A success in the campaign against the IHRA definition in the US
JVL Introduction
On 8th February the Jewish News Syndicate reported sadly that the American Bar Association, a law-school accreditor, had “voted to pass on the IHRA definition”.
This was in response to a massive campaign against adoption of the definition organised by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Peace Now, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Foundation for Middle East Peace, and Palestine Legal, along with 37 other organisations.
Their arguments – that the IHRA definition has been continually instrumentalized to delegitimize critics and criticism of Israel and its policies, as well as suppress voices and activism in support for Palestinian rights – clearly found favour.
Concerns that the adoption of the IHRA definition by the ABA would undermine fundamental rights of free speech, freedom of assembly and protest, and academic freedom prevailed.
This article was originally published by National Lawyers Guild on Mon 30 Jan 2023. Read the original here.
National Lawyers Guild Issues letter to co-sponsors of ABA Resolution 514 on Antisemitism
On January 18, the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) joined more than 40 organizations in expressing strong opposition to ABA resolution 514 and its call to employ the discredited and malicious International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.
The letter, co-written by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Peace Now, Center for Constitutional Rights, Foundation for Middle East Peace, and Palestine Legal, notes that “the clear objective behind the promotion of the IHRA definition is the suppression of non-violent protest, activism, and criticism of Israel and/or Zionism – a fact that is so well-documented as to be beyond reasonable dispute.”
On January 30, NLG issued a supplemental letter to the Co-Sponsors of resolution 514, elaborating that the resolution “could have drastic consequences on the legal profession, in that it would greatly affect education at law firms, legal organizations and law schools across the country, chilling anti-racist speech.”
The letter reiterates the importance of fighting antisemitism, but points out that the proposed resolution “would provide no new protections for Jewish people who are subjected to hatred or discrimination.” NLG further urges advocates to consider “the true source of the current resurgence of hateful and often violent antisemitism: white supremacist groups,” and to act in solidarity with Palestinian as well as Jewish liberation. ABA resolution 514 achieves neither goal.
Read the full supplemental letter below. NLG urges all members and allies to share this letter with ABA delegates and members to tell them to vote NO on resolution 514.
This letter was written by the NLG Palestine Subcommittee of the International Committee.
More resources on resolution 514 and the IHRA definition of antisemitism:
- Palestine Legal statement and supplemental letter with the Center for Constitutional Rights
- Palestine Legal webpage on the distorted definition of antisemitism
- Palestine Legal and Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) “2-pager” on the consequences of the IHRA definition of antisemitism
Here is the full text of the original letter
18 January 2023
Dear Co-Sponsors of Proposed American Bar Association Resolution 514 on Antisemitism,
We write to convey our strong objection to the reference to the “International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism” in proposed ABA resolution 514 (Resolution 514). We urge you to remove all mentions of the IHRA definition from ABA Resolution 514.
With antisemitism surging in the United States and in countries around the globe, we agree with the co-sponsors of proposed Resolution 514 that the ABA – as a leading organization devoted to, among other things, justice and human rights – can and should be involved in fighting antisemitism. There are many constructive forms such involvement could take; embracing the IHRA definition of antisemitism is emphatically not among them.
Ongoing efforts to codify the IHRA definition into law and policy, including at the ABA, are invariably framed as efforts to fight antisemitism. Yet, the clear objective behind the promotion of the IHRA definition is the suppression of non-violent protest, activism, and criticism of Israel and/or Zionism – a fact that is so well-documented as to be beyond reasonable dispute. The IHRA definition has been instrumentalized, again and again, to delegitimize critics and criticism of Israel and its policies, and to suppress voices and activism in support for Palestinian rights. The most common targets of IHRA-based attacks have been university students, professors, and grassroots organizers over their speech and activism on Israel/Palestine; IHRA has likewise been used to disparage (among others) human rights and civil rights organizations, humanitarian groups, and members of Congress for documenting or criticizing Israeli policies or speaking out about Palestinian rights.
