JVL statement on the Jerusalem Declaration of Antisemitism (JDA)
Jewish Voice for Labour views the publication of the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism as a welcome development in a significantly hostile context. The JDA challenges the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism on its own politically restricted terms.
The IHRA working definition has been used as a blunt political instrument to suppress dissent. The JDA, designed as an alternative to it, offers those individuals and institutions that feel the need for a definition of antisemitism a formulation that is fit for purpose, and guidelines for its use.
Jewish Voice for Labour applauds the JDA’s recognition of antisemitism as a form of racism – racism towards Jews – and agree with its definition that:
Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).
The need to reiterate and emphasise this basic meaning has arisen precisely because of the IHRA definition’s attempt to move the focus away from attitudes and behaviour towards Jews, onto attitudes towards Israel.
Many will feel, given that threats of a growing antisemitism come overwhelmingly from white supremacists and the far right, that the interpretive guidelines offered by the JDA focus unduly on Israel/Palestine. But given the stronghold established by the IHRA definition in many UK institutions, the possibilities of political change offered by the JDA, of challenging the IHRA on its own terrain, are welcome. Partisans have deployed the IHRA definition to obstruct discussion and debate on Israel/Palestine. The JDA re-legitimises this dialogue, and so has the potential to tip the balance in the ongoing struggles for free speech, especially in universities.
There is some controversy over the detailed Guidelines and FAQs which form part of the Declaration. We acknowledge and concur with Palestinian disquiet, expressed by both the Boycott National Committee and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, that Palestinian voices were neither included in nor consulted by the working group. We understand too, that there are issues associated with the title of the Declaration itself.
However we note that those reservations are expressed within the context of a recognition of what the JDA does provide sanction for: support for the nonviolent BDS movement and its tactics; criticism of or opposition to Zionism; condemnation of Israel’s settler-colonialism; description of its system as characterised by apartheid, and much more besides. The JDA does not enter into discussion of these issues, of such vital importance to the Palestinian struggle. Its remit is different: it may help facilitate the separation of the battle for Palestinian rights from the struggle against antisemitism.
We hope that the widespread dissemination of the JDA will encourage nuanced discussion on the topics both of antisemitism and of Israel and Palestine, leading to the possibility of genuine education on these issues. We look forward to a situation where the complexities of antisemitism can be teased out without anyone who puts a syllable wrong being instantly pilloried, suspended or suppressed. The priority is for those who unwittingly stray into prejudiced expressions – about Jews or anyone else – to be educated rather than cast out.
We will advocate the deployment of the JDA, in universities, the Labour and other political parties, local authorities and other institutions so as to move away from the distortions of the IHRA definition. We aim to use the JDA to engage also in the practical work of understanding, combatting and forming a united movement against a rising tide of antisemitism, coming from the far right – an antisemitism that actually displays discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews.
A considered response to the JDA by JVL which I endorse. Are the authors of the JDA willing to consider any amendments to the declaration?
[JVL web comments: We haven’t asked, but guarantee not! To get 5 people to agree a statement is hard enough. Over two hundred eminentJewish academics have been willing to put their names to this Declaration – a pesach miracle if ever there was one!]
addendum: There may be a chance, we are not clear how big a chance, of additions to the FAQs
The IHRA definition was originally an attempt to tackle a thorny problem that owes its predominance in International discourse to the facts of the holocaust and the creation of Israel. The eagerness with which it been embraced by pro-Zionist groups testifies to its main failing, its tendency to serve as an apology for Jewish supremacism and a means of deflecting criticism of Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights. The JDA may be to some extent an improvement, but it still begs the question as to why any definition is needed other than the most obvious. Racism is racism, whoever the perpetrators or the victims; criticism of Israel and Zionism is not the same as antisemitism: these facts are so obvious one should not need to point them out. Many minorities suffer from prejudice, and we don’t seem to need a definition for each and every one.
The fact above all that must be stressed is that there should be no hierarchy of racism. Someone should point this out to whoever in the Labour leadership stated that motions in defense of Jeremy Corbyn cannot be discussed in case they make members uncomfortable – ‘in particular our Jewish members.’ This statement is so antithetical to everything the Labour Party is meant to stand for that it should gave been roundly condemned by every political party and every media outlet. Instead it passes without comment. George Orwell had this mindset in his sights when he showed the pigs in Animal Farm amending the statement ‘All animals are equal’ to : ‘All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.’ To claim that certain members should be given protections not afforded to any other group is both absurd and damaging to the spirit of party unity and inclusiveness. It could never have been stated as official Labour policy while Jeremy Corbyn was leader.
I asked the question for a simple reason. It is important to have one alternative definition to the IHRA definition that we can all get behind. That doesn’t mean that we have to agree with it’s every word. We can’t afford to let any nuanced differences to get in the way of providing an alternative to the divisive anti Palestinian IHRA definition.
This is welcome news . We needed an alternative to the IHRA and (those reservations accepted) let’s get behind it . There is such an attack on anti Zionism these days we need a United front and a strong definition of Anti Semitism that can equal the prominence of the IHRA
The political reality is that there HAS to be an alternative to the IHRA definition regardless of what relatrively minor criticisms we have of it. We should be urging this be accepted by branches, Trades Unions and the Labour Party nationally. The reality is this: most active politicians don’t understand this issue because they are playing political tennis responding to many orther challenges. What they DO understand is the pro-Israel lobby and the need to avoid being called an ‘antisemite’. So they go quiet and just accept the IHRA definition. If this can be pushed in the LP by a BROAD COALOITION of forces and take the initiative, then we may slay two birds with one stone. Challenge the Right Wing and provide a weapon to progressives who can use it to make change in the Middle East by supporting Palestinians.