Monday, March 24, 2025
Elder of ZiyonAt this point, it is almost laughable.
Someone writes an op-ed against the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. They accuse the definition of defining all criticism of Israel as antisemitic. For good measure, the writers are often Jews. Voila! It must be true!
The Guardian follows the pattern to a T, with a featured essay, "The new definition of antisemitism is transforming America – and serving a Christian nationalist plan." It was written by two Israeli law professors, Itamar Mann and Lihi Yona.
The entire essay is riddled with falsehoods and deception.
Back in his first term, Donald Trump issued a 2019 executive order directing federal agencies to consider the IHRA definition when enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs, cementing this problematic standard. It has been formally adopted in multiple federal and state statutes, in which it is used to equate criticism of Israel or Zionism with antisemitism. These laws have been applied in a range of legal and policy contexts – restricting free speech, shaping civil rights protections and even influencing the classification of hate crimes in state criminal codes.
This paragraph alone contains two lies.
The first is to claim that the IHRA Working Definition "equate[s] criticism of Israel or Zionism with antisemitism." It explicitly says the opposite: "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."
I’ve yet to see an anti-IHRA rant quote this line. Funny how they always skip the part that sinks their entire argument.
The second lie is the claim that the US laws referring to IHRA quash free speech. The 2019 Executive Order they refer to says, again explicitly, "agencies shall not diminish or infringe upon any right protected under Federal law or under the First Amendment."
So do all the other US laws that link to IHRA as a guideline. None of them contradict the First Amendment or any other US laws.
The authors are law professors. They've read the original texts. This isn't sloppiness - this is deliberate deception.
And it hardly ends there. Mann and Yona make this astonishing assertion:
We need to recognize something distinctive about Jewish identity: it has always been deeply political. Unlike modern Christianity, which developed alongside a strong liberal separation of church and state, Judaism has never drawn such a sharp line. Jewish identity has long resisted the tidy categories that liberal theory prefers – religious or secular, ethnic or political, private or public. From biblical times through the diaspora and into modernity, Jewish communities understood religious life not just as a set of spiritual beliefs but as the foundation of a political community. Jewish religious leadership traditionally held legal and political authority – issuing binding rulings on property, taxation, even criminal law. This isn’t a historical anomaly – it’s a defining feature of Jewish tradition. Zionism, despite the secular aspirations of many of its founders, built on this legacy by channeling the political dimension of Jewish identity into the framework of a modern nation-state.
Note how the authors compare "modern" Christianity with 3,000 years of Judaism. They simply ignore the political history of the Catholic Church, the Holy Roman Empire. The Inquisition extended into the 19th century.
Moreover, modern Christianity remains as political as it can be within the framework of modern nation-states. The King of England is also the leader of the Church of England. Other Western European nations still have official state churches. The clear separation of church and state is not a feature of Christianity, but of the United States - almost uniquely so. Yet even in the US, some 28 states still have some "blue laws" limiting commerce on Sundays. The US Presbyterian Church and others have devoted thousands of hours in the service of anti-Israel advocacy - is that not political?
The essay paints Judaism as somehow uniquely political, darkly implying that there is something wrong with that, yet it is Jews who have been in the forefront of separating church and state for their own rights.
There is a great deal more in this essay that is not just deceptive, but consciously deceptive. For example, it repeatedly characterizes the IHRA definition as something "new," implying it is a kneejerk reaction to recent events, not mentioning that its roots go back to 2005 and it has been adopted by over 40 nations. It claims that somehow the IHRA definition imposes a “straitjacket of Zionist identity” on Jews, which is frankly insane. It even insists that the IHRA definition redefines Judaism itself, something beyond the imagination of the most creative fantasy writers.
An accompanying graphic shows an Israeli flag with its pristine Star of David ripped out and sliding off, implying that Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism. For the vast majority of Jews for whom Israel is a critical part of their identity, it is profoundly offensive.
Unfair criticism of Israel is indeed antisemitic, as explained by Natan Sharansky's "3-D" test for when it crosses the line, or my own algorithmic definition of antisemitism:
Antisemitism is
hostility toward,
denigration of
malicious lies about or
discrimination against
Jews
as individual Jews,
as a people,
as a religion,
as an ethnic group or
as a nation (i.e., Israel.)
My wording is meant to show that legitimate criticism of Israel - just like legitimate criticism of Judaism or Jews themselves - is not antisemitic. Only when it becomes hostile, denigratory, malicious or discriminatory does it become antisemitic. Legitimate criticism does not require malice, and comparing most Jews today to Nazis is about as malicious as it gets.
The critics of IHRA know they are lying. Law professors or not, Jewish or not, Israeli or not, this isn’t critique: it’s pure propaganda, and they know it.
|
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
 |
Buy
