Published: 11 February 2021
Last updated: 4 March 2024
OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, there have been numerous attempts to integrate the IHRA Working Definition of anti-Semitism into civil and criminal law in the United States, including appeals to the newly-formed Biden administration and the countries of Canada, Great Britain, and the EU.
Critics of this formal use of the working definition argue that such codification will lead to limits on free speech and, in particular, to limits on criticism of Israel, especially on college campuses. of bringing the definition into law say that most expressions of anti-Israelism and anti-Zionism are, in effect, anti-Semitic and that this is the only way to curtail the growth of the virulent anti-Semitism that is rapidly spreading throughout the world.
The IHRA definition has already been endorsed or adopted for use, although not incorporated into law, by leaders of the European Union, the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) the US State Department, Australia and more than 30 other countries, as well as by hundreds of municipalities and non-governmental agencies, such as universities and football teams.
In the US, Canada and Great Britain, much of this argument is focused on the academy and college campuses.
Yet, despite the heat of this debate, the actual extent of anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist activity on American college campuses is not . A 2019 report by the American Defamation League (ADL) notes that "while a significant segment of pro-Palestinian activism contributed to an atmosphere in which Jewish students felt under attack and from which anti-Semitism sometimes did indeed emerge, most anti-Israel activism takes the form of legitimate political expression."
The report determines that anti-Semitic activity, much of it centered in pro-Palestinian activism and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, tends to be "geographically concentrated on the east and west coasts and in the midwest in the Chicago, Illinois hub - leaving many American campuses untouched by anti-Jewish hostility."
Similarly, a report published in January 2021, by Israel's Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), entitled "Antisemitism and Israel Delegitimization on the US Campus" determines that "most campuses in the United States are not awash in anti-Semitism, nor are they hotbeds of anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism."
Attitudes towards Israel have become an issue of identity, a driver of how what it means to an individual and a group to be Jewish - KEN STERN
[gallery columns="1" size="large" ids="40894"]
The INSS, a highly regarded independent Israeli research institute and think tank affiliated with Tel Aviv University, further notes that, "many American campuses are untouched by anti-Jewish hostility."
According to the INSS, coping with the problem requires, "more speech, rather than censorship and implementation of anti-Semitism awareness training programs, even on those campuses where anti-Semitism and anti-Zionist sentiments run high".
Furthermore, Logan Bayroff, Director of Communications for J Street, a progressive pro-Israel advocacy group, says that the focus on censorship makes it more difficult to "to call-out anti-Semitism in Palestinian activism…and is pernicious and ultimately bad for the process of resolution of the conflict and for the Jewish community".
Leonard Saxe, director of the Cohen Centre for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University, warns that focusing on speech deflects attention from the much more serious problem of actual physical violence. "The question we must be asking is what is going to set off the next murderer, what leads to events such as the horrific attacks in Pittsburgh, Poway, Charlottesville and all the other places," Saxe says.
"They were certainly not solely the result of negative stereotypes or an anti-Semitic or anti-Israel program on a college campus."
Kenneth Stern, a former senior official of the American Jewish Committee, current head of the Centre for the Study of Hate, a program of the Human Rights Project at Bard College, and the primary author of the IHRA working definition, says that the misplaced attention on speech and the invective that supporters and critics of the use of the definition hurl at each other reveal how polarised the Jewish community has become over Israel.
"Israel has become the hottest, most volatile issue in the Jewish community, says Stern. "Students have told me that on US campuses, Reform, Chabad and atheist Jews, along with everyone in-between, can come together for a meal despite their strong differences. Yet if the issue of Israel comes up, there is no way that they can break bread together."
Loyalty to the State of Israel is taught as a religious value in most Jewish day schools, but attitudes towards Israel also connect to deep issues such as the experience of anti-Semitism, ambivalence about Jews and power, especially in the Jewish State; conflicted feelings about being Jewish in the modern, Western world; and collective and individual values and loyalties.
The question we must be asking is what is going to set off the next murderer, what leads to events such as the horrific attacks in Pittsburgh, Poway, Charlottesville. They were certainly not solely the result of negative stereotypes or an anti-Semitic or anti-Israel program on a college campus - LEONARD SAXE
"Attitudes towards Israel have become an issue of identity, a driver of how what it means to an individual and a group to be Jewish," Stern says.
