EDITORIAL: What needs to be included in an Australian definition of antisemitism

Three definitions have been proposed, their chief differences over how to deal with criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism; the Jewish community needs to debate their respective merits

AUSTRALIA’S LEADING JEWISH organisations are calling on the federal government and other institutions such as universities to adopt the definition by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) as their guideline in defining antisemitism. It is, however, one of three definitions being fiercely debated globally.

The adoption of a definition of antisemitism will have the effect of drawing boundaries around what is to be considered free speech and what becomes defined as antisemitism. Define these boundaries too narrowly and you curb legitimate debate and free speech. Boundaries that are too broad allow hate to flourish.

The consequences are too important to allow ourselves to drift into communal consensus without adequate debate.

It is said: ‘two Jews, three opinions’ – and so it is when defining antisemitism. There are currently three definitions of antisemitism in circulation. They are:

These three definitions address three questions, but each has its own distinct emphasis:

The ‘new’ antisemitism

Centuries of ‘Jew-hatred’, long preceding even the invention of the word ‘antisemitism’, is a self-evident truth. The ultimate expression of it, the Shoah, has led to global responses including international laws tackling genocide and crimes against humanity as well as criminalising Holocaust denial in many countries.

If there is anything that can be thought of as being a new lightning rod for antisemitism, it is the creation of the State of Israel. It brings to the foreground old canards such as Jews and power, dual loyalties, and new ones such as challenging Israel’s right to exist.

All three definitions rely on supplementing their core definitions by adding examples. The IHRA Definition has 11 examples, all as descriptions of antisemitism (seven of which focus on criticism of Israel).

Both The Jerusalem Declaration and The Nexus Document help elaborate by giving examples that they consider antisemitic, as well as what they exemplify as not being antisemitic.

If there is a “new” antisemitism, then it is defined by the treatment of Israel, its policies and actions as well as its raison d’etre.

Is anti-Zionism equivalent to antisemitism?

The question comes in two parts:

Can anti-Zionism be antisemitic?

Is anti-Zionism inherently antisemitic?

Anti-Zionism can harbour antisemitism. All three definitions account for it, but context matters. All agree that hatred of all Jews, global conspiracies focusing on Jews and or Israel are beyond the pale.

But anti-Zionism is not antisemitic when it takes the form of specific criticism of Israeli government policy or argues for alternative forms of Jewish autonomy or Palestinian rights under international law.

Nor can it be said that Anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. To do so would condemn Satmar Hasidim, and Bundists, all of them Jews, as antisemites.

The core issue is that if one “declares” that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, then if said often enough, it becomes a political reality.

Recall the words from Alice in Wonderland: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

If we think this is an exaggeration, remember Jared Kushner’s New York Times opinion piece: “The Remembrance Alliance definition makes clear what our administration has stated publicly and on the record: Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism” (our emphasis in bold).

It is claims such as these that have led US attorney and academic Kenneth Stern, the lead drafter of the IHRA Definition, to express concern that this definition is being weaponised within the Jewish community, between pro-Israel advocates and political critics of Israel.

How to manage the difference between political disagreement and antisemitism

Much of this debate is about freedom of speech. What can be claimed as political discourse without being open to accusations of antisemitism?

The actual IHRA Definition is only one paragraph long:

“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.”

In and of itself, the IHRA Definition is so broad (as distinct from its accompanying examples) that it would be universally welcomed. But note, there is no mention of Israel.

So here is the nub – do discussions about Israel slip into antisemitism? And how do we tell when they don’t?

A telling distinction between the IHRA and the Jerusalem Declaration/Nexus Document is that the latter two look to underlying principles and definitions that also clarify what does not constitute antisemitism, particularly in references to Israel.

The danger of lack of context in discussion of Israel creates culture wars that can lead to, for example, a call for the dismissal of academics, banning of guest speakers, and rising conflict within the Jewish community as well as between the Jewish community and the broader Australian public.

The IHRA Definition has been accused of lacking nuance, making it vulnerable to become a means of suppressing debate about Israel, particularly if adopted by institutions and universities and government departments.

It is this practice of setting boundaries to the debate of Israel that has led to accusations that the IHRA Definition has been weaponised to constrain criticism of Israel.

What is next in Australia?

We know that the broad Australian community is well disposed to the Jewish community as shown in the recent Plus61 Media survey, Crossroads21, of attitudes toward Jewish people, antisemitism and Israel.

The survey results demonstrate that less than five per cent of the broad Australian community harbours negative views of Jewish people. The issue therefore is less about antisemitism per se and more about how debates about Israel will be conducted.

It seems likely the IHRA Definition will be adopted by the Australian government. The Federal Opposition has already publicly committed to adopting and over the weekend the NSW ALP is understood to have followed suit.

Where will this lead? To even more discordant forms of debate? Will it of itself become a focal point of contention and acrimony? Will it add to tensions within the Jewish community and conflict with critics of Israel?

Should we consider adopting The Jerusalem Declaration or the Nexus Document?

The Jewish Independent believes the government should adopt a definition that allows broad and reasoned debate about Israel precisely because that is what has become so divisive about these definitions. Any framework that blinkers discussion of Israel’s government policy, whether by design or by effect, does a disservice to Jews, Israelis and the broader community.

If there is an issue that The Jewish Independent would take up, it is the absence of widespread debate within the Jewish community about the respective merits of asking governments and institutions to adopt, as policy, one of the three definitions. And then comes the question of which one, or any of them?

Accordingly, readers are invited to join a debate on Zoom this Sunday, October 17, about the definition of antisemitism. CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS AND TO REGISTER

READ MORE
ROBIN MARGO: Don’t undermine the moral clarity of the fight against antisemitism (Pearls and Irritations)

Photo: Part of an exhibit on the Holocaust supported by the IHRA (Courtesy IHRA)