Newsletters

The Shift: Biden’s antisemitism plan

The ADL and other pro-Israel groups praised the Biden administration's highly-anticipated National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, but it's unlikely they're completely satisfied as the White House declined to endorse the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

The Biden administration’s highly-anticipated National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism was released. It calls for strengthening antisemitism education, making Jewish communities safer, and building “cross-community solidarity” among other things.

In the weeks leading up to its release Biden faced pressure from pro-Israel groups calling on The White House to adopt the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism and calls from progressive groups to oppose it.

In the end, Biden didn’t adopt the definition. The document makes reference to it, but it also mentions the Nexus Document definition, which is preferred by many progressives. “As a general rule, criticism of Zionism and Israel, opposition to Israel’s policies, or nonviolent political action directed at the State of Israel and/or its policies should not, as such, be deemed antisemitic,” reads one section of the Nexus Document. “Even contentious, strident, or harsh criticism of Israel for its policies and actions, including those that led to the creation of Israel, is not per se illegitimate or antisemitic,” declares another.

“There are several definitions of antisemitism, which serve as valuable tools to raise awareness and increase understanding of antisemitism,” reads the strategy. “The most prominent is the non-legally binding ‘working definition’ of antisemitism adopted in 2016 by the 31-member states of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which the United States has embraced. In addition, the Administration welcomes and appreciates the Nexus Document and notes other such efforts.”

Zionism isn’t mentioned, but Israel is referenced 10 times in the 60-page document. “The Biden-Harris Administration will ensure the strategy’s effective implementation and leverage it to advance our fight against other forms of hate,” reads a fact sheet connected to the plan. “In addition, the strategy reaffirms the United States’ unshakable commitment to the State of Israel’s right to exist, its legitimacy, and its security—and makes clear that when Israel is singled out because of anti-Jewish hatred, that is antisemitism.”

There’s a small distinction worth noting here. The Biden administration says that singling out Israel is antisemitism if it’s motivated by anti-Jewish hatred. That’s not exactly the same thing we hear from from people like Anti-Defamation CEO Jonathan Greenblatt–who has consistently asserted that anti-Zionism is antisemitism. However, in the eyes of these pro-Israel groups any criticism of Israel is probably motivated by anti-Jewish hatred so the difference is destined to work itself out.

The ADL and other pro-Israel groups have praised the plan publicly, but it’s difficult to believe they’re completely satisfied. Sure, there’s section that relies on an ADL survey to claim that “on college campuses, Jewish students, educators and administrators have been derided, ostracized and sometimes discriminated against because of their actual or perceived views on Israel,” but they’ve been pushing Biden to formally adopt the IHRA definition since he took office and this document doesn’t seem to get them any closer to that goal. The administration has voiced support for it several times, but still nothing. Recently they even announced they won’t be reexamining the issue until the end of this year. In January the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights released a fact sheet detailing protections for students, and it also omitted the IHRA working definition.

You have to dig a little deeper than press releases to gauge the level of anxiety. Right-wing journalist Daniel Greenfield says that the plan amounts to a “betrayal” of Jewish people because it doesn’t condemn the BDS movement and gives the IHRA working definition short thrift. “The U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism fails to address Muslim and leftist antisemitism,” he writes in the Jewish News Syndicate. “It briefly delves into campus antisemitism but does not address its source, has a single throwaway line about the attacks on Orthodox Jews in New York City and gives the pro-Israel IHRA definition of antisemitism nearly equal billing with the Nexus anti-Israel one.”

An Anti-Defamation League spokesperson tells Jewish Insiders Gabby Deutch that the group didn’t agree with Biden’s decision to reference the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on the fact sheet. Republican Jewish Coalition CEO Matt Brooks says, “Joe Biden had a chance to take a strong stand against antisemitism and he blew it.” Nikki Haley says, “Joe Biden is pandering to the radical Left and siding with Israel’s enemies.”

We’ll be keeping a close eye on how the strategy gets implemented and how pro-Israel groups react.

CUNY commencement

On May 12 graduating CUNY law student Fatima Mohammed gave a commencement speech that referenced Israeli oppression and discussed the need to hold human rights violators accountable.

“Israel continues to indiscriminately rain bullets and bombs on worshippers, murdering the old, the young, attacking even funerals and graveyards as it encourages lynch mobs to target Palestinian homes and businesses, as it imprisons its children, as it continues its project of settler colonialism, expelling Palestinians from their homes, carrying the ongoing Nakba… our silence is no longer acceptable,” she said later. “Palestine can no longer be the exception to our pursuit of justice.”

