Revisiting the IHRA definition of antisemitism

JVL introduction to a new article on the IHRA definition

Jan Deckers and Jonathan Coulter have just published an interesting article in the prestigious philosophy journal Res Publica, under the title “What Is Wrong with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Definition of Antisemitism?” It covers ground with which our readers are already familiar but goes into greater depth on certain points and contains a wealth of useful reference material. We recommend reading it – it is available here.

Deckers and Coulter find considerable imprecision and muddled reasoning in the “working definition” and its associated “examples”, and argue that it lends itself to political goals unrelated to tackling antisemitism – notably fostering self-censorship and silencing legitimate criticism of Israel. Indeed, they cite a whole raft of cases that demonstrate how pro-Israel advocates are making this happen, in the UK and across the western world.

They take a close look at the website of the Campaign against Antisemitism (CAA), the entity whose charitable status JVL is currently challenging, and show how it is using the IHRA examples to take scalps, i.e. to publicly condemn and demand action against people who legitimately query Israel’s role in Palestine and the world.  They particularly note how CAA is exploiting an ambiguity in the second of the IHRA examples where it refers to statements about “the power of Jews as collective”. The IHRA document does not make clear what it means by “collective”. Does it mean all, or nearly all Jews, in which case such statements may well be motivated by antisemitism? Or is it referring to organisations like AIPAC, the UK’s Jewish Board of Deputies (BoD) or Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), that represent many, but far from all, Jews, and which undoubtedly exercise great power on behalf of the state of Israel?

The CAA has no hesitation in opting for the latter interpretation as a catch-all to condemn critics of Israel as “antisemitic”. The authors analysed CAA’s pages for 19 Labour Party figures and ordinary members and found it was condemning all of them on this pretext. They conclude that CAA and similar organisations are instrumentalising the IHRA document in a circular manner, to attack and defame those who dare to discuss the power that they themselves exercise in a highly questionable manner.

The authors also consider alternatives to the IHRA definition, concluding that the Jerusalem Declaration may play a useful role in illustrating the shortcomings of the IHRA definition. However, beyond that, they question the efficacy of using lengthy definitions to combat racism against Jews or other groups, and instead advocate combatting it through collective action across societies.

You can read Deckers and Coulter’s article here.

Comments (2)

  • Stephen Richards says:

    How quickly the IHRA definition was adopted by every powerful institution in the ‘Western Alliance’. Government agencies (local & national); Educational establishments; the Judiciary & the Executive, as well as each & every Mainstream Media Organisation, adopted the questionable definition immediately, without question. A very useful stick to eliminate ‘Socialism’ from politics once & for all. (see Ephraim Mirvis AIPAC).
    There has always been one self evident issue in the EHRC’s endorsement of the IHRA definition & that is the role played by Doughty Street Chambers & especially Adam Wagner, an independent representative of CAA & EHRC at the same time?

    0
    0
  • Stephen Richards, you are right about the way in which this definition was adopted by powerful institutions in the ‘Western Alliance’, and that it was a useful stick to knock out JC’s socialist programme. However, it was a stick that could be used against any politician, socialist or otherwise, who raised their head in favour of the Palestinians. You only had to see the way the Israel lobby moved to discredit Jenny Tonge and David Ward in the Lib Dems, or to stop Sir Alan Duncan from reaching an office that could affect their interests.
    There have been other cases in British history when would-be reformers have faced powerful capitalist interests, but this has not always resulted in the level of uniform kowtowing that your describe. Ultimately, we need to treat this as a massive moral failure on the part of the British people; see http://www.campain.org.

    0
    0

Comments are now closed.