As antisemitic incidents soar, my precise definition of antisemitism becomes more and more important to adopt ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Monday, December 02, 2024

As antisemitic incidents soar, my precise definition of antisemitism becomes more and more important to adopt

Hannah Meyers writes in Commentary about the necessity of documenting and reporting antisemitic speech and incidents, even when they do not rise to the level of crimes. One reason given is that when there are violent or criminal incidents, a record of previous antisemitic language from the perpretatots helps establish intent and distinguish between a regular crime and a hate crime.

But, she cautions, "All of this reporting requires stronger definitions of what constitutes antisemitism. And, at root, this revolves around one key factor: Zionism’s centrality to Jewish identity needs stronger recognition. "

Moment magazine also recently described the importance of an accurate definition of antisemitism in the context of how actions and words that have previously been considered taboo become accepted with repetition:

Once upon a time—well into the 2000s—the usual way for the community to determine whether something was to be considered antisemitic was to consult Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League. A Holocaust survivor, a community pillar and a confidant of multiple U.S. presidents of both parties, Foxman, who’s now retired but occasionally still comments on current events, was an example of that vanished phenomenon in American politics, the neutral arbiter. Was it antisemitic for President Ronald Reagan in 1985 to make a visit to a cemetery in Bitburg, Germany, where SS officers were interred? Foxman, weighing in after a firestorm of criticism, called Reagan “well-meaning.” In 1999, the Rev. Jerry Falwell told his congregation that the Antichrist was probably already alive and “of course he’ll be Jewish.” Foxman, consulted, said the statement “revisits the worst in intolerance that resulted in persecution of the Jewish people and inquisitions.”

No one fills that role now, so we’re stuck with two strategies—it’s probably more accurate to call them reflexes—that are manifestly inadequate. First, when someone says something that clearly breaks the taboo, our superheated media environment—including Jewish media, which feed the wider dialogue—leaps on it and repeats it hundreds of times across every imaginable platform until we’re numb, dulling our sense of the forbidden. And second, when the transgression is not so clear, when it’s located somewhere on that melting hinterland, we struggle to pretend that it’s still in the center, where it can be deemed taboo and rejected without discussion.

Both of these are arguments for a clear definition of antisemitism that anyone can apply with largely the same results. In other words, an algorithm.

My algorithmic definition of antisemitism, which I have discussed a number of times, fits that bill better than any other definition out there.

Antisemitism is hostility toward Jews, denigration of Jews, malicious lies against Jews or discrimination against Jews as individual Jews, as a people, as a religion, as an ethnic group or as a nation (i.e., Israel.)

This definition can replace Abe Foxman: it is neutral between Left sand Right antisemitism, it leaves far less ambiguity than other definitions, and - crucially - it accurately includes Israel and Zionism as part of the Jews that are being attacked.

Conversely, it can be used to define what is not antisemitism as easily as it can define what is. Criticism of Israel that does not cross the line into hostility, malice, denigration and double standards is not antisemitism, just as reasonable criticism of Judaism or the Jewish people itself is not antisemitism.

I've noted that there are still boundary cases - most often dog-whistles. But those cases are boundary cases anyway no matter who is determining whether they are antisemitic or not. Indeed, my definition can even be used to be a taxonomy of antisemitism from which further analysis can be done in a reproducible way. It is as close to "science" as social science ever gets.

My definition is being discussed in academia. I've presented it at a scholarly conference. It should be incorporated into the widely adopted IHRA definition as a tool to help refine the definition.

Reporters, Jewish organizations, universities, nations - all of us need a solid definition of antisemitism in order to analyze the phenomenon. This is the best definition out there for than purpose.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!