Why I Helped Write an Alternative
Definition of Antisemitism
Jonathan Jacoby
18 JUNE 15, 2023 | JEWISH EXPONENT
Getty images
M y 95-year-old mother knows a thing or two
about trauma. Not only because she is a
survivor of Auschwitz but also because
she is a psychologist.

“What worries me,” my mother says, “is that we
Jews will succumb to our past trauma rather than
rise above it.”
I share my mother’s concern.

Jewish Americans face the threats of escalat-
ing antisemitism and growing white nationalism
at the same time that the Israeli government’s
anti-democratic policies are eliciting increasingly
harsh condemnation worldwide.

There is no inherent relationship between antisem-
itism and the outcry over Israeli policies. But when
they occur together, they can trigger traumatic
memories and confuse our thinking. This confusion
can lead to a dangerous conflation of issues at the
intersection of Israel and antisemitism.

Prime Minister Netanyahu exploits this confu-
sion to deflect condemnation of his policies. He
constructs a misleading equation, portraying severe
criticism of Israel as not only a threat to the Jewish
state but also to the Jewish people.

To demonize his political opponents, Netanyahu
invokes the ultimate act of antisemitism, the
Holocaust. He did so when he blasted those negoti-
ating a nuclear deal with Iran and when he repri-
manded The New York Times over its criticism of
the agreements he reached with far-right political
parties. His strategy is to downplay antisemitism
on the right and emphatically equate left-wing with
right-wing antisemitism to obscure their distinctions.

Some Jewish organizations, perceiving strong
criticism of Israel as threatening Jewish unity and
the Jewish state, reflexively reinforce that equation.

A case in point is Anti-Defamation League chief
Jonathan Greenblatt’s approach to anti-Zionism.

Greenblatt used his keynote address at ADL’s
annual leadership summit in May to hammer home
his assertion that “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism. Full
stop.” Over the past two weeks, he has played
a leading role in the campaign to endorse the
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance
non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism
as the sole such definition in the Biden administra-
tion’s U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism.

In a tweet urging its adoption, Greenblatt proclaimed:
“Anything else permits antisemitism under the guise
of anti-Zionism.”
Greenblatt was worried about reports that the
White House would include other definitions in
the strategy, such as the Nexus Document, which
addresses “the complexities at the intersection of
Israel and antisemitism.” Greenblatt has repeatedly
denigrated Nexus by calling it a “pasted-up process
organized by activists” and circulating inaccuracies
like: “The Nexus definition assumes that unless there
is outright violence involved, anti-Zionism is gener-
ally not antisemitism.”
In fact, the Nexus Document includes seven
examples of anti-Zionist or anti-Israel behavior that
should be considered antisemitic and four that might
not be. As Dov Waxman, a member of the Nexus Task
Force and chair of Israel Studies at UCLA, tweeted:
“Nexus clearly identifies when criticism of Israel or
opposition to it crosses the line into antisemitism.

But because it is clearer than IHRA in this respect, it
is less susceptible to being misused and weaponized
against Palestinians and their supporters.”
It’s not that Greenblatt doesn’t understand the
complexity of these issues. He has taken nuanced
and moderate positions on anti-Zionism in the past.

But complex formulas impede the use of simplistic
equations. If Greenblatt wants to show that anti-Zion-
ism is always an existential threat to both the Jewish
state and the Jewish people, he can leave no room
for nuance.

Ultimately, the White House acknowledged the
significance of utilizing a varied set of resources to
combat antisemitism, stating, “There are several
definitions of antisemitism, which serve as valuable
tools to raise awareness and increase understanding
of antisemitism.” The strategy acknowledged that
the United States had already “embraced” the IHRA
version, describing it as the “most prominent,” and
went on to say that it “welcomes and appreciates the
Nexus Document” and other efforts.

That formula has angered some supporters of the
IHRA definition, including World Jewish Congress
President Ronald Lauder, who said: “The inclusion of
a secondary definition in addition to the International
Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition
of antisemitism is an unnecessary distraction from
the real work that needs to be done.”
Like Greenblatt, Lauder wants to build a consen-
sus around a simple explanation for a complex
situation. But their approach actually diminishes our
ability to carry out “the real work that needs to be
done” because it weakens our ability to confront
the dominant force fueling increased antisemitism in
America: white supremacy.

According to the ADL, white supremacy is the
See Jacoby, page 19