O pinion
Anti-Semitism, by Definition
BY MARTIN J. RAFFEL
IN RECENT WEEKS, a
robust debate has surfaced yet
again around the definition of
anti-Semitism, particularly as
it relates to Israel and Zionism.

A clear definition can guide
government bodies, universities
and other civil society institu-
tions in determining whether
discourse is acceptable or
beyond the pale.

Most major Jewish organi-
zations strongly encourage
use of the working definition
of anti-Semitism developed
through the International
Holocaust Remembrance
Alliance, which has become
the authoritative formulation
widely accepted around the
world. (It is worth noting that
one of the definition’s principal
authors, Kenneth Stern, director
of the Bard Center for the Study
of Hate, insists that the IHRA
definition was never intended
to guide policymakers, but
simply to be used as a vehicle to
assist in data collection.)
The IHRA and two new
definitions grapple with the
same questions. Where is the
line between criticism of Israel
because of its policies and
efforts to delegitimize Israel as
the Jewish state? Is it anti-Se-
mitic to hold Israel to a higher
standard of conduct than other
nations? The following is a brief
comparative analysis:
IHRA: This definition holds
that it is anti-Semitic to “target”
the state of Israel, “conceived
as a Jewish collectivity,” which
simply means one cannot
oppose Israel simply because
it is the nation state of the
Jewish people. This language
is further clarified when the
IHRA provides examples of
anti-Semitic rhetoric, such as
“denying the Jewish people
their right to self-determina-
tion, e.g., by claiming that the
existence of a State of Israel
is a racist endeavor.” By that
definition, the infamous 1975
UN General Assembly resolu-
tion equating Zionism with
racism, which was subsequently
revoked, would be regarded by
the IHRA as anti-Semitic.

Another IHRA example of
anti-Semitism is applying a
double standard to Israel, i.e.,
by “requiring of Israel behavior
not expected or demanded of
any other democratic nation.”
Nexus: This definition, a
project of the Knight Program
on Media and Religion at
the Annenberg School of
Communication and Journalism
at USC, uses different language,
but it reaches the same conclu-
sion, that it is anti-Semitic to
delegitimize Israel not by what
it does, but rather by what it
is — a state that fulfills the
Jewish people’s right of national
self-determination. Unlike the IHRA, Nexus
carves out two useful excep-
tions to this principle: If one
opposes the right of all peoples
to national self-determination,
as a matter of principle, then
opposition to Israel as a Jewish
state would not be considered
anti-Semitic. Nor would it be
anti-Semitic, referring implic-
itly to the Palestinians, if your
“personal or national experi-
ence may have been adversely
affected” by the creation of
Israel. Giving the Palestinians
a pass, in my judgment, is
appropriate — even as I hope
that, over time, they will
come to accept Jewish nation-
alism as not inconsistent with
Palestinian self-determination
and statehood.

Applying a higher standard
of conduct to Israel, according
to Nexus, would not “prima
facie” be proof of anti-Semitism.

As Nexus correctly observes,
some people, American Jews for
example, may simply care more
about Israel than they do other
countries, and expect more, as
well. So, they hold the Jewish
state to a higher standard not out
of malice, but rather to advocate
for policies that align with their
aspirations and values.

Jerusalem Declaration on
Antisemitism: This defini-
tion, proposed by more than
200 American, Israeli and
international scholars, takes a
significantly different — and
unhelpful — approach with
respect to Jewish national self-de-
termination (i.e., Zionism).

While JDA affirms equal
rights for Jews in Israel/
Palestine, it does not consider
criticism or opposition to
Zionism “as a form of nation-
alism” anti-Semitic. Nor would
it be anti-Semitic to support
“two states, a binational state,
unitary democratic state or any
other constitutional form in the
area between the Jordan River
and Mediterranean Sea.” Some
of these “forms” inevitably
would result in the dissolution
of Israel as a Jewish state.

Conversely, JDA seems
more generous when it comes
to Palestinian nationalism by
supporting the “Palestinian
demand for justice and the full
grant of their political, national,
civil and human rights, as encap-
sulated in international law.”
However, there are some
positive aspects to the JDA
definition. For example, it
reminds us that boycotts can be
legitimate nonviolent forms of
political protest. While unfair
and counterproductive when
used against Israel, they are,
nevertheless, not anti-Semitic
in and of themselves.

That said, the JDA does
not address whether the BDS
(boycott, divestment and
sanctions) movement founded
by Omar Barghouti should be
considered anti-Semitic. I am
of the opinion that it should,
because the BDS movement’s
aim — sometimes implicit and
other times explicit — is the end
of Israel as the Jewish state. Yet
I agree with JDA’s observation
that “excessive or contentious”
criticism is not, in and of itself,
anti-Semitic. A fear expressed by propo-
nents of the IHRA, which I
share, is that multiple defini-
tions may confuse government
and civil society decision-
makers. This potential problem
can be mitigated, somewhat,
if the IHRA is framed as the
consensus definition, which
remains subject to enhancement
with supplemental material.

Defining anti-Semitism is
important. Yet, we ought not
lose sight of an even more
urgent task, namely, the devel-
opment of effective measures
to attack its most virulent
manifestations, especially the
rising tide of violent right-wing
extremism. That is the greatest
threat today to the security of
American Jews. l
Martin J. Raffel, a resident of
Langhorne, is former senior vice
president of the Jewish Council for
Public Affairs.

My Father’s Lesson: Jews Must Value Labor Even When
They Become Management
BY RABBI RACHEL TIMONER
EARLIER THIS YEAR, when
my father was in the last weeks
of his life, he told us a story that
none of us knew or remem-
bered. In the 1960s, when
he was running a regional
roofing company in Florida
that became a multistate,
14 APRIL 22, 2021
multimillion-dollar conglom-
erate, he saw that his unions
were weaker because they were
racially segregated.

“It didn’t make any sense,”
he told us. “These guys would
have been stronger if they
worked together.”
So he went to the head of the
Black union and then the head
JEWISH EXPONENT
of the white union and told
them they needed to integrate.

And they did, he said, making
his company the first in its
industry and in the South with
an integrated union.

Some unions were integrated
in the late 19th century, so I
have no idea if my dad’s story
was really a first in his industry.

But what I do know is that as
a business leader in Miami 60
years ago, my Jewish father was a
staunch supporter of labor unions
— even though he was manage-
ment, not labor. Throughout his
business career, which included
founding an airline in the 1970s,
See Timoner, Page 22
JEWISHEXPONENT.COM