Video of the remarks were scrubbed from the school’s website, but a couple of weeks later the backlash began. Here’s just some of the reactions:

Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY): “Imagine being so crazed by hatred for Israel as a Jewish State that you make it the subject of your commencement speech at a law school graduation. Anti-Israel derangement syndrome at work.”

Ted Cruz (R-TX): “City University of New York class day speaker slanders Israel and enthusiastically celebrates antisemitism. Cheers on open borders & releasing violent criminals from jail. And decries the ‘fascist NYPD.’ This is a LAW school. Paid for with tax dollars.”

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY): “This is exactly why I am finalizing legislation to strip universities of their funding if they engage in and promote anti-semitism. CUNY should be ashamed of itself — and should lose any federal funds it currently receives.”

The ADL of New York/New Jersey: “Graduations should be a place for all — not a time to denigrate students’ identities. We are appalled to see such an egregious display of hostility toward ‘Zionists’ (which is how many Jews see themselves) and Israel in CUNY Law’s commencement address.”

You’ll note that Mohammed never actually mentions Judaism or Jewish people, but every condemnation of her does. This is the standard trick: pretend anti-Zionist Jews don’t exist and get people to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. It’s also impossible to imagine this kind of hysterical reaction if a commencement speaker had dissed the human rights record of, oh I dunno say, Russia or Iran.

You might expect the school to actually defend its student against smears and bullying from incredibly powerful people, but CUNY immediately threw her under the bus. The Board of Trustees and Chancellor released a statement embracing the narrative that Mohammed had engaged in “hate speech.”

“This speech is particularly unacceptable at a ceremony celebrating the achievements of a wide diversity of graduates, and hurtful to the entire CUNY community, which was founded on the principle of equal access and opportunity,” it reads. “CUNY’s commitment to protecting and supporting our students has not wavered throughout our 175-year existence and we cannot and will not condone hateful rhetoric on our campuses.”

The Adalah Justice Project has a good thread on the situation:

The attacks on City University of New York (CUNY) Law School’s 2023 graduate commencement speaker are Islamophobic, racist, and dangerous. Here’s why…

Fatima critiqued US domestic + foreign policy, including US support for the Israeli regime’s indiscriminate killing of Palestinians. Her speech was met with thunderous applause. Now, powerful anti-Palestinian organizations have launched a racist campaign against Fatima and CUNY.

Predictably, organizations like the ADL and JCRC of New York are conflating criticism of the apartheid state of Israel and antisemitism.

New York City’s Mayor Eric Adams was also at the ceremony and was booed by students while being introduced to the stage as a former NYPD cop. Yesterday, Adams attacked Fatima on Twitter, uplifting a hit piece by a far-right tabloid.

These attacks feed into prevailing Islamophobia and white supremacy and represent real threats to Fatima’s safety and livelihood.

We stand with Fatima and all students who speak up against war crimes and violence domestically and abroad.

Odds & Ends

???????? ‘Israel moves illegal Homesh settlement amid Biden criticism’

???? ‘Attacks on Roger Waters make a mockery of the fight against antisemitism’

???? ‘Spotify odds stacked against Lowkey’

???? Matthew Kassel in the Jewish Insider. ‘North Carolina Democrats prepare for heated platform fight over Israel’:

The proposed resolutions, which have not yet been finalized, are largely included in a detailed platform section on international relations that focuses almost exclusively on Israel and Middle East policy, according to a recent draft reviewed by Jewish Insider.

Among other measures that are likely to draw scrutiny, the resolutions advocate for remaining neutral “on whether the best solution to” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “is the so-called ‘two-state solution’ or ‘one-state solution.’” That position, if upheld, would put the state party at odds with the national Democratic platform, which supports “a negotiated two-state solution that ensures Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state.”

In a section “recognizing anti-Palestinian bigotry,” a separate resolution endorses the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees to Israel, all but rejecting its existence as a Jewish state. The draft also calls for the commemoration of May 15 as Nakba Day, the Arabic term for “catastrophe” used to denote the Palestinian exodus that coincided with the foundation of Israel.

???? In September 2022, Cornell University professor Samia Henni’s office was ransacked and materials were stolen. Henni believes she might have been targeted for her support for Palestinian rights. The school failed to inform the campus community of the incident, condemn it, or open an investigation.

“Cornell also has a role and responsibility here,” said Palestine Legal’s Amal Thabateh in a recent statement. “The university must publicly condemn the incident to the broader Cornell community, reopen the investigation into the break-in or conduct an independent investigation, and take steps to guarantee Henni’s academic freedom and safety on campus.”

