A primer on the antisemitism debate
Let there be arguments in the name of heaven
Shaul Magid is one the sharpest Jewish intellectuals we have. On his Substack, he asked a question: why do Jews have such a hard time talking about antisemitism?
To clarify, I do not mean that Jews today aren’t speaking about antisemitism, in fact it seems that we are speaking about it incessantly! Rather, at least from my perch, it seems that in many cases we are talking past one another/against one another, and very quickly retreat to our respective “corners,” unable to hear those who disagree with us, or perhaps even more profoundly, unable to even understand those who disagree with us.1
Magid begins to answer his question by establishing a thought experiment with a triad.
I think many who hold what I am calling a “maximalist” view of antisemitism (in some way, perhaps, we can view the ADL as one example among many), are deeply invested in the following three precepts: (1) The eternality of antisemitism, (2) the uniqueness of the Holocaust; and (3) state exceptionalism regarding Israel. These three claims are related even as some they can also contradict one another. For example, the eternality of antisemitism and the uniqueness of the Holocaust are potentially in tension. If antisemitism is “eternal” than in what way is the Holocaust unique (outside of its scale, but would that constitute uniqueness)?
In any case, while each of these claims requires nuance, I think this triad has some merit as a thought experiment of why it appears so difficult for Jews today to have a constructive conversation about antisemitism and what to do about it.2
Whether you use Magid’s term of maximalism, this can be described the dominant perspective of Jewish institutions in the diaspora. It is rooted in the antisemitism definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Adopted on May 26, 2016, the definition states:
“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.”3
More than 40 countries have adopted the IHRA definition, including Australia, Canada, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S.4 However, there are two points to consider. First, the definition is not legally binding. Second, the man who drafted the definition, Kenneth Stern, has argued that the definition has been weaponized to chill political speech on university campuses, especially pro-Palestine advocacy. He even wrote a book on the subject.
I’m a Zionist. But on a college campus, where the purpose is to explore ideas, anti-Zionists have a right to free expression. I suspect that if [Jared] Kushner or I had been born into a Palestinian family displaced in 1948, we might have a different view of Zionism, and that need not be because we vilify Jews or think they conspire to harm humanity. Further, there’s a debate inside the Jewish community whether being Jewish requires one to be a Zionist.5
Stern’s point is that IHRA was a working paper for further discussion, not a legal tool. Except, as the Foundation for Middle East Peace has tracked, the definition has been used to punish Palestine advocacy on campus. To understand this critique, we need to look at the 11 examples used by IHRA. Seven of them focus on Israel; at least two of those seven clearly constrain criticism of Israel.
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.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.6
These points led to a separate definition, the Jerusalem Declaration. It is the preferred definition of progressive Jewish groups such as the Diaspora Alliance, which treat antisemitism seriously but oppose its weaponization. Released in March 2021, the Jerusalem Declaration definition is:
Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).7
What the declaration also does is clearly indicate critiques of Israel that aren’t antisemitic such as these examples.
Supporting the Palestinian demand for justice and the full grant of their political, national, civil and human rights, as encapsulated in international law.
Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants “between the river and the sea,” whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form.
Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic.8
The Jerusalem Declaration now has 370 signatories, most of whom are academics. But its points explain why progressive Jewish organizations favour it over IHRA. There’s a third definition, the Nexus Project, that seeks to directly influence policymakers in the U.S. Its definition is:
Antisemitism consists of anti-Jewish attitudes, actions or systemic conditions. It includes negative beliefs and feelings about Jews, hostile behavior directed against Jews, and conditions that discriminate against Jews and impede their ability to participate as equals in political, religious, cultural, economic, or social life.9
The Nexus Project, like the Jerusalem Declaration, does separate antisemitism from criticism of Israel. The point below is extremely important, which I wrote about last month.
Using accusations of antisemitism as a tool to suppress criticism of Israel is dangerous on many levels. It distracts attention from bona fide antisemitism, infringes on the principle of freedom of expression, and militates against constructive dialogue and debate among people with differing opinions.10
This idea nails the problem with intra-Jewish discourse on this critical topic. On one hand, you have countries and Jewish institutions that favour a definition that essentializes Jews. StandwithUs, which defines itself as fighting antisemitism and supporting Israel around the world, criticizes the Nexus Project for not agreeing with that essentialization.
The Nexus Task Force demonstrates a misunderstanding of Zionism by claiming that opposition to Zionism are not antisemitic. Because Zionism is not simply a political movement, but actually forms a fundamental component of Jewish identity for many, these statements are misleading and may have the effect of perpetuating anti-Zionist forms of antisemitism.11
I don’t want to minimize this perspective as it is held by a sizeable majority of diaspora Jews. Aliza D. Lewin, president of the pro-Israel Brandeis Center (which has no relationship with Brandeis University) argues that “it is equally antisemitic to marginalise or harass Jews for expressing the Zionist component of their Jewish identity. Isolating and dehumanizing Zionists is akin to branding Jews with a virtual ‘yellow Star of David.’”12
On the other hand, you have activists and academics who understand that Israel, like all states, can be subject to harsh but evidence-based criticism.