For this reason, it has become almost impossible to tolerate a difference of opinion, he continues. "Attitudes towards Israel that are different from yours feel intolerable, they feel like a threat to who you are, to the survival of your identity. It is part of the human need to distinguish between 'us' and 'them'."
Within this struggle, the response to anti-Semitism, including the view of the working definition, has been made into what Stern refers to as a "sacred symbol. The right and the left compete with each other over who is 'better' at calling out anti-Semitism.
Given the deep polarisation between the right and the left, it's become a test of how loyal or good a Jew you are, whether you are an 'us-Jew' or a 'them-Jew.' And each side tries to claim the term 'pro-Israel' for itself.
"This is why, too often, people on both the political right and the political left give anti-Semitism a pass if the person has the 'right' view on Israel," Stern explains.
Coming from the right, for example, columnist Jonathan Tobin, wrote recently in the right-wing daily Israel Hayom: "Following the playbook of other partisan liberal groups, the left fears that if the definition is used to punish anti-Semitic activity from left-wingers who hate Israel, it will distract the public from Democratic Party talking points.
[gallery columns="1" size="large" ids="40895"]
Why are my friends on the right incapable of hearing the voices of Trumpian anti-Semitism coming from the right in America? And why are my friends on the left, who are so sensitive to any indication that the right might be flirting with Jew-hating, struck dumb when confronted with anti-Semitism from the left? - GIL TROY
“Many liberals are determined not merely to call attention to far-right extremists and white supremacists, some of whom took part in the US Capitol riot on Jan. 6, but to label all Republicans or supporters of former President Donald Trump as anti-Semites."
Gil Troy, professor at McGill University in Canada and a prominent activist in the debate over Zionism and the future of Israel, says the mutual attacks come from both sides. "Why are my friends on the right incapable of hearing the voices of Trumpian anti-Semitism coming from the right in America? All they can see is left-wing anti-Semitism.
“And why are my friends on the left, who are so sensitive to any indication that the right might be flirting with Jew-hating, struck dumb when confronted with anti-Semitism from the left?" he asks rhetorically.
The disagreement often deteriorates into ad hominem attacks. Stern reveals that he has frequently been told that by opposing the codification of the working definition into law he is "taking away a tool to protect Jewish students on campus" and is "abetting the anti-Semites".
Furthermore, some of his former collaborators in drafting the working definition now claim that Stern was not its principal author. In an article published by Fathom magazine, Andrew Baker, Director of International Jewish Affairs at the American Jewish Committee (AJC), Deidre Berger, former director of the AJC Berlin Ramer Institute for German-Jewish Relations, and Michael Whine, the former Government and International Affairs Director of the Community Security Trust in England, "refute the oft-heard myth that Ken Stern was ‘the author’ or ‘primary drafter’ of the definition…
“This mythical elevated status is primarily touted because he is a vocal critic of using the Working Definition and thus a helpful (witting or unwitting) ally for those who today seek to discredit the IHRA Working Definition."
Stern says that he is proud of being the lead drafter of the document and draws satisfaction from the many training sessions and learning opportunities it has created throughout the world. Although he opposes the 'weaponisation' of the definition within the Jewish community, he reiterates that he stands behind it, and points to numerous documents from the period of time that he worked at the AJC that listed him as lead drafter.
In conclusion he says, "I don't want to add to the vilification of anyone. I want to model how one can disagree and dispute without distorting history and without taking things out of context. I knew I would be criticised for the stands I am taking, but to the extent that this brings more people to engage in this difficult conversation respectfully, I will be satisfied."
READ PART 1: How the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism became a political hand grenade (The Jewish Independent)
READ MORE
'We disagree about the Working Definition. That’s OK. Here’s what’s not. - Kenneth Stern (Times of Israel)
Yes, I am the lead author, but ‘who wrote what’ isn’t as important as the question of how we best fight anti-Semitism today
The IHRA definition should not be used to ban free speech - and that includes Ken Loach (Jewish Chronicle)
Lord Mann, the government's independent adviser on antisemitism, says IHRA is a vital tool but must not be abused in seeking to ban people with whom we disagree
Image: Brandeis University poster titled ‘anti-Semitism and the college campus’