Indeed, regardless of the original intent of its drafters, in practice the IHRA definition has been used consistently (and nearly exclusively) not to fight antisemitism, but rather to defend Israel and harm Palestinians – at the cost of undermining and dangerously chilling fundamental rights of free speech, freedom of assembly and protest, and academic freedom. Any embrace of the IHRA definition by the ABA would legitimize and encourage this undermining of core democratic rights. Equally, extending its own credibility to the IHRA definition would implicate the ABA in ongoing efforts to pressure states and the federal government to adopt and enforce the IHRA definition, and the violations of basic democratic rights that have been at the center of its application, both as a matter of policy and of law.
To be clear: while its champions present the IHRA definition as a “consensus” and “non- controversial” definition, nothing could be further from the truth. The IHRA definition has been challenged, vigorously, by hundreds of antisemitism experts, rabbis, and scholars of Jewish studies, Jewish history, and the Holocaust, by Palestinians who have borne the brunt of its application, as well as by experts on fighting racism and free speech. These experts – who include Kenneth Stern, the original lead drafter of the definition – have published hundreds of reports and articles articulating their concerns and objections. They have given speeches at countless think tanks, universities, synagogues, and international forums. They have presented testimony before Congress, and even before the ABA in connection with this resolution. Concern about either the misuse of, and/or the plain text of, the IHRA definition among Jewish scholars is so acute that it has given rise (so far) to two mainstream, independent projects aimed at developing alternative definitions.
Just as we believe the ABA should be involved in fighting antisemitism, we believe the ABA – consistent with its commitment to the rule of law, the legal process, holding governments accountable under law, human rights, and justice – has an important role to play in conveying concerns about Israel and its policies.
With that in mind, we are concerned that the reference to the IHRA definition in the ABA resolution would undermine the ABA’s own ability to engage on key issues related to Palestinian rights, including in support of human rights defenders who are increasingly under attack.
For all of these reasons, we urge you to remove all mentions of the IHRA definition from proposed ABA Resolution 514.
Sincerely,
American Civil Liberties Union Americans for Peace Now
Center for Constitutional Rights Foundation for Middle East Peace Palestine Legal
Joined by:
Adalah Justice Project
American Humanist Association
American Muslim Bar Association
American Muslims for Palestine (AMP)
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)
Americans for Justice in Palestine Action (AJP Action)
Anethum Global
Arab American Institute
Asian Law Caucus
Boston University International Human Rights Clinic
Center for Security, Race and Rights
Coalition for an Ethical Psychology
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
Defending Rights & Dissent
Diaspora Alliance
Human Rights Clinic, Inter-American University of Puerto Rico School of Law Human Rights First
ICNA Council for Social Justice
Indiana Center for Middle East Peace, Inc.
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Jewish Voice for Peace
Minnesotans Against Islamophobia
MN BDS Community
Muslim Advocates
NAACP Rutland VT
National Arab American Women’s Association (NAAWA)
National Lawyers Guild
Northfielders for Justice in Palestine/Israel
Project South
Promise Institute for Human Rights at UCLA Law
The Civil Liberties Defense Center
The Legal Resources Centre (South Africa)
Twin Cities Assange Defense
University Network for Human Rights
US Campaign for Palestinian Rights
Women Against Military Madness
Women’s All Points Bulletin (WAPB)
We should bombard Keir Starmer with copies of this article.
‘Rah, ‘rah, ‘rah.
See Sqwaukbox
Can JVL please contact BBC and answer the basic point that the Jewish Community who support JC or are anti Zionist are a tiny minority, so they never again fail to challenge the AS Scammers
Challenge Smeeth to come on Newsnight and debate the AS Scam and the Apartheid Jewish State
Just as i bang on about giving those who are responsible for the AS Scam a name, you have to also set in stone the facts and the numbers
P.S. Round them up
Doug I can assure you that JVL is contacting the BBC asking for right of reply….we were interviews on the Wednesday morning on Radio Scotland but that was before the attacks on us….we will keep trying.
