{"id":4272,"date":"2024-05-24T14:59:43","date_gmt":"2024-05-24T18:59:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionqanda\/?p=4272"},"modified":"2024-05-24T14:59:43","modified_gmt":"2024-05-24T18:59:43","slug":"how-should-antisemitism-be-defined","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/religionqanda\/2024\/05\/how-should-antisemitism-be-defined\/","title":{"rendered":"How should antisemitism be defined?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>
<\/a>
Pro-Palestinian Protest: Does this count? \/ TIMO @ pexels.com<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>
THE RELIGION GUY\u2019S ANSWER:<\/p>\n
The Antisemitism Awareness Act that passed the U.S. House by a 320\u201391 vote this month is stalled in the Senate as of this writing. The bipartisan bill is a rapid response to increasing and alarming harassment against minority Jews at colleges and K-12 schools. It says the Department of Education \u201cshall\u201d investigate whether incidents with \u201cantisemitic intent\u201d at a school warrant denial of federal \u00a0funding under anti-discrimination law.<\/p>\n
This legislation reflects the broader dispute over how to define antisemitism, which has intensified since the October 7 Hamas attack and Israel\u2019s Gaza invasion. To start, a typical basic definition is this from Brittanica.com: \u201chostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group.\u201d<\/p>\n
The House bill sets as the legal standard a 2016 \u201cworking definition\u201d from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), promoted by the World Jewish Congress, and cited in President Donald Trump\u2019s 2019 executive order on the problem: \u201cAntisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
That wording is endorsed by 43 nations, including the U.S., though none in the Mideast except Israel, and by many civic organizations. The definition itself is not in question, but controversy stems from IHRA\u2019s accompanying \u201cexamples\u201d to specify how those generalized words apply.<\/p>\n
Targeting Israel<\/h3>\n
You should study the full text (see link below). But among other things, it says violations \u201cmight include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.\u201d So the problem is \u201cdouble standards\u201d that require behavior by Israel not demanded of other nations. Another key example is \u201cdenying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g<\/em>., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the House vote, 70 Democrats opposed the bill, among them Jerry Nadler of New York, who said he\u2019s a \u201cdeeply committed Zionist who firmly believes in Israel\u2019s right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people.\u201d But he considers the bill \u201cmisguided\u201d because IHRA\u2019s \u201cexamples may include protected speech, in some contexts, particularly with respect to criticism of the State of Israel.\u201d Other liberals and the American Civil Liberties Union agree.<\/p>\n
The most intriguing opposition comes in a petition endorsed to date by 1,307 Jewish college professors who insist that \u201ccriticism of the state of Israel, the Israeli government, policies of the Israeli government, or Zionist ideology is not \u2013 in and of itself \u2013 antisemitic.\u201d This ad hoc group contends that putting the IHRA definition into federal law would \u201cdelegitimize and silence Jewish Americans \u2013 among others \u2013 who advocate for Palestinian human rights or otherwise criticize Israeli policies.\u201d<\/p>\n
Instead, the scholars say, U.S. leaders should support Jews and others who want unrestricted freedom to assail Israeli policies. They recommend the depictions of antisemitism in two 2021 statements that were critical of the IHRA approach. The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism was initiated by 210 Jewish and Gentile experts on the Mideast who met in that city. The Nexus Document was developed by a task force now affiliated with Bard College.<\/p>\n