Background:
This is my OpEd that the Hamilton Spectator published on April 20. I was responding to an article written by Mike Fegelman, described as Executive Director of HonestReporting Canada, a non-profit organization ensuring fair and accurate Canadian media coverage of Israel. Of course, if you have to describe yourself as honest, …
Fegelman’s story contained a serious error that the Spectator had to correct the following day, including revising the heading on the article. No doubt it was an ‘honest’ mistake.
Fegelman was promoting a ‘definition’ of antisemitism that has been advocated for use in determining if incidents are antisemitic. Various governments have adopted it as a guide. However, it has been subject to much criticism, and an alternative definition has been proposed.
My OpEd:
A better instrument for fighting antisemitism
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism is clear and acknowledges all forms of racism and discrimination
HARRY SHANNON
Consider this 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.
It is the 2016 International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism (IHRA-WDA).
It is vague. What does ‘a certain perception’ mean? And how can anyone interpret ‘may be expressed’? It was written as a working definition, so you might assume that it wasn’t ready to be officially accepted by any organization or individual. Yet in the OpEd Hamilton aboard the fight against anti-Semitism (12 April), the author claimed that the IHRA-WDA was adopted by the City of Hamilton. This was incorrect – an inaccuracy noted by the Spectator on April 13. It was Mayor Fred Eisenberger who adopted the definition for his office.
In fairness, the IHRA-WDA lists 11 examples that are considered part of the definition and that ‘may serve as illustration.’ But there’s that vagueness again – ‘may serve.’ Seven of the examples refer to Israel. There is no mention of, e.g., white supremacists or other forms of racism.
The OpEd author insisted that the IHRA-WDA does not stifle legitimate criticism of Israel. He ignores the mounting evidence that it does. Some examples:
Kenneth Stern drafted the IHRA-WDA. In his 2017 testimony to the US House Judiciary Committee, he stated his concerns that, if enshrined into law, the definition might be used to suppress reasonable speech that some people did not like. Alas, his fear was realized and in 2019 he wrote: “I drafted the [IHRA] definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it” to limit legitimate free speech.
The IHRA-WDA is also blocking those who help Palestinians. A council in London, England, refused to host a charity event to raise money for Palestinian children. They worried that the views of The Big Ride for Palestine would breach the IHRA-WDA.
Remarkably, a Holocaust survivor – someone who knows first-hand the dreadful effects of Nazism – was censored by Manchester University because of the IHRA-WDA. The reason: she called her talk “You’re doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to me.”
The IHRA-WDA is being used as an excuse to prevent criticism of Israel’s behavior toward Palestinians and to suppress advocacy for Palestinian self-determination. The IHRA-WDA examples state that “[d]enying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” is antisemitic. So why don’t Palestinians have the same right?
What is a good definition?
Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).
It’s from the recent Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) and is straightforward, concise, and clear. It was written explicitly to improve on the IHRA-WDA and deal with the confusion and controversy that were generated.
The 200-plus JDA signatories were mostly renowned scholars in Antisemitism Studies and related fields, people who have devoted their lives to exposing the terrible impact of antisemitism. One of them is Doris Bergen, a Professor of Holocaust Studies at the University of Toronto.
Like the IHRA-WDA, the JDA also included examples of what is antisemitic. But crucially they also added examples of what is not antisemitic. For example, “[s]upporting the Palestinian demand for justice and the full grant of their political, national, civil, and human rights, as encapsulated in international law.” Likewise, they noted: “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.”
In other words, the JDA recognizes that antisemitism is a scourge that must be dealt with. By identifying what is and is not antisemitic, they have given us a definition that, unlike the IHRA-WDA, is easy to understand and can be a vital tool in the fight against genuine antisemitism.
Moreover, the JDA notes that the fight against antisemitism is inseparable from the fight against all forms of racism and discrimination.
Mayor Eisenberger should be commended for supporting the fight. He (and City Council) should recognize that the IHRA working definition was just that – a working definition. The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism is a needed improvement.
Harry Shannon lives in Dundas.
Follow-up:
I wrote this on April 13 (it didn’t appear in the paper until a week later). In the last couple of days, April 25, an explosive report has been released that means my criticism was too weak. Jamie Stern-Weiner is doing his PhD at Oxford and wrote the document THE POLITICS OF A DEFINITION: How the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism Is Being Misrepresented.
The Foreword was written by Avi Shlaim, the renowned Israeli historian, who is now Emeritus Professor of International Relations, University of Oxford. Shlaim wrote: The report ought to lead any government or organisation that is considering the adoption of the IHRA definition to think again and those that have already signed on to it to reverse their decision.
What is so dramatic about Stern-Weiner’s work? Well, just consider the opening of the Executive Summary.
It has been claimed that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism, ‘including its 11 examples’, reflects an international consensus of antisemitism experts. This report, based on my doctoral research at the University of Oxford, exposes that claim as untrue:
1) There is no expert consensus supporting the Working Definition.
2) IHRA’s decision-making body, the Plenary, did not adopt any examples of ‘antisemitism’ as part of its Working Definition.
3) Senior IHRA officials and pro-Israel groups have misrepresented the IHRA Plenary’s decision in order to smuggle into the Working Definition examples that can be used to protect Israel from criticism.
4) These examples have been used, in practice, to censor Israel’s critics.
No need for me to comment.
Typo correction on April 30: I added the word evidence after mounting.