Perspective 97. Antisemitism: Easy to Define?

Antisemitism, by any definition, has been on the rise worldwide for the last few years. But is there at least, among those alarmed by this trend, an agreed definition of the scourge they are battling?

No. There is no problem categorizing hatred or attacks explicitly directed at Jews as Jews; they are clearly antisemitic. The problem arises with hostility and criticism directed toward Israel. When is such antipathy simply the kind of legitimate censure that any nation-state must endure, and when does it lapse over into prejudice against Jews as a people?

In perspective, in 2016 the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) proposed a working definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The definition was also accompanied by the proviso that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” All of this seems perfectly reasonable, and the IHRA definition has been adopted by hundreds of governments and public bodies around the world.

But one of the examples of antisemitism given in the document was “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e. g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” This leaves little or no room for anyone who might oppose Israel on grounds having nothing to do with Jews as a people.

Consequently in 2021 a (mostly-Jewish!) group of scholars issued the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA), offered as either an alternative to the IHRA definition or as a tool for interpreting it. According to the JDA definition: “Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).”

Again the definition itself is fairly unproblematic. But the JDA digs more deeply into the right of free speech regarding Israel, offering examples of where such speech is NOT. in and of itself, antisemitic. These include support of Palestinian rights under international law, opposition to Zionism not based anti-Jewish grounds, and “evidence-based” criticism of Israel by the same norms applied to other states. Even the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel is not necessarily antisemitic by the JDA – until BDS devotees begin inveighing against Jews as such or judging Israel by different standards.

The application of a double standard is at the core of the matter; is a Jewish state is judged differently from other states, something insidious is at work. To criticize Israeli occupation of the West Bank – as has been done in this space more than once – is perfectly legitimate and (I would argue) even constructive. To call it the worst occupation in modern history, against all evidence, and to compare Israelis to Nazis is – well, let’s just say it has a certain smell to it.

The IHRA and JDA definitions are not actually that far apart, but of course we academics love to dwell on small differences. The IHRA document, with its problematic example, does leave room for overzealous interpretation. But with the tools provided by JDA clarifications, there is room for consensus.