Biden Admin Antisemitism Strategy Draft Reportedly Features IHRA, Nexus Definitions of Antisemitism

The latest version of the Biden administration’s antisemitism strategy, which is expected to be released later this week, reportedly features both the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism as well as an alternative definition, according to Jewish Insider (JI), though JI acknowledged the draft could be subject to further revisions before it’s released.

The alternative definition, which JI described as being “promoted by progressives,” is known as the Nexus Document. It was first conceived in USC’s Knight Program in Media & Religion and is now affiliated with The Bard Center for the Study of Hate. The Biden administration’s reported inclusion of the definition has resulted in Israeli Deputy Foreign Ministry Director Emmanuel Nashon retweeting World Jewish Congress (WJC) President Ronald S. Lauder, who tweeted: “The importance of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism cannot be overstated. It is the most widely adopted and accepted definition by governments, institutions and organizations around the world. It’s essential to effectively combat antisemitism, because it allows policymakers worldwide to identify and respond to all forms of Jew hatred, including those that may be more subtle, but no less insidious. The international Jewish community would be gravely disappointed if the IHRA definition were not exclusively included in any action plan and would see it as not representative of their experiences and the true manifestations of modern antisemitism.” Later that day, the WJC tweeted out a video made in conjunction with the Anti-Defamation League touting IHRA.

The importance of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism cannot be overstated, It is the most widely adopted and accepted definition by governments, institutions and organizations around the world. It’s essential to effectively combat antisemitism, because it allows…

— Ronald S. Lauder (@lauder_ronald) May 19, 2023

To fight hate, you have to be able to identify it.@TheIHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism does just that. That’s why it’s supported by the vast majority of Jewish communities and organizations & is used by governments, businesses, and institutions around the globe.

Made in… pic.twitter.com/RfrWkgkYUC

— World Jewish Congress (@WorldJewishCong) May 19, 2023

UCLA Professor Dov Waxman, a member of the Nexus Task Force, tweeted in a response to a Times of Israel story on the matter that Nashon and Lauder shouldn’t be opposed to Nexus because “it clearly identifies when criticism of Israel or opposition to it crosses the line into antisemitism. But because it is clearer than IHRA in this respect, it is less susceptible to being misused and weaponized against Palestinians and their supporters.”

There's no good reason why the Israeli government, or Ron Lauder, would oppose mentioning the Nexus definition of antisemitism in the Biden administration's national antisemitism strategy. Nexus clearly identifies when criticism of Israel or opposition to it crosses the line…

— Dov Waxman (@DovWaxman) May 22, 2023

Another prominent critic of Nexus is Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and chairman of the Louis Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. He told the Journal in a phone interview that the alternative definition that the Biden administration plans on using in their national antisemitism strategy could provide a “loophole” for antisemites (Marcus wrote in an op-ed for the Journal that Nexus’ “purpose” is to insulate all anti-Zionists from being labeled as antisemitic) and argued that having “two standards only confuses the situation and could undermine efforts to ensure compliance at institutions.”

But Jonathan Jacoby, director of the Nexus Task Force, argued that Nexus and IHRA should be used together as tools to fight antisemitism. “IHRA is like the Mishna and Nexus is like the Gemara,” Jacoby said, referencing the two sections of the Talmud. “Nexus was never meant to be a replacement for IHRA.” He added that it was “an insult” and “inaccurate” for Marcus to suggest that Nexus was meant to protect all anti-Zionists from being labeled as antisemites.

The Nexus website features a white paper defining antisemitism as “a persistent demonization that casts Jews not only as ‘others’ (i.e., as intrinsically different or alien) but also as irredeemably threatening and dangerously powerful.” It later argues that criticism of Israel and Zionism is not inherently antisemitic, and that “paying disproportionate attention to Israel and/or treating it differently than other countries is not prima facie evidence of antisemitism.” “There are numerous reasons for treating Israel differently or devoting special attention to Israel, among them that Israel receives more military aid than any other country or that someone has a special religious connection with Israel,” the white paper states. “Singling out Israel because it is a Jewish state, using standards different than those applied to other countries, is antisemitism.”

In Marcus’ view, the Nexus definition essentially “justifies the use of double standards regarding Israel. Oftentimes, the use of double standards is a telltale sign that criticisms of Israel are not based on human rights concerns and instead have to do with a deeper form of animus. The Nexus definition makes it harder to make that case.” Jacoby, on the other hand, argued that the intent of IHRA was to look at the context of a double standard against Israel and determine if Israel is “being required to do something because it’s a Jewish state … then that’s antisemitic.”

“But there are lots of reasons to treat Israel differently,” Jacoby said. “A policymaker might want to treat Israel differently because Israel gets more aid than almost any other country in the world, democratic or not democratic. Israel is arguably the most important country to the majority of people who practice certainly Western religions in the world. So these are legitimate reasons to have a different standard for judging Israel and there’s nothing antisemitic about that … if Israel’s being judged, it can respond to that judgment on the basis of the substance of the accusation. There’s no need to say, ‘That’s antisemitic, and therefore we don’t need to talk about it.’”

