Thursday, June 01, 2023
From Ian:
Do Jews Get to Define Antisemitism? Yes and No
Do Jews Get to Define Antisemitism? Yes and No
The prejudice plus power definition of racism would mean that Jews, a group deemed powerful, cannot be victims of racism, and groups deemed powerless cannot be guilty of racism. In this conception, Jews are a powerful group with no legitimate gripes. Acceding to such a definition of racism effectively marginalizes Jewish claims of antisemitism.‘Willful ignorance the most powerful weapon against Israel’
Moreover, why should anyone be expected to outsource their thinking to anyone else? We live in a free society where people are allowed to hold and articulate their own views and no one gets to define anything for others. We should not want to be bound by a discourse in which we must defer to others and others must defer to us.
While such thinking comes from the left, it’s frequently Jews on the political right who draw from the progressive playbook and weaponize IHRA to silence alternative views. Indeed, Jews who accuse IHRA’s opponents of antisemitism are engaging in a form of cancel culture, based precisely on the same suppositions that radical leftist voices use to silence opposition to their dogmas. Ironically, there’s nothing in IHRA itself that would justify calling anyone who disagrees with the definition an antisemite. Proponents of an alternative definition of antisemitism have every right to advocate for their position and should not be demonized for doing so.
There’s nothing remotely unfair or illiberal when the IHRA definition wins out, as it did in the recently released White House national antisemitism strategy.
By the same token — and a point often lost upon IHRA’s critics — Jews who do support the IHRA definition have every right to push vigorously for government adoption of their preferred definition of antisemitism and urge governments to ignore competing definitions. Government policy is not like public discourse with multiple voices. Very often contests to set government policy are winner-take-all: Only one definition of antisemitism will be adopted, and the others will be set aside. There’s nothing remotely unfair or illiberal when the IHRA definition wins out, as it did in the recently released White House national antisemitism strategy.
Nor does the IHRA definition, used properly, suppress free speech. Kenneth Marcus, who served as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education and has done as much as anyone to advance IHRA on the American front, states in no uncertain terms that IHRA “does not generally ban, regulate, restrict or punish, all activities that may be described as anti-Semitic within the Definition’s meaning.” Marcus continues, “The E.O. (Executing Order issued by the Trump Administration invoking the use of IHRA in Title VI cases) protects free speech by directing its usage only as a means of discerning intent.”
In other words, the proper use of IHRA is not to prosecute those who engage in antisemitic speech or force everyone to sing from the same song sheet about antisemitism, as much as we might wish we all would, but to aid governments in determining antisemitic intent.
So, yes, Jews should have a major role in “defining” antisemitism as government policy, and no, we don’t get to insist that everyone accept our views.
Ignorance, coupled with a “progressive” worldview which disregards historical fact, is the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of those who seek to deny Israel’s right to exist, Israel’s diaspora and strategic affairs minister said in Canada on Wednesday.How to Fight Antisemitism
“In a time of ‘relative truth,’ some portray the people of Israel as foreigners in the Land of Israel,” Minister Amichai Chikli told a gathering of pro-Israel Canadian lawmakers at the Parliament in Ottawa.
The event marked Israel’s 75th anniversary and the reunification of Jerusalem in the 1967 Six-Day War.
“We are not foreigners in our home,” said Chikli.
“Our ancestors knew there would come a day when there would be those who would claim we have no connection or right to Jerusalem,” he added, citing the passage in the Book of Samuel describing how King David insisted on purchasing the Temple Mount.
“However, I don’t think they could have fully imagined the depths of absurdity we see today, including condemnations of Israel for building in Jerusalem or for Jews visiting the Temple Mount,” he continued.
The Likud minister told the gathering, organized by the Canadian Israel Allies Caucus in the first such commemoration of Jerusalem Day in the Canadian Parliament, that “basic historical facts” are the most powerful weapon for those who support Israel and the Zionist idea in the face of such “shameful ignorance.”
The event comes at a time of rising global antisemitism, often in the guise of anti-Israel activity.
Indeed, the competing Israeli and Palestinian narratives were on vivid display at the Canadian Parliament on Wednesday, where an anti-Israel event organized by Law for Palestine and the Palestinian General Delegation to Canada was held on Parliament Hill at the very same hour as the gathering of the supporters of Israel.
“At a time when antisemitism is on the rise, it is critical that Canadian parliamentarians, faith and Jewish community leaders stand together in their steadfast support of Israel,” said Canadian MP Dr. Leslyn Lewis, who immigrated to Canada as a young child from Jamaica and who now heads the Israel Allies Caucus.
“Israel is a symbol of freedom, resilience and hope to millions who wish to see the peaceful coexistence of all peoples,” she said.
The new White House strategy to counter antisemitism means well. It represents an official effort to combat the ancient curse of antisemitism that seems to follow Jews everywhere they live, even in a country as welcoming as the U.S. This administration wants us to know they have our backs, and yes, we ought to be grateful for that.Limited Liability Podcast: Antisemitism Roundtable
The elephant in the room no one wants to bring up is the notion that any "strategy" can ever eradicate a sentiment as immutable as hate. Would Jew haters hate Jews any less if they learned more about the history of antisemitism, or if they learned more about the Holocaust? If antisemites resent Jews because they see us as hard-working and successful, how do we make them stop resenting us? By arguing that we're not that successful?
Complaining projects weakness; pride projects confidence. If the Jewish brand in America comes to be defined by obsessive complaining against anyone who hates us, we'll end up looking weak, insecure and humorless. Who'd want to join that tribe?
Jew hatred is a resilient disease without any known cure. Thankfully, we know that there's a powerful, long-term vaccine against the hate: a strong Jewish identity.
On this week’s episode, Rich and Jarrod are joined by Elana Broitman of the Jewish Federations of North America, Stephanie Hausner of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and Ken Marcus of the Brandeis Center, for a roundtable on the White House's recently released National Strategy To Counter Antisemitism and what it means for the Jewish community.
