Anti-Semitism must not be elevated over other racism

A school run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in Al-Shati refugee camp, in western Gaza city, August 2020.

JVL Introduction

The authors of this article, Sue Pentel and Jacob Woolf, are members of Jewish Voice for Just Peace-Ireland

Recent calls have been made for Ireland to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

Here they argue strongly against such a move both because of inherent weaknesses in the IHRA definition and in the face of growing realities on the ground in Israel-Palestine.

They advocate the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism as a constructive alternative, stressing the need to place antisemitism in the context of racism in general.

And they point to the increasing cost in terms of human rights of maintaining Israel as a Jewish – apartheid – state

This article was originally published by The Irish Times on Thu 16 Dec 2021. Read the original here.

Anti-Semitism must not be elevated over other racism

Israel is an apartheid state that curtails, diminishes and denies Palestinians’ rights

There is no doubt that anti-Semitism is real and must be opposed and it is important to document any rise in incidents of it in Ireland and globally.

However, as two Jewish people living in Ireland, we are concerned with recent discussion of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism and whether or not Ireland – which is a member of the IHRA – should adopt it.

It has already been adopted by 34 countries and Ireland’s position according the Minister for Children, Equality and Integration, Roderic O’Gorman, is that while Ireland was “supportive of the definition”, it “did not consider the illustrative examples that followed to be an integral part of the definition”.

The actual IHRA working definition is 38 words long and reads as follows: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

It is at best vague and at worst meaningless, failing to identify anti-Semitism as a form of racism or identifying the actual dangers to Jewish and other racialised groups.

It includes 11 examples which serve to limit discussion of Israel’s violations of human rights, and regards naming Israel a “racist endeavour” and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign as anti-Semitic.

Crucially, the working definition has been widely criticised by over 40 Jewish organisations globally, by Israeli academics and by the definition’s author, Kenneth Stern.

Jerusalem Declaration

Indeed, a group of Jewish and Israeli scholars developed the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism to respond to the IHRA definition, which they deemed to have “caused confusion . . . generated controversy, hence weakening the fight against anti-Semitism”. The Jerusalem Declaration links anti-Semitism and racism, and argues for freedom of expression. It has more than 200 signatories.

The IHRA definition elevates anti-Semitism over other forms of racism, thus isolating victims of anti-Semitism and precluding solidarity between racialised population groups.

In contrast, the Jerusalem Declaration suggests that “Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states . . . and are not . . . anti-Semitism.”

It argues it is not anti-Semitism to criticise Israel, “even if contentious” or “to compare Israel with other historical cases, including settler-colonialism or apartheid”.

This controversy comes in the wake of two substantial reports by Human Rights Watch and by the Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem, both of which detail Israel’s ongoing human rights abuses. The Human Rights Watch report, Apartheid and Persecution, accused Israel of committing crimes against humanity and it calls for international sanctions.

Are these reports anti-Semitism in calling Israeli state policies racist?

The two reports claim that contrary to the way it depicts itself, Israel is not a liberal democracy but rather an apartheid state that curtails, diminishes and denies the rights of the Palestinian people to dignity, freedom and self-determination.

‘Demographic threat’

The reports dismiss Israel’s “security” justification for its actions towards Palestinians as untenable. They argue that Palestinians’ rights are violated not because they pose a security risk to Israel but simply because they are Palestinians, who are not viewed as deserving equality in their own country. Their very existence is seen by Israel as a “demographic threat” to be managed and controlled, inter alia by “Judaising” large tracts of land under the principle of “maximum land with minimum Palestinians”.

According to another B’Tselem report, State Business, the state of Israel is in fact enabling settler violence. The Human Rights Watch report conclusion is stark – Israel is wilfully and systematically implementing a system of governance that instrumentalises gross violations of human rights in the service of racial domination and supremacy.

That Israel is concerned by criticism is evidenced by the minister for defence recently labelling six Palestinian human rights groups, including Defence for Children International Palestine, as “terrorist organisations”.

Israel’s action is preventing these groups from highlighting violence, arrests, house demolitions and the inhuman treatment of the occupied Palestinian population.

Solidarity with Palestinians

The six groups, which support Palestinian prisoners, farmers, women and children, and which advocate for scientific research and human rights, are now facing loss of funding and their staff may face detention and lose their livelihoods. All this is certainly not the workings of a democratic state.

It is no surprise that thousands of Jewish people across the world – including in Israel – are shocked by the price Palestinians are made to pay to enable Israel to exist as a Jewish state and are taking a stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people.

Many of them are young – such as Sahar Vardi from the Refuser Solidarity Network Mesarvot who has served three prison sentences for refusing to enlist in the Israeli military. Sahar is one of a growing number of young Israelis “not willing to take part in Israel’s policies of occupation and apartheid in the Palestinian Territories”.

It is important that the growing number of Jewish people who are determined to stand against apartheid and racism and support Palestine are heard.


Sue Pentel and Jacob Woolf are members of Jewish voice for Just Peace-Ireland

Comments (9)

  • Lesley Finlayson says:

    You know I was called an antisemite at my Labour Party panel interview to stand as a councillor at next years local elections. I was shocked they might as well have called me a racist or bully, I felt awful. So I googled anti-Semitic. Excuse my ignorance I did not know what it meant.
    : feeling or showing hatred of Jewish people” I could have cried, I was so dam angry I cannot wait for my appeal to put those right wing “do dahs” in their place. Why? Because I liked a post by my dear Jewish friend, showed support for Luciana Berger who tweeted that she felt like it was Nazi Germany the way she had been treated by the Labour Party and showed support for Jackie Walker as a woman again treated so badly. Not because they were from the Jewish faith because as a woman I supported fellow women who felt persecuted. I’m a non Jew who reads your Emails every evening. I am so ashamed at how you all feel let alone how you have been treated.