???? ‘Why Are Progressive Legislators Opposing New York’s First Anti-Settlement Bill?’

???????? ‘Can the Two-State Solution Be Saved?’

⚖️ Laura Rozen on Twitter: “Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) says he has run out of patience, wants to see updated report on killing of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh by Friday or threatens to use whatever powers he has that he has never done before. At end of rope in terms of simple request for report.”

???? I joined Foundation for Middle East Peace’s Lara Friedman for a discussion on the politics of Israel-Palestine in the United States put on by Mass Peace Action.

Stay safe out there,

Michael

4 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Combatting REAL anti-semitism is a very good thing. The distorted interpretation of the word by the zionists and their servants here, especially AIPAC and the ADL, seems to be not only ignored by the Biden administration, but there is a strong hint of a disagreement about it as well. If the Biden administration officially agreed with the ridiculous notion that ANY criticism of Israel as a country is anti-semitism, then we have definitely lost our first Amendment rights.

Strong criticism for Israel, the endless violations of international crimes, the violence against civilians, and the occupation, IS NOT ANTI-SEMITISM. If we can openly criticize ANY other nation in the world, including our allies, Israel is not entitled to get an exclusive pass.

Right-wing journalist Daniel Greenfield says that the plan amounts to a “betrayal” of Jewish people because it doesn’t condemn the BDS movement and gives the IHRA working definition short thrift. “The U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism fails to address Muslim and leftist antisemitism,” he writes in the Jewish News Syndicate.

The way these people speak, one would think that protecting and defending Israel by shielding it from criticism somehow reduces antisemitism globally. The way their logic works is boggling.

Why isn’t he concerned with right-wing conservative Republican American antisemitism? Adelson, a Jewish-Zionist multimillionaire, propped up Trump and the white supremacists who support him.

AIPAC does that on a regular basis with obedient white supremacist representatives it chooses to support to bring down progressive ones. What makes them white supremacists? They are outspoken about it! But AIPAC doesn’t care, so long as those representatives support Israel’s political agenda, while espousing antisemitism in the United States.

They can’t tell me that is NOT the very essence of antisemitism.

That is the face of the so-called Israel defenders, they prop up blatant antisemitism, and then turn around and claim that criticism of Israel amounts to antisemitism.

Also, I suppose they gotta defend Israelis’ right to shout “Death to Arabs” on Jerusalem Day, and then with the support of the army and police go out and carry out pogroms in the Israeli occupied West Bank.

Now THAT is freedom of speech, eh? That wouldn’t count as incitement if the shoe were on the other foot, would it? That wouldn’t count as hate speech if the shoe were on the other foot, would it?

Re CUNY law student Fatima Mohammed’s commencement speech, I DO have a criticism: in my opinion it would have been so much smarter for her to construct her speech in such a way so that she’s only quoting Zionists – Moshe Dayan, for instance:

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/moshe_dayan_313132

“There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/moshe_dayan_313138

The method of collective punishment so far has proved effective.

https://www.haaretz.com/2014-07-20/ty-article/.premium/moshe-dayans-enduring-gaza-eulogy-this-is-the-fate-of-our-generation/0000017f-dc5b-df9c-a17f-fe5bf1150000

What can we say against their terrible hatred of us? For eight years now, they have sat in the refugee camps of Gaza and have watched how, before their very eyes, we have turned their land and villages, where they and their forefathers previously dwelled, into our home.”

You can have a field day just with statements made by Jews.

Video of the remarks were [sic] scrubbed from the school’s website

This is irresponsible reporting. Her speech is still on the school’s official YouTube channel, where it can be viewed by anyone who is interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RpvTrB9P_M&t=4541s

You’ll note that Mohammed never actually mentions Judaism or Jewish people

No, you don’t give your readers enough information to note that, because you don’t quote her full remarks, or point to where we can find them.

The Board of Trustees and Chancellor released a statement embracing the narrative that Mohammed had engaged in “hate speech.”

Actually, the statement was notable in not naming or otherwise identifying Mohammed uniquely. You quote some boilerplate at the end of the statement, but you don’t quote the most relevant part:

The remarks by a student-selected speaker at the CUNY Law School graduation, unfortunately, fall into the category of hate speech as they were a public expression of hate toward people and communities based on their religion, race or political affiliation.

There were in fact two student-selected speakers at the CUNY Law School graduation. The statement doesn’t say which speaker they’re talking about. It also doesn’t say which particular “people and communities based on their religion, race or political affiliation” that they accuse the speaker of having expressed hate toward. These omissions in their statement are themselves newsworthy.