The IHRA Definition Has Space To Criticize Israel

Since the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s (IHRA) “Working Definition of Antisemitism” was adopted by President Obama’s State Department in 2010 and then by parties and leaders on the right and left, by over 31 countries and by educational institutions from California to London, there’s been a great deal of debate over it.

The definition itself has elicited few objections:

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.

But the accompanying “Contemporary examples of antisemitism,” which focus on speech about Israel and the right of Jews to self-determination, have elicited pushback from some pro-Palestinian and progressive Jewish groups who are concerned that the examples can be abused or politicized to stifle discussion about Israeli policy. Jewish identity is strongly intertwined with Israel’s existence, but that said, while any guideline can be abused, the guidelines might actually help set a useful precedent to limit the abuses critics are concerned about.

Most of the IHRA’s examples are non-controversial: Don’t say Jews are responsible for every other Jew; don’t question Jewish loyalty based on religion; don’t state that all Jews are evil or behind grand conspiracies to control the world; don’t say Jews are responsible for everything Israel does; don’t use the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis. But critics take issue with the example stating that denying Jews the same right of self-determination as other groups is anti-Semitism.

The Macpherson Principle, an anti-discrimination principle, states that complaints of racism or discrimination should first be viewed through the eyes of the person experiencing discrimination. It can then be discussed or rebutted, but ultimately it is up to those who experience oppression to first define their experience.

With that principle in mind, for most of the Jewish community, Israel — and the right of Jews to self-determination — is intertwined with their Jewish identity. For example, a 2018 poll by J Street, a group that frequently criticizes the Israeli government, noted that 92% of U.S. Jews consider themselves “Pro-Israel.” A 2018 American Jewish Committee (AJC) survey found that 70% of U.S. Jews feel that caring about Israel is a part of being a Jew; Pew Research polling similarly showed that 62% of U.S. Jews feel that caring about Israel is important.

A large majority of U.S. Jews intertwine Israel’s existence and their Jewishness. Therefore, according to the Macpherson principle, denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (another example cited in the IHRA definition) may be considered anti-Semitic.  Jews expect the same right to self-determination accorded any other group, and many U.S. Jews understand that this flows both ways, supporting a two-state solution as a means of acknowledging a Palestinian right to self-determination.

Supporting Israel’s right to exist as a part of religious identity does not mean that every criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. American Jews tend to agree. J Street and AJC polls both showed that 58-66% of U.S. Jews disapprove of Netanyahu’s policies, even as they strongly support Israel’s existence.

The most controversial IHRA example is applying double standards to Israel by requiring a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation or by singling out Israel as the exclusive human rights violator in the region.

The Progressive Israel Network, an alliance made of groups like Peace Now, J Street and the New Israel Fund, correctly point out that this particular example is subject to abuse and politicization. Without setting precedents, every operational or legal tool can be abused. Other claims of discrimination have been leveled, debated and determined based on established guidelines. This particular guideline can help progressive organizations in discussions and with getting through the hyperbole from both the left and right.

Progressive groups have been critical of the Netanyahu coalitions over the years, focusing on the expansion of settlements in the West Bank and unequal treatment of Palestinians and Arab-Israelis as a form of racism — both examples of conduct they view as inconsistent with democratic standards — and they have some very good factual arguments (unsurprisingly, Netanyahu’s government disagrees). The IHRA guidelines can provide an excellent framework to focus discussions on facts and analysis instead of shouting self-serving slogans back and forth.

The IHRA guidelines provide an excellent framework to focus discussions on facts instead of shouting self-serving slogans.

UCLA Jewish History Professor David Meyers (who is also the director of the New Israel Fund), wrote in a Forward op-ed that Palestinians have a right to weigh in on defining anti-Semitism based on their own narratives and traumas experienced being intertwined with — and sometimes conflicting with — that definition. That subject has been studied extensively (interestingly, there are no standard definitions for Islamophobia other than the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims Definition of Islamophobia, which is based on the IHRA definition as a model).  The Nakba and the creation of Israel are both in part the product of trauma. But some pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian narratives around the conflict are dismissive, false and defamatory of the other perspective, even if each side earnestly tries to relay their own experiences and pain.  As Jews For Racial & Economic Justice points out, a history of oppression by any group does not exempt them from accountability.

Only an open discussion of facts and the law can discern between falsehoods and truth to see through politicization. The IHRA definition can be an empowering tool to do just that, creating an operational precedent for establishing common limits and possibly even for building bridges from the deliberations.

Andrew Lachman is President of Democrats for Israel California, a chartered organization of the California Democratic Party that seeks to be a bridge between the Jewish and pro-Israel community and the California Democratic Party.