How should antisemitism be defined?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

The Antisemitism Awareness Act that passed the U.S. House by a 320–91 vote this month is stalled in the Senate as of this writing. The bipartisan bill is a rapid response to increasing and alarming harassment against minority Jews at colleges and K-12 schools. It says the Department of Education “shall” investigate whether incidents with “antisemitic intent” at a school warrant denial of federal  funding under anti-discrimination law.

This legislation reflects the broader dispute over how to define antisemitism, which has intensified since the October 7 Hamas attack and Israel’s Gaza invasion. To start, a typical basic definition is this from Brittanica.com: “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group.”

The House bill sets as the legal standard a 2016 “working definition” from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), promoted by the World Jewish Congress, and cited in President Donald Trump’s 2019 executive order on the problem: “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.”

That wording is endorsed by 43 nations, including the U.S., though none in the Mideast except Israel, and by many civic organizations. The definition itself is not in question, but controversy stems from IHRA’s accompanying “examples” to specify how those generalized words apply.

Targeting Israel

You should study the full text (see link below). But among other things, it says violations “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.” So the problem is “double standards” that require behavior by Israel not demanded of other nations. Another key example is “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.”

In the House vote, 70 Democrats opposed the bill, among them Jerry Nadler of New York, who said he’s a “deeply committed Zionist who firmly believes in Israel’s right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people.” But he considers the bill “misguided” because IHRA’s “examples may include protected speech, in some contexts, particularly with respect to criticism of the State of Israel.” Other liberals and the American Civil Liberties Union agree.

The most intriguing opposition comes in a petition endorsed to date by 1,307 Jewish college professors who insist that “criticism of the state of Israel, the Israeli government, policies of the Israeli government, or Zionist ideology is not – in and of itself – antisemitic.” This ad hoc group contends that putting the IHRA definition into federal law would “delegitimize and silence Jewish Americans – among others – who advocate for Palestinian human rights or otherwise criticize Israeli policies.”

Instead, the scholars say, U.S. leaders should support Jews and others who want unrestricted freedom to assail Israeli policies. They recommend the depictions of antisemitism in two 2021 statements that were critical of the IHRA approach. The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism was initiated by 210 Jewish and Gentile experts on the Mideast who met in that city. The Nexus Document was developed by a task force now affiliated with Bard College.

From River to Sea

The Jerusalem group defined antisemitism as “discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).” It specified that it is not antisemitic “on the face of it” to support Palestinian demands for justice, to oppose Zionism “as a form of nationalism,” to support various new plans to govern the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, to criticize Israel’s “institutions and founding principles,” or to compare Israel with examples of “colonialism” or “apartheid” elsewhere.

The Nexus definition says that “antisemitism consists of anti-Jewish beliefs, attitudes, actions or systemic conditions. It includes negative beliefs and feelings about Jews, hostile behavior directed against Jews (because they are Jews), and conditions that discriminate against Jews and significantly impede their ability to participate as equals in political, religious, cultural, economic, or social life.”

In addition, the Nexus scholars believe that “as a general rule, criticism of Zionism and Israel, opposition to Israel’s policies, or nonviolent political action directed at the State of Israel and/or its policies should not, as such, be deemed antisemitic. Even contentious, strident, or harsh criticism of Israel for its policies and actions, including those that led to the creation of Israel, is not per se illegitimate or antisemitic.”

In the House vote, 21 hard-right Republicans also opposed the antisemitism bill, and some raised the fraught topic of responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene said the law “could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews.” Representative Matt Gaetz said some may say “claims of Jews killing Jesus” are antisemitic but “the Bible is clear” about this.

Jews Did Not Kill Jesus

(Actually, Jews did not kill or crucify Jesus. In the New Testament account, the Jewish Temple establishment decided that he ought to die and handed him over to Pontius Pilate, who ordered the crucifixion by Rome’s colonial soldiers. Notably, the broader Jewish populace was divided. While one crowd cried “crucify him,” a different “great multitude … bewailed and lamented” his impending execution (Luke 23:21 and 27).

At the Second Vatican Council, the world’s Catholic bishops taught that “the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today.”

Moreover, in central Christian belief what matters is that each sinful person needs the savior and bears the blame for Jesus Christ’s death, as in a beloved 1630 German hymn: “Who was the guilty? / Who brought this upon you? / It is my treason, / Lord, that has undone you. / ‘Twas I, Lord Jesus, / I it was denied you; / I crucified you.”

Antisemitism is an awkward label in the sense that Arabs who may oppose Israel are also Semites. The modern term originated with atheist Wilhelm Marr, who in 1879 founded the League of Antisemites. Anticipating Hitler’s Nazi Holocaust, he claimed the Jews constituted such an internal threat that they should be forcibly removed from Germany.

Resources:

IHRA definition, including the disputed “examples”: https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism/

Jerusalem Declaration: https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/

Nexus Document: https://nexusproject.us/the-nexus-document/