The Folly of Weaponizing the Charge of Antisemitism
In Opposition to San Diego City Council Item S500
By Jonathan Graubart
On March 17, Councilmember Stephen Whitburn will call for the passage of Item S500, “Adoption of IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) Definition of Antisemitism.” As a proud Jew who has experienced antisemitism, I wish I could support it. But as a scholar of Zionism and American Jewish dissent, I cannot. Rather than combat antisemitism, S500 will help to weaponize accusations of antisemitism to discredit scrutiny of Israel. It will, hence, impugn and even legally endanger the many principled critics of Israel, especially San Diego’s Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims and the growing number of critical Jewish voices.
The emergence of the IHRA Definition follows a concerted effort this century by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and other establishment Jewish groups to tar advocates for Palestine with the stain of antisemitism. The definition was drafted in 2004 by a European Union monitoring agency on racism (EUMC), guided by Kenneth Stern, then-resident expert on antisemitism for the American Jewish Committee. The intent was to form a standard definition of antisemitism to help track antisemitic incidents in Europe. The EUMC approved a nonbinding “Working Definition” accompanied by eleven examples that “could, taking into account the overall context” constitute antisemitism.
Most problematic were the following three:
· “Denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
· “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
· “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policies to that of the Nazis.”
As pointed out at the time, such examples were too vague and too expansive. Is denying Jewish people the right to self-determination equivalent to opposing a hegemonic Jewish nation-state? Would targeting Israel’s occupation run afoul of the “double standard” language? Aware of these issues, the EUMC’s successor agency dropped the Working Definitionand examples from its web site.
As Israel faced enhanced scrutiny in the 2010s because of its growing extremism, the ADL, which combines monitoring of antisemitism with Israel-advocacy, redoubled its weaponization of the charge of antisemitism. Thus, the ADL and allies searched for a new and ostensibly nonpartisan host for the Working Definition. Along came the IHRA. Formed in 1998 as a Holocaust education organization, it adopted the Working Definition and examples in 2016.
Israel-advocates have now successfully lobbied forty-plus countries, thirty-plus American states, and numerous American cities and universities to adopt what is now known as the IHRA Definition. European governments have invoked the IHRA examples to cancel events and prohibit advocacy of boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) of Israeli institutions. Granted, as supporters of S500 argue, the IHRA document is technically nonbinding and does not overrule rights of free expression. In practice, however, the adoption of the IHRA document has impeded critical discussion. Across multiple universities, which enjoy freedom of expression and academic freedom, the IHRA examples have facilitated denunciations from university officials of critical speakers or events, Title VI complaints of Israel-related speech or conduct, and delays in screening certain films, such as “Israelism.”
Effective censorship is indeed the goal of IHRA advocates. A cosponsor of a Florida IHRA bill proclaimed the intent of its state law to delegitimize critics of Israel. “Students for Justice in Palestine,” he crowed,” is now treated the same way as the Ku Klux Klan.” The most important actor in weaponizing the IHRA is the ADL, the de-facto arbiter of antisemitism for politicians, mainstream media outlets, and university officials. It now labels as antisemitic virtually all anti-Zionism, BDS advocacy, and rallies against Israel’s post-October 7 assault of Gaza. Given the friendliness of Councilmember Whitburn with the ADL, city officials will likely rely on the ADL’s guidance to determine when events run afoul of the IHRA. If S500 is passed, organizers of teach-ins on Palestinian liberation or protests of Israel’s assault on Gaza (regarded as genocidal by leading human rights groups) can expect considerable resistance.
A far better approach is one that both confronts the genuine and growing antisemitism and welcomes robust debate and scrutiny of Israel. Most helpful is the 2021 Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA). Initiated by scholars of antisemitism and related fields, in collaboration with Palestinian scholars, the JDA has been endorsed by nearly four hundred scholars, mostly Jewish. Unlike the IHRA document, it carefully delineates when attacks on Israel or Zionism cross over into antisemitism. The JDA accepts anti-Zionism, BDS advocacy and all evidence-based criticisms, as legitimate on their face. It draws the line at attacks that apply classical antisemitic tropes to Israel, blame Jews as such for Israel’s actions, accuse Jews of dual loyalty, or deny any collective Jewish rights in Israel-Palestine.
Most importantly, the JDA recognizes that the fight against antisemitism is not one of “pro-Israel” vs “pro-Palestine” but part of an “overall fight against all forms of racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, and gender discrimination.” I urge the City Council to choose this solidarity path over the IHRA’s path of divisiveness.
Jonathan Graubart is Professor and Chairperson of the Political Science Department at San Diego State. He is the author of Jewish Self-Determination Beyond Zionism: Lessons From Hannah Arendt and Other Pariahs (Temple University Press).