What is Antisemitism

What is Antisemitism?

There are three major, accepted definitions of antisemitism that are commonly used as canon in determining if statements and acts are antisemitic in character. They are the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA), the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA), and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) statements. One of the main differences between the definitions is the suggested guideline for determining if statements about Israel are antisemitic, for example, “antizionism is antisemitism.”[1]

The IHRA states the following, which was adopted on May 26, 2016, at a meeting of the committee in Bucharest, Romania.

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 IHRA leadership committee is described as follows:

An intergovernmental organization with 35 Member Countries and 9 Observer Countries. Founded in 1998 by former Swedish prime minister Göran Persson, we address issues related to the Holocaust and genocide of the Roma.[2]

According to the committee,

To guide the 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:

  1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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).
  5. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  9. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  11. 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.[3]

None of the statements are accepted as a legal definition and encoded into US law for example, but the US State Department uses the IHRA definition and guidelines as a basis for legal actions.[4]

[1] In adjudicating cases of antisemitism, particularly in the U.S. and internationally, the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition is the most widely recognized and referenced. Here’s how it and other definitions are applied in legal and policy contexts:

  1. IHRA Definition: The IHRA definition is used by multiple national governments (including the U.S., Canada, Germany, and the U.K.), the European Union, and many universities and organizations worldwide. The U.S. State Department and the Department of Education use this definition when investigating claims of antisemitism under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in federally funded programs. Although the IHRA definition is non-legally binding, its use in U.S. and international policy gives it significant weight in interpreting and addressing antisemitic incidents.
  2. ADL Definition: The Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) definition is influential in advocacy but is less frequently cited in formal adjudication. It is often referenced in public awareness campaigns and educational resources, and it is sometimes used by organizations as a guideline. However, it has not been widely adopted in official legal frameworks or formal rulings on antisemitic incidents.
  3. Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) and Nexus Document: These definitions were developed in part as responses to concerns about the IHRA definition’s application in contexts involving criticism of Israel. The JDA and Nexus frameworks are gaining traction in academic circles and among free speech advocates, but they are generally not used in official adjudication. Some universities and organizations refer to these definitions to help distinguish between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel, but they are not widely referenced in U.S. legal cases or international courts.

In summary, while the IHRA definition is the most widely adopted for both U.S. and international incidents, particularly by government and legal bodies, the ADL, JDA, and Nexus definitions influence discussions and policies around antisemitism but are less commonly used in formal adjudication. (CGPT 11/1/24, 7:00AM)

[2] “About the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance,” International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, accessed November 4, 2024, https://holocaustremembrance.com/who-we-are.

[3] “Working Definition of Antisemitism,” International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, accessed November 4, 2024, https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism.

[4] “Defining Antisemitism,” US Department of State, accessed November 26, 2024, https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/.

Download the Rationale for the Summit on Opposing Antisemitism

Leave a Comment

RoySchwarcz_FindingShalom_BookImg
GET YOUR COPY OF
Where Jesus Walked: A Jewish
Perspective of Israel’s Messiah
ONLY $3.99