That is a terrific list of signatories to a very good letter.
In Britain the first organised opposition to the adoption of the IHRA Definition was sponsored by Jews for Justice for Palestinians, PSC, Jewish Voice for Labour and Independent Jewish Voices. We jointly paid for counsel’s opinion which was duly delivered by Hugh Tomlinson KC (yes, he of Hacked Off and Rebecca Vardi fame, among many others!) who produced a brilliant, excoriating dismantling of a document the inadequacy of whose politics is only exceeded by the poverty and incompetence of its English language.
When we received the opinion, we thought ‘job done!’ We sent it out to all those organisations we expected to be put under pressure to sign up to the Definition, certain in our belief that no university or local authority or, or, or. . . would even contemplate adopting such an illiterate and repressive set of standards. We couldn’t have been more wrong, as local council after local council, uni after uni, fell into line – which was a good lesson in learning that poor quality and incompetence are no guarantee of rejection. Important for those of us who live in the realm of rationality, justice, human rights etc.
So kudos to those 40 organisation for this terrific success, and to the American Bar Association for hanging on to its intellectual and professional integrity.
Most impressive . The IHRA definition is both spurious and disingenuous and is used primarily to silence criticism of Israel despite its cruel and abusive treatment of the Palestinians . Well done to all involved in this momentous action.
Antisemitism is really very simple to describe, in its conventionally accepted form. It is prejudice against Jews just for being Jewish. It is racialism.
A broader definition could be prejudice against people of Semitic decent, in which case Israelis are the ultimate antisemites, being prejudiced against Palestinians. Racialism is just very, very sick, whoever practices it.
Excellent article. Bravo to the ABA for taking a strong stand against the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
In Canada, and in particular Ontario, proponents of the IHRA are effectively lobbying the Ontario provincial government, opposition political parties, municipal governments and school boards to embrace the IHRA definition.
The Zionist lobby is extremely strong in Ontario. Suggestions and ideas as to how to reverse this attack on free speech and academic freedom would be welcolm.
Thank you Malcolm. One thing I would recommend is to support the work of IJV Canada which has done and continues to do a lot fo work challenging the IHRA and much more in support of Palestinians and education on antisemitism.
Good news, indeed. Now, watch the accusations of anti-Semitism fall, in number.
Sadly, there is no mention of The JDA. It would be helpful if the ABA made some positive noises about The Declaration, in a comparison with the IHRA.
The sooner that conversation starts, the better. Then the IHRA can start to gather dust on a shelf, where it belongs.
Could it be be that if there has been a rise in anti-semitism it is because the Israeli lobby claims to represent all Jews and therefore its actions are representative of all Jews? Israel is not just an apartheid State, it is a violently apartheid State intent on social cleansing and completing the Nakba. Violence begets violence.
Concerning Ruth Smeeths comments (see
video clip from Skwawkie ) ..
These make no sense – for she is more or less
saying that if you are a minority it is lawful
to persecute you! It is totally against laws
involving freedom of belief surely? For example
Haredi Orthodox Jews are opposed to Zionism
as part of their Jewish faith.
I think the BBC owe it to the Jewish Community to
present a program which presents the other side.
They are very good at this when they’ve a mind to
– a good example being the documentary about the
Murdochs.
Naomi Wayne makes a key point when she says ‘poor quality and incompetence are no guarantee of rejection’ She could have added ‘ blatant falsehoods and demonstrable factual errors.’ How to combat these is the problem and the National Lawyers Guild letter illustrates what we should be doing much more in Britain not only in relation to the IHRA so-called definition but by challenging baseless claims of antisemitism against those who merely seek to expose and criticise the violation of human rights by a nation state. JVL is doing its best but UK organisations like those who signed the Lawyers Guild letter must also be encouraged add their weight .