Arsen Ostrovsky: A defining moment for how the White House handles antisemitism
The answer is that the Biden administration has been under relentless pressure from progressive elements within its own party to extricate or minimize any reference to Israel, to “allow more space for criticism of Israel.”The White House intends to fight antisemitism. That starts with a sensible definition
In fact, the IHRA definition does not chill, silence, censor or stifle criticism of Israel or advocacy for Palestinians. In fact, the IHRA definition explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” The definition also includes helpful examples, however, illustrating how, “taking into account the overall context,” purported criticism of Israel can sometimes evince antisemitism. This occurs, for example, when critics apply double standards against Israel that they would not apply to other democratic nations, “[draw] comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” or “[deny] the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
Ahead of the Biden administration’s unveiling of its national strategy to counter antisemitism, there are reports that, while it might highlight the IHRA definition, it may also reference “alternatives.” Doing so would be a terrible idea.
Not a single one of these alternatives has ever even been adopted by a government entity or major institution, and for good reason: They fail to identify some of the most common manifestations of modern anti-Jewish hate, including the targeting and vilification of Israel “conceived as a Jewish collectivity.”
With antisemitism surging to unprecedented levels across America, now is not the time to equivocate. If the Biden administration is serious about delivering the “most ambitious, comprehensive effort in our history to combat antisemitism in America,” it will not appease those seeking to undermine this effort. Rather, it will unequivocally endorse the IHRA working definition as the sole and indispensable definition of antisemitism.
The IHRA definition is the most authoritative and internationally accepted definition of antisemitism. Forty-one nations, as well as hundreds of local governments, academic institutions, NGOs and other entities have formally adopted in different ways the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Over half — 31 — American states also adopted it.
Since the Obama Administration, the U.S. Department of State has utilized and promoted the IHRA definition (and previously, its similarly-phrased predecessor from the European Union’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia). Both Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the State Department’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt are leaders in advocating for its usage around the globe. The U.S. Department of Education also employs the IHRA definition as a tool in determining antisemitism discrimination in Title VI discrimination cases.
The IHRA definition continues to gain significant attention and support among governments and civil society actors. Fifty-one of the 53 member organizations of the Conference of Presidents adopted the definition – a clear recognition from every corner of a disparate Jewish community that we are unified when it comes to applauding the comprehensive approach it provides for labeling and addressing antisemitism.
One particular aspect of the IHRA definition that draws attention — and criticism from some groups — is its treatment of the relationship between anti-Israel bias and antisemitism. For too long, definitions of antisemitism failed to account for how anti-Zionism often serves as a cover for antisemitism. Forms of antisemitism that are masked as “anti-Zionism” and that deny the right of the Jewish people to self-determination are among those most frequently encountered by many Jews today, whether or not they are Zionists, as documented in surveys by the Anti-Defamation League and by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights.
The IHRA definition addresses the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, while not conflating legitimate criticism with actual antisemitism. Critics fail to identify actual instances where the IHRA definition suppressed free speech. In fact, over the last 20 weeks, as debates raged around the world over Israel’s proposed judicial reform — with hundreds of thousands of Israelis of all political stripes expressing virulent criticism of the Israeli government’s proposed overhaul — I have yet to hear one individual accuse the critics of being antisemitic. Despite the fact that the IHRA definition is so ubiquitous, legitimate speech that is critical of Israeli government policy is not censored. When put to the test, the IHRA definition does not do what its critics say it does.
We at the Conference of Presidents steadily campaign for states, localities, international governments and organizations to adopt the IHRA definition. The Biden administration seems poised to reassert their ongoing endorsement of the IHRA definition, pushing back yet again against those who distort the nature of the definition’s treatment of legitimate criticism of Israel governmental policies.
In a time when antisemitism in the United States has become all too often lethal, this would mean a vital and praiseworthy evolution of policy.
Biden antisemitism strategy is futile without the IHRA definition
How do the incessant attacks on Israel persist, given the widespread adoption of the IHRA? The main reason is that even those who have adopted it do not take it seriously enough to call out the antisemites in their midst. More fundamentally, the IHRA explicitly states that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic. Furthermore, it does not suggest punishment for those whose words or deeds are antisemitic.
Still, opponents of the definition don’t want to be called out for their bigotry or stigmatized as antisemites.
Sarcasm and cynicism aside, it’s nice to see our government take the issue of antisemitism in America seriously enough to invest some time and hopefully meaningful money into taking steps to address the issue. It is also nice to see the initiative coming from a Democratic president, given that his party has significantly normalized antisemitism. Of course, if the party does not act against the antisemites in its midst, like Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, it will not only fail but be rightly ridiculed for hypocrisy.
The effort can make a contribution if it impels colleges to take the issue seriously, adopt the IHRA definition and end the anomaly of being the only institution in America where antisemitism is tolerated.
The inclusion of the IHRA is necessary but not sufficient. The definition and examples were formulated in 2015. Antisemites have become more sophisticated in disguising their behavior and malign intent. We now see Jew-hatred manifested in ways not covered by its examples.
Even more concerning is how social media has exponentially increased the opportunities to spread bigotry, and jellyfish like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk refuse to prevent their platforms from giving the seemingly infinite number of Goebbels imitators a megaphone to spread their bile. Failure to address online hate will also neuter President Joe Biden’s efforts.
Mr. President, listen to your State Department, which said in 2022 the IHRA definition of antisemitism is “integral to the fight to eliminate this scourge. It is widely accepted and used throughout the world by governments, international organizations, religious and sports entities, and other civil society organizations, which sends a powerful message of solidarity against antisemitism. Bipartisan U.S. administrations have embraced and used the IHRA working definition of Antisemitism, inclusive of its examples, as a policy tool.”
Without this shared understanding of antisemitism, even the most well-meaning strategy is doomed to failure.
And the bit about "caring" about Israel more is circular, and fatuous. Would a single-minded focus on the evils any other religious or national group d be justified by a self-professed "care" about them? (2/2)
— Eugene Kontorovich (@EVKontorovich) May 24, 2023
The U.S. has sent $75 billion to Ukraine in the past two years without making "Ukrainianism" a pressing social problem, but Biden Admin wants you to endorse a document that says demonizing Jewish state is ok because American gives it some money. It's not all about the Bejamins... pic.twitter.com/1R2m9OA4Ae
— Eugene Kontorovich (@EVKontorovich) May 24, 2023
The opponents of IHRA are reenacting Jabotinsky's anecdote about the European gentleman who says "An anti-Semite is someone who hates Jews more than one should." https://t.co/1sZPnGVDUe
— Eugene Kontorovich (@EVKontorovich) May 24, 2023