An "anti-Semite," according to the cynical, generalizing, black-humored definition, "is someone who hates Jews more than is customary." The statement expresses the sense of the enormous and incomprehensible scope of anti-Semitism and its manifestations.
The wave of blatant anti-Semitism, which erupted around the world, especially against the background of the war, made it very clear to what extent the designers and formulators of the working definition of antisemitism, formulated in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), were right and which sparked significant debate among practitioners in the field. In Israel, there is a tendency to take an interest in anti-Semitism, especially during periods of severe outbreaks and violence. The frequent election campaigns and internal conflict over the past year have left no room on the agenda for this important debate.
Hundreds of bodies, government institutions, countries around the world, associations and organizations have adopted the definition. Although this is not a binding legal definition, its adoption makes it possible to identify antisemitic incidents and entities. This has important practical implications, such as impacts on the boundaries of discourse, what is legitimate and what is not, a decision regarding budgetary support for organizations, and more.
It is too short to address the details of the definition. We will focus on the great innovation of the working definition, which has aroused most of the debate and is relevant today: the clear link between anti-Israelism and/or anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
The definition specifies, among other things, three practical examples designed to clarify what anti-Semitism is: "(a) Denial of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination, inter alia by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist initiative... (b) Applying double standards to Israel by demanding that it behave in a manner that is unexpected or unexpected of any other democratic nation... (c) A comparison