    0
    0
  • Bobbie says:

    Surely, disagreeing with a religion, any religion, doesn’t mean the disagreer ‘hates’ those of the disagreed with a religion? The varied religions of their being auto-disagree with each other being as each proclaim their religion the holiest or the faith that is most populated or is chosen in their scripture as supreme above all faiths. The issue about anti-Semitism and racism anywhere where insult is and maybe delivered and or is received has been highlighted in a recent court case where ‘the right to insult’ is an integral freedom for free speech. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-59727118

    0
    0
  • Richard Snell says:

    This report states very clearly the obvious problems with the IHRA definition of antisemitism. It should be required reading for all those who still believe that Israel is a liberal democracy under attack from those who would destroy it. It should also be required reading for all those who assume that Jews naturally support Israel.
    I am one of the many Jews who has been described as antisemitic – a Jew-hater’ and ‘self-hater’ – because I support Palestine’s right to be free of Israel’s oppressions. The IHRA definition of antisemitism would seem only to confirm this view of myself and those like me as being valid, and therefore unarguable.
    Meanwhile, while we all argue over what is or is not antisemitism, we are diverted away from arguing the issues Israel does not wish us to discuss: the ghettoisation of Gaza, the military presence and the settler movement in the West Bank, the annexation of East Jerusalem, and all the horrific violence being committed on Palestinians in consequence of these.
    It would be a cause of great regret if Ireland, which has been a friend to Palestine, were to adopt the IHRA definition; there are so many parallels between their historical difficulties with the British and the difficulties faced by Palestine today

    0
    0
  • Worry not Lesley to be called an antisemite just means that you have questioned the dictates of Keir Starmer and David Evans. Their tactic is simply to label ANYONE who may not fully agree with them as being antisemitic.
    By the way once you have been accused their IS no appeal. Thats why it is called “the witch hunt”.

    0
    0
  • Stephen Richards says:

    ‘Recent calls have been made for Ireland to adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism’, Made by whom? Speaking as a 72 year old catholic from an Irish Traveller gypsy family I too have problems, not only with the IHRA, but also with Jewish ‘ownership’ of the term ‘Holocaust’. Gypsies have always been rendered invisible, especially by the IHRA. No media references & no memorials, the most persecuted people in history, who, like the Palestinians will be ‘moved on’ or eliminated. It is a self evident truth that Israel is a racist endeavour.

    0
    0
  • Mike Scott says:

    Your support is welcomed, Lesley, but I don’t think you can put Luciana Berger in the same category as Jackie Walker! LB left the Labour Party, crying antisemitism, because she had been criticised for political positions, including by other Jews in her constituency. She is one of those guilty of using the smear of antisemitism to deflect justified blame for other issues.

    Not all criticism of Jews is antisemitic!

    0
    0
  • Margaret West says:

    Lesley’s experience just shows the nature of the witch hunt. The witch finder general goes through all social media of the person under investigation and seizes on anything they see as positive evidence. They ignore any context and anything which may be seen as negative evidence. Have they ever studied science I wonder – or do they think *we* are stupid? I wish you luck in your appeal.

    About the article – I am not surprised that Ireland has refused to accept the IHRA so called definition. The situation there and particularly in Northern Ireland is similar in many particulars to the situation in Israel .

    This is a simplified version of what happened after Irish partition – but Roman Catholics became second class citizens in the North and the Catholic hierarchy in Eire acquired far too much power. As known this culminated in
    1969 with a peaceful march in favour of human rights which was brutally put down. There was bloodshed in the North of Ireland and in this country too – and they are still struggling to find a permanent peaceful solution.

    0
    0
  • Eddie Dougall says:

    I strongly agree with “Anti-Semitism must not be elevated over other racism”, as I’ve never seen the need for a tailored antisemitism law. The UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) covers all forms of racism or discrimination against anyone of any religion/sect/colour/ethnic group/gender etc. There has been no clamour, for example, for a law to specifically priotect ,against Islamophobic behaviour. The UHDR covers it all, the real need is to take action when it is recognised, something the Tory party has failed to about their deep-seated racism as highlighted by Baroness Warsi.

    0
    0
  • Kuhnberg says:

    The Holocaust exists in the imagination of the public as a unique horror that is at the same time emblematic of all the evil that human beings are capable of in the service of an ideology. Consequently it does not belong to the Jewish people alone but to the whole of mankind. Similarly the responsibility for the Holocaust doesn’t reside solely with the German people but with everyone of every nationality. Those who refuse to recognize these truths are doomed sooner or later to reenact the Holocaust in their own habitat. That is what it means to learn from the past: we have to treat our neighbors with compassion, whether they are Jews or Palestinians or anyone else. As often before I turn to William Blake for understanding:

    “A Robin Red breast in a Cage
    Puts all Heaven in a Rage
    A Dove house filld with Doves & Pigeons
    Shudders Hell thr’ all its regions
    A dog starvd at his Masters Gate
    Predicts the ruin of the State
    A Horse misusd upon the Road
    Calls to Heaven for Human blood”

    0
    0

Comments are now closed.