Jews get to define antisemitism
As the late great Rabbi Jonathan Sacks often discussed, at its core, antisemitism is a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies about Jews or Jewish groups conspiring to harm others through nefarious means are a central feature of antisemitism going back centuries. Here, the argument that IHRA is wrong and not designed to try and stem the rising tide of antisemitism, and is instead part of an effort to stifle free speech, is itself an antisemitic conspiracy theory.
As for the claim that adopting the definition of antisemitism supported by almost all Jews and Jewish institutions will somehow increase anti-Arab or anti-Muslim hate, it is hard to imagine a bigger red herring. There is nothing in the IHRA definition that even refers to Arabs or Islam, nor should it. Sadly, Jew-hatred and Jew-haters come in all stripes. No one group or faith owns a monopoly on the oldest form of bigotry. Moreover, if people are promoting anti-Arab hate or anti-Muslim hate, that should be addressed too, though not at the expense of addressing by far the per capita No. 1 hate crime in America, and certainly not by “all lives mattering” Jew-hatred.
Lastly, and perhaps most insulting, is the argument that because a tiny minority of Jewish groups want a narrower definition for antisemitism, the IHRA definition should be disregarded. This is tokenism. It is equivalent to far-right members of a largely White group, like the Proud Boys, asking for a school board to more narrowly define anti-Black racism and to ignore endorsements for the broader definition supported by the NAACP, the National Urban League, the Rainbow Coalition, etc., as well the endorsement of every predominately African American church in the city — based on the argument that Candace Owens, a conservative commentator who is Black, agrees with the Proud Boys.
This is the chutzpah of the arguments being made by those who wish to exclude almost all Jews and mainstream Jewish organizations from defining antisemitism. Sadly, while it does require chutzpah to make these arguments, it is not surprising that those who want to demonize what polls have shown are at least 8 out of 10 U.S. and Israeli Jews (who support, care about and identify with Israel) also want to exclude their brand of Jew-hatred from the definition of antisemitism. What is surprising is how many people give credence to such arguments to those telling Jews they don’t get to define Jew-hatred. It would not be tolerated for anti-Asian hate, anti-Muslim hate or anti-Black hate. And it shouldn’t be tolerated for antisemitism. Not for one second.
JPost Editorial: Goldreich crossed a red line by calling for boycott
The scientist’s lawyer, Michael Sfard, called the decision "a death blow on the prestige of the Israel Prize and shows that an award that should be given for professional achievements is in fact also an award for avoiding criticism of government policy."It’s time to speak out for China’s beleaguered Jews
The Weizmann Institute agreed that the ban was excessive, issuing a statement that said, “In a democratic society, the principle of freedom of expression must be preserved as a supreme principle, and political statements should not be a consideration in the decision regarding the recipients of the Israel Prize, adding that ”the only consideration for its award should have been research excellence.”
By that criteria, Goldreich’s nomination and acceptance of the Israel Prize should be upheld. However, it’s not so simple when other considerations are brought into play.
Is a government obligated to grant an award to a citizen who works for a partially state-funded institution and has called for a boycott of another institution and his colleagues, with no consideration for “research excellence”?
Freedom of academia and freedom of speech are two central cornerstones of any democracy. Being able to criticize the policies of your government is also a vital element of that process. But calling for a boycott is another matter.
Although it’s in the commercial - and not academic - sphere, we’ve seen the huge reaction to the decision by Ben & Jerry’s to stop selling their ice cream in Israeli West Bank settlements. That’s just one of many examples of efforts to boycott, divest and sanction Israel over its presence in the West Bank, under the umbrella of the BDS movement.
Israelis are certainly free to support and be involved in such an effort. But awarding an Israel Prize and giving a soapbox to someone who bears those beliefs is another matter. Believing that Israel should give up the West Bank should obviously not preclude being awarded the highest honor by the state. Calling for the boycott of professional colleagues, however, is a red line that shouldn’t be crossed
Since Jews are not an officially recognized minority group in China and Judaism is not accorded the status of an official religion, the question of Kaifeng Jewry’s status is a sensitive one for the Communist regime, which views them as full-fledged Han Chinese.
Nonetheless, it should be clear that in a country of over 1.4 billion people, a few hundred Jewish descendants in Kaifeng hardly pose a threat to China’s social or political order.
And yet, despite the close ties that have developed between Israel and China, the Jewish state has done virtually nothing to protest the treatment of Kaifeng’s Jews. As far as is known, the Israeli embassy in Beijing does not reach out to the community nor does it seek to plead their cause with the Chinese regime.
And the same holds true for the American Jewish leadership, which has remained deafeningly silent over the years.
This cannot be allowed to continue. We cannot and must not abandon the Kaifeng Jews or sacrifice them on the altar of Chinese economic power. Many of them are doing the best they can under very difficult circumstances to reconnect with their Jewish heritage. But under the watchful eyes of the Communists, who monitor their activities and intimidate them, Kaifeng’s Jews and their history are slowly and inexorably being snuffed out.
In its discussion of Hanukkah, the Talmud in Tractate Shabbat 21b says that the mitzvah is to place the lights, “at the entrance to one’s house outside,” but it also states that, “in times of danger, one lights inside and that is sufficient.”
Sadly, unless the State of Israel and world Jewry speak up with a loud and clear voice and protest the treatment of Kaifeng’s Jews, they will be forced to kindle the Hanukkah candles behind shrouded curtains and locked doors, for they are truly living in “times of danger.”