The Nexus white paper later argues that criticism of Zionism and Israel crosses the line into antisemitism when it promulgates “myths, stereotypes or attitudes about Zionism and/or Israel that derive from and/or reinforce antisemitic accusations and tropes,” such as “characterizing Israel as being part of a sinister world conspiracy of Jewish control of the media, economy, government or other financial, cultural or societal institutions” and “holding individuals or institutions, because they are Jewish, a priori culpable of real or imagined wrongdoing committed by Israel.” It also states in part that “attacking a Jew because of her/his relationship to Israel” and “denigrating or denying the Jewish identity of certain Jews because they are perceived as holding the ‘wrong’ position (whether too critical or too favorable) on Israel” are also instances where criticism of Israel and/or Zionism devolves into antisemitism.

Additionally, the Nexus website has a “Guide to Identifying Antisemitism in Debates about Israel,” which states in part that “non-violent actions that press for changes in Israeli policies are not generally antisemitic” and that“boycotting goods made in the West Bank and/or Israel is not antisemitic unless it specifically singles out Israel because of its Jewish character.” Jacoby explained that he thought it was “interesting that the accusations of antisemitism against Ben & Jerry’s persisted even after the founders of Ben & Jerry’s wrote an op-ed for The New York Times saying they are not supporting BDS [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions], they do not support a boycott of Israel proper. They are supporting a boycott of products in the West Bank. There are plenty of Israelis who feel the same way and they are not called antisemites.” But if there are Israel boycotters who are “either using a trope that’s antisemitic or denying equal rights to Jews, that’s antisemitic,” Jacoby said. “But otherwise, if they use a nonviolent action against Israeli policy … I don’t agree with it. I want to be very clear about this––I do not support BDS. But it’s not constructive to build the case against people who are opposing Israeli policy on the basis of antisemitism unless that’s what they are, and we have very clear criteria for what they are.”

The Nexus guide also states that “even Yitzhak Rabin once warned that maintaining an occupation would lead to apartheid. He certainly wasn’t an antisemite.” Jacoby elaborated that, for instance, he wouldn’t “characterize the Human Rights Watch report as antisemitic. I don’t agree with all of it, but I wouldn’t characterize it as antisemitism and I’d much rather have a debate on what is or isn’t apartheid than start having a debate on whether this is or isn’t antisemitism.” But Jacoby does believe there are instances in which accusing Israel of apartheid can be antisemitic. “If by making a comparison with the Afrikaners regime in South Africa, the suggestion is that Jews don’t have the right to self-determination in Israel, then that is antisemitic,” Jacoby said. “Because Afrikaners didn’t have that right. They may have had the right to live there, but they didn’t have any national rights. But Jews do have national rights, and that’s an important distinction.”

Another one of Marcus’ critiques against Nexus is that “it’s not clear that the Nexus definition wouldn’t provide a loophole for those antisemites who are harassing Jewish students in ways that relate to their Zionist personal commitments,” arguing that Nexus provides exceptions for “harassment of Jewish students that doesn’t rise to the level of physical assault or violence.” Marcus pointed to Rose Ritch being forced to resign from her position as Undergraduate Student Government Vice President in 2020 after facing harassment on social media for being a Zionist as one instance that wouldn’t be considered antisemitism under Nexus. Jacoby disagreed with this interpretation of Nexus, pointing to the line in the white paper that states that “conveying intense hostility toward Jews who are connected to Israel in a way that intentionally or irresponsibly (acting with disregard to potential violent consequences) provokes antisemitic violence” is an instance in which Nexus considers criticism of Israel and/or Zionism to be antisemitic.

According to Marcus, some leftist groups have urged the Biden administration to adopt the “hard left Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, and they apparently failed. The Jerusalem Declaration seems to be too extreme for the Biden administration. The Nexus Document, which is fairly little known, may have been a compromise in an administration that wanted to throw a bone to their far-left supporters.” Marcus said that various mainstream Jewish groups have urged the Biden administration to endorse IHRA and reject the Jerusalem Declaration, “but not enough of them have spoken out against Nexus. It may be that the Biden administration simply hasn’t heard that much about Nexus from mainstream Jewish groups.” Jacoby countered that he doesn’t consider himself to be a “hard leftist” and contended that “if you look at the people who use the Nexus definition, you will find many mainstream Jews.”

Marcus said that the pending Biden administration plan has been a work in progress “for quite some time.” “It is deeply ironic and troubling that in such a document they may be on the verge doing something that actually undermines the effort to fight antisemitism,” Marcus said. “Lots of people will want to support this document and applaud it when it comes out because there will no doubt be many useful things within it. But my goodness how terrible would it be if they use the occasion of this document to weaken policies on antisemitism rather than strengthening them.”

Jacoby’s view? “A strategy that acknowledges multiple tools for combating antisemitism … that kind of holistic approach allows antisemitism to be addressed in a way that’s relevant to the current situation and I think that’s really important,” he said.