Why are they so afraid of debate about antisemitism?

JVL Introduction

The media and the Jewish Communal institutions – those which are so keen to speak in our name at the drop of a hat –  seem to have opted for radio silence on the issue of the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism.

Since its publication on 25th March mainstream media have simply blanked the Declaration. Where the editorial in the Guardian welcoming this development? Or explaining why it isn’t needed? Or even the Jonathan Freedland op-ed wringing of hands?

Where are the Times, the Telegraph or the BBC simply doing their job of reporting the news? After all, it is not every day that over 300 [originally 200 but many more have now signed] world-renowned scholars of Jewish affairs agree on anything in particular, let alone on the challenging statement embodied in the JDA.

And where have our communal institutions gone? Normally trigger-happy to go to war at the drop of a suspected trope.

Where is the “Jewish community” understood proudly as open-minded, argumentative, “two-Jews-three-opinions”? Where is it being given a voice by those who claim to represent it?

Instead, stepping forward into the limelight is the Janus-face of the Jewish community, the one that gazes worshipfully on an Israel-right-or-wrong, the one that is intolerant of debate and disagreement, casts out the “wrong kind” of Jews, believes that a Jewish future in Britain is under existential threat.

Gatekeepers, preserving the silence …

One small breach in the wall: the Jewish Chronicle spoke out loud when it published an article by Dave Rich asserting that We don’t need another definition of Jew hate. Spoke up, then slammed the door shut…

Tony Klug thought the JC might want to initiate a discussion, might even welcome a response. Fat chance!

His short, reasoned letter was turned down and we are pleased to post it here.

RK

Tony Klug writes

Dave Rich slates the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) while lauding the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition. Yet the JDA, more than a year in the making and now endorsed by over 300 international scholars of antisemitism and related studies, was only devised because of the damage wreaked by the ill-thought-out IHRA definition.

The IHRA language is so labyrinthine that it befuddles more than it clarifies. It defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”. Why not just say it is hatred towards Jews (or hatred of Jews)? That would at least be clear. But it would be no less inadequate, as so much of modern-day antisemitism, outside of the far right, is not expressed as “hatred”. It is more often disdain, resentment, aloofness, suspicion, prejudice, aggression, expressed as a trope, a stereotype, a sneer, a joke, an image, a wink or some other gesture or action.

Dr Rich says the JDA definition of antisemitism as “discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)” risks missing all but the most overt cases. But this criticism would be better directed against the IHRA definition. The case he cites of the Hungarian government’s campaign against George Soros — it “never mentions the fact Soros is Jewish but it derives its resonance and force from the use of antisemitic language” — would be missed altogether by the IHRA definition’s narrow focus on hatred, while “prejudice” and “discrimination” would place it well within the JDA’s orbit.

The second part of the IHRA’s convoluted definition states: “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.” So non-Jewish individuals are apparently on a par with Jewish individuals when it comes to antisemitic manifestations! How illuminating.

If the aim of the IHRA definition was clarity, as it claims, and the forging of a wide consensus, it has failed in these most basic of tasks. Its core definition is at best indistinct and its “examples” and the interpretations given to some of them have proven deeply divisive and detrimental. The struggle against antisemitism is vital and would be better served by advancing a more coherent definition and set of examples, if not as a full replacement then at least as a corrective amendment to the corrosive IHRA effort.