m proud to receive your endorsement and I’m grateful for the work you do to support our party’s values. Echoing Dr. King, as senator I’ll stand for Israel’s security & will work to strengthen the alliance between our nations.”
If you envisioned Warnock pivoting back to the sentiments of his 2018 sermon after he became Senator, I have some bad news. Warnock is currently sponsoring the Israel Relations Normalization Act, a bill designed to further isolate Palestine and one of AIPAC’s major legislative priorities.
Josh Ruebner breaks down the bill at the site:
While the bill pays perfunctory lip-service to the establishment of a Palestinian state and grasps at straws to argue that normalization of ties between Israel and Arab governments will magically facilitate that outcome, the intent of the bill is the opposite: to build on the Trump administration’s cynical business deals with Arab governments to further their interests at the expense of the Palestinian people.
The fact that none of the Senators even bothered to mention the Palestinian people in their media release is a more accurate gauge of the bill’s intention of furthering Israel’s goal of eliminating Palestinian rights.
Warnock is currently fighting the good fight against Jim Crow policies being resurrected in his state’s elections, but it doesn’t seem like we will see the Senator extend such concerns to Palestinians anytime soon.
Odds & Ends
?? This week the House Foreign Affairs Committee voted to move forward with a bill that would repeal the 2002 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF). Of course Bush used this AUMF to attack Iraq. The resolution was introduced by California Rep. Barbara Lee.
At Responsible Statecraft, Adam Weinstein argues that any AUMF repeals are effectively meaningless if the Biden administration keeps troops in Afghanistan:
If President Biden refuses to leave Afghanistan, then a war with no achievable end state will likely be grandfathered into any future and purportedly more narrow AUMF. This may not occur explicitly in the authorization’s text but through its application. Much needed repeals of the current AUMFs will be reduced to little more than Congressional virtue signaling. If the U.S. cannot walk away from the war in Afghanistan, then it is difficult to imagine how Washington will prioritize other threats without getting dragged into perpetual conflicts of choice.
?? Politico’s Nahal Toosi asked Biden State Department officials if they believe the West Bank is occupied by Israel. They would not say.
?? Butler University abruptly canceled an event that was set to feature activist and author Angela Davis. Students say the university allegedly pulled the plug for procedural reasons but were pressured by campus pro-Israel groups. They are apparently trying to reschedule the talk.
?? At Jacobin Sumaya Awad and Daphna Thier have a great, concise piece explaining why criticism of anti-Zionism isn’t antisemitic: “To this day Israel favors Jewish citizens and denies most Palestinians the right to vote, purchase land, build homes, and enjoy equal employment opportunities, freedom of movement, or access to medical care. Dozens of statutes enshrine these inequalities in law. The result isn’t just an undemocratic society — it’s an apartheid state.”
?? Democratic Florida Rep. Stephanie Murphy co-wrote an op-ed about why the United States shouldn’t cut or even condition military aid to Israel.
? PBS has delayed the release of a documentary examining the connection between American evangelicals and Israel. “The review appears to have been triggered by a report, issued March 21, by the pro-Israel watchdog group CAMERA.”
?⚖️ In 2019 the Jewish National Fund (JNF) sued the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR) for $90 million. They claimed the USCPR had connections to terrorism. A DC judge just tossed the case out and ruled that it was, “to say the least, not persuasive.”
?? Sources say Biden wants to keep a Trump policy that jump-started drone sales to countries whose human rights records are under scrutiny.
?? Check out these cool Land Day posters from the 80s.
Stay safe out there,
Michael
