A new definition of anti-Semitism

Two men point to the destroyed graves in December 2019 at the Westhoffen Jewish Cemetery near Strasbourg, France. Patrick HERTZOG / AFP

Anti-Semitism is a continual insult and danger to Jews.

In recent times, Europe has been the scene of far too many anti-Semitic incidents, ranging from toxic conspiracy theories on social media and verbal attacks, to horrific terrorist attacks.

The damage they cause is not limited to Jews and Jewish institutions: anti-Semitism threatens and harms the entire society.

In response to this disturbing trend, the European Union and its Member States have redoubled their efforts to combat anti-Semitism.

The European Commission has appointed a "coordinator for the fight against anti-Semitism", created a specific working group to support Member States, and by the end of the year will present a "wide-ranging" European strategy to tackle anti-Semitism. .

All of them are commendable initiatives.

• The perfect storm of anti-Semitism

Another of the cornerstones of the EU's political response has been to embrace the “practical definition of anti-Semitism” of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), an intergovernmental organization made up of 34 countries, mostly European.

This definition, developed as early as 2005, was adopted by the IHRA in May 2016. Since then it has been known as the “practical definition of anti-Semitism”, or “the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism”.

The European Union has well-intentioned endorsement of this definition, with the aim of introducing a clear and uniform criterion for the collection and classification of data on anti-Semitic acts, and providing a universal guidance tool for educational and training purposes.

However, when applied, the IHRA definition has become a source of confusion and discord.

The cause lies in the 11 accompanying “contemporary examples of anti-Semitism”, 7 of which have to do with Israel.

In practice, these examples are used abusively to delegitimize people or groups critical of Israel or Zionism, branding them as anti-Semitic.

This has a chilling effect on freedom of speech and academic freedom, and diverts attention from the pressing danger of far-right anti-Semitism.

Unfortunately, instead of bringing people together to combat anti-Semitism, the IHRA's definition has become deeply divisive.

In this context, a group of academics from around the world met in 2020 under the auspices of the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem to critically evaluate the IHRA definition and attempt to clarify aspects of it that cause confusion and concern.

The result of these discussions, developed over a year of workshops and meetings, is a clearer, more coherent and politically neutral definition of anti-Semitism, released today: the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism (JDA). ).

The JDA is supported by more than 200 specialists in anti-Semitism and related fields.

Among them are the directors of the leading institutes in Europe, the United States, and Israel.

It consists of a preamble, the definition itself, and a set of 15 practical guidelines.

Unlike the IHRA definition, the preamble invokes universal principles and links the fight against anti-Semitism with the fight against other forms of racism and discrimination.

The definition that forms the core of the JDA is short and succinct, capturing the essence of anti-Semitism in its main manifestations.

It reads like this: "Anti-Semitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews because they are Jewish (or against Jewish institutions because they are Jewish)."

The guidelines include five of a general nature and 10 related to Israel and Palestine.

This relevance reflects the approach of the “contemporary examples” attached to the IHRA definition and responds to the public need - among Jews and the general population - for guidance regarding political discourse on Israel and Zionism, and specifically to the question of when it should be protected, and when it crosses the line of anti-Semitism.

In fact, the JDA approaches with zeal and rigor those areas in which the IHRA definition has generated confusion and controversy, and does so without any underlying political agenda.

Also unlike the second, it specifies what is not, at first glance, anti-Semitic.

In this way, the Jerusalem Declaration demonstrates that it is possible to define and combat anti-Semitism without falling into the controversies raised by the IHRA definition.

The Jerusalem Declaration is intended to be used for multiple purposes, such as education, awareness-raising, policy-making, and identifying when speech or conduct is anti-Semitic (and when it is not).

While it is not designed to be a (quasi) legal instrument, it can also provide guidance to law enforcement authorities.

No definition is perfect.

Nor can any document on anti-Semitism be exhaustive.

Nonetheless, we are confident that we have produced a compelling guide and effective tool for combating anti-Semitism.

We owe this result to years of experience, research, and ongoing dialogue on the definition of the IHRA.

We present the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism as an alternative to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition.

Institutions that have formally adopted the latter may turn to the JDA when the practical definition of anti-Semitism is unclear or divisive.

We tell the European Union and its member states to use the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism as an opportunity to critically reflect on their use of the IHRA definition.

Aleida Assmann

is Professor of English Literature and Studies on Memory and the Holocaust at the University of Constance.

Alon Confino

is Professor of Jewish History and Studies and Director of the Institute for Holocaust, Genocide and Memory Studies at the University of Massachusetts.

David Feldman

is Professor of History and Director of the Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at Birkbeck College, University of London.