French
German
Hebrew
Noruegan
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Polish
Portuguese
After a long delay, the Israeli Knesset adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism.
As IAM reported, the Working Definition was initiated in 2005 and officially adopted by the IHRA planetary session in 2016.
The document states that “the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity,” is antisemitic but asserts that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
The definition explains that “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 document provides the following examples of contemporary antisemitism:
– Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
– Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
– Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
– Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
– Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
– Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
– 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.
– Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
– Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
– Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Many countries and international organizations adopted or endorsed the Working Definition, as IAM reported.
Several recent reports on the issue by IAM include “The Battle over the Meaning of anti-Semitism“; “New Definitions of Anti-Semitism Sprout like Mushrooms“; “Van Leer Jerusalem: The Institute of Enabling Antisemitism“; “Academics Urged Malmö International Forum on Holocaust Remembrance & Combating Antisemitism to Stop Instrumentalization of Antisemitism.”
It was not surprising, therefore, that the radical pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel cohorts – adherents of the critical, neo-Marxist school of thought – rejected the Working Definition. As well-known, they comprise Israeli and Jewish academics, who are radical political activists disguised as academics.
MK Dr. Ofer Cassif is a classic example of this trend. Cassif is a member of the Knesset on behalf of the Joint List, a political alliance of four of the Arab-majority political parties in Israel. Before his work in the Knesset, Cassif was a lecturer at the Political Science Department of the Hebrew University. His 2006 Ph.D. dissertation on Marxist examination at the London School of Economics and Political Science, UK, landed him the position at the Hebrew University. However, Cassif was considered controversial even by the Hebrew University, as IAM reported many times.
When the Knesset proposed adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism, Cassif objected. In his Knesset speech, Cassif stated, “this proposal is so disgusting and blood boiling, to add insult to injury, then the Honorable Chairman also says that it is not political. So first of all, it’s political, and I’ll also explain why it’s political and why this proposal is so despicable.”
Instead of explaining why it is “despicable,” Cassif moves on to say that “In March 2021, the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism was published, signed by about 350 Israeli and international scholars, historians, experts in Holocaust research and Jewish studies, Israeli and Palestinian studies, Middle Eastern and Islamic studies, and more – 350 experts, professors, and scholars. In this paper, the same experts with diverse political views oppose the definition of work given by the International Alliance for the Remembrance of the Holocaust, IHRA, against antisemitism. The Jerusalem Declaration objects to the IHRA’s focus on criticism of the State of Israel instead of on the crime of antisemitism itself. Thus, 7 of the 11 examples of antisemitism cited by IHRA deal with Israel, but not with hatred of Israel. The proposal before us, like the definition and examples of the IHRA, is politically motivated and biased and, in fact, turns any criticism of the State of Israel and Zionism into antisemitism. This anti-democratic, rude approach infringes on freedom of expression and criticism and may even encourage real antisemitism. The purpose of the Jerusalem Declaration that I mentioned is to clarify, without political bias and prejudice, what antisemitism is and how it is expressed. This has a dual purpose: first, to fight fearlessly against antisemitism – but really fight it and only it. Second, to protect freedom of expression and allow for factual and legitimate criticism of Israel and Zionism without being discredited for denial and falsehood. According to the Jerusalem Declaration, antisemitism is a form of racism, one of many, and means: discrimination, prejudice, hostility, or violence against Jews or Jewish institutions for being Jews. In this definition lies elements that necessarily characterize all racism.”
Cassif moves on to discuss what the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism defines as not in itself antisemitic:
“A. Support for Palestinian demands, for example, for human rights;
B. Criticizing or opposing Zionism and supporting full equality of rights for all residents between the river and the sea, in the form of two states, one state, or any other form;
C. Criticism of Israel as a state, including its institutions and its basic principles;
D. Comparing Israel to other cases, including colonialism or apartheid;
E. Boycott and sanctions – in non-violent forms of political protest.
All of these are not antisemitism. It’s a lie.”
He ends his speech by stating, “We must severely fight antisemitism and all forms of racism.”
Of course, Cassif is wrong. As mentioned above, the IHRA definition clearly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” Cassif is also wrong because, since the establishment of the State of Israel, the old hatred against Jews morphed into hatred against Israeli-Jews. Equally important, no definition of antisemitism should include a passage concerning the Palestinians; Palestinian human rights should not come at the expense of Jewish human rights.
Israel should be congratulated for adopting the IHRA Definition. In this, Israel joins many countries and organizations that made the same decision. According to various monitoring organizations, antisemitic attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions have been at their peak. The IHRA definition is an important tool to fight the antisemitic scourge.
Knesset News
June 23, 2022
Knesset approves proposal to adopt IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism
By a vote of 33 to 5, the Knesset plenum on Wednesday approved the proposal to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, for the purpose of identifying and preventing anti-Semitic incidents and displays of antisemitism. The proposal was submitted by MK Zvi Hauser (New Hope).
The IHRA’s definition describes various behaviors considered anti-Semitic, including the denial of the Holocaust. According to this definition, “antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews that can manifest itself in hatred towards them. The rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism target Jewish and non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, community institutions and places of worship.”
Following the vote, Speaker of the Knesset MK Mickey Levy (Yesh Atid) said “The Knesset made history today, and is joining more than 1,000 parliaments, governments, local councils and organizations around the world that have adopted the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism. This is another step in the Knesset’s fight, as the legislature of the Jewish state, against antisemitism in all its ugly forms. It’s time that expressions of antisemitism, in the guise of criticism of the State Israel, be defined as such. It cannot be that a position expressing double standards against the State of Israel, or a position that revokes the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, will be legitimate positions in the international discourse.
“The decision we took today will encourage parliaments and government bodies around the world to also adopt this definition of antisemitism, and this will help our Jewish brothers and sisters around the world who, unfortunately, experience antisemitism first-hand on a daily basis.”
A proposal tabled by the Joint List parliamentary group to adopt the definition of antisemitism that was presented in the Plenum by MK Ofer Cassif (Joint List) was rejected.
In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.
On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
“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.”
2
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
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.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.