The two sides effectively agree that antisemitism must be fought, but they disagree on the nature of the fight. And the institutional-national side is not really interested in a debate. But when it does happen, it’s worth listening to. That’s certainly the case with ABC Australia’s awesomely-named religion show, God Forbid. It produced an excellent, testy episode on what antisemitism means with three Jewish guests, including one from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.
Meanwhile, Vashti Media, an independent online British magazine focused on Jewish perspectives on the contemporary left, published a long and detailed review of several new works on antisemitism by Joseph Finlay. His conclusion is very thoughtful, if idealistic.
The biggest concession to orthodoxy, however, is the refusal to jettison the term antisemitism altogether. The report begins with a section on competing definitions — IHRA vs JDA — judging the former for treating antisemitism as a “stand-alone problem, unrelated conceptually, politically or ethically to other types of racism” while noting that the JDA considers anti-antisemitism “within the frame of universal and anti-racist principles”. The logical conclusion of this critique would be to cease considering antisemitism as a phenomenon separate from racism in general and stop using the term. Now devoid of its hyphen, and thus separated from its roots as a volkish 1880s conspiracy theory, the term does not add anything and erases a great deal; it is the intellectual scaffolding on which the separation of anti-Jewish racism from all other forms sits….
Do we need to keep doing anti-racism in silos, with antisemitism terminologically separated from other racisms, and with specific bodies focusing primarily on the hatred of Jews? Couldn’t we bring all this work together, and use vocabulary that focuses on the collective liberation of all peoples? As the American-Jewish poet Emma Lazarus wrote, “We are none of us free until all of us are free.”13
It’s hard to disagree with Finlay because it’s such a positive vision. Unfortunately, I don’t think diaspora Jewish institutions are in any rush to plan their obsolescence or willfully diminish their perceived importance. What we need to do is to embrace more debate and discussion within the Jewish community over the divisibility of Jews from Zionism. The principle of a makhloket leshem shamayim (an argument for the sake of heaven) allows us to consider how debates are valued when pursued with pure intentions.
The rebellion of Korach against Moses and Aaron serves as a cautionary tale of disputes driven by personal ambition rather than a genuine pursuit of truth. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks contrasts Korach's rebellion with the constructive debates between Hillel and Shammai, which are considered “arguments for the sake of heaven” in Jewish tradition.14
I think the most constructive debate in Judaism at this moment is how diaspora communities can flourish outside of an ethnostate carrying out a genocide. I appreciate that’s an extremely contentious sentence, and it brings me no pleasure to write it. Of course, I am not alone in my worries about diaspora Jews. And yet, wrestling with this question of Israel — as our predecessors have done — is critical to envisioning a future for Judaism. Our mainstream institutions, whom we need to debate, remain in thrall to a non-existent myth of Israel, not the facts in the occupied West Bank and the rubble of Gaza.
Rabbi Levi Brackman of Chabad points out that the principle of respectful debate exists in the Talmud, the central text of rabbinic Judaism. He cites the principle of that divergent views can both be seen as the words of the living G-d.
This Talmudic dictum implores us to engage with people who are in our opinion mistaken, because although their view may not be ultimately accepted, it is nonetheless legitimate. This element of respect for the views of others is a critical ingredient of a decent, harmonious, strong and healthy society.
Now more than ever, the Talmudic model of respect for intellectual rivals should be seriously heeded. Yes, we can disagree—and even passionately so. However, we must never allow ourselves to become so entrenched that we stop talking to each other—or "talk" only to belittle, defame and delegitimize the other's view.15
We can move forward on this positive path when major Jewish institutions start to embrace a more open debate on Israel. Even if you believe in klal yisrael (the Jewish community), the Talmudic idea of kol Yisrael aravim zeh ba’zeh (all Jews are responsible for one another), it is wrong to cast out and castigate anti-Zionist Jews because of differences of opinion. Instead, it is time to embrace one of my favourite ideas from Pirkei Avot (the ethics of our fathers).
Ben Zoma said: Who is wise? He who learns from every man as it is said: “From all who taught me, I have gained understanding.”16
That is especially true when it comes to ensuring Jewish safety and success in diaspora communities.
See IHRA: https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
See American Jewish Committee: https://www.ajc.org/adoption-of-the-working-definition
Kenneth Stern, 2019, The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/13/antisemitism-executive-order-trump-chilling-effect
See IHRA: https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
See Jerusalem Declaration: https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/
Ibid
See Nexus White Paper: https://nexusproject.us/nexus-resources/nexus-white-paper/
Ibid
See StandwithUs Flaws in the Nexus Definition: https://www.standwithus.com/factsheetnexusdefinitionofantisemitism
Taken from Aliza D. Lewin’s abstract from Vol. 26 of Israel Affairs: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13537121.2020.1754577
Joseph Finlay, Vashi Media: https://vashtimedia.com/beyond-antisemitism-race-british-jews/
See Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/topics/machloket-lshem-shamayim?sort=Relevance&tab=notable-sources
See Chabad, the art of passionate disagreement: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/381921/jewish/The-Art-of-Passionate-Disagreement.htm
See Pirkei Avot: https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.4.1?lang=bi&p2=Psalms.119.99&lang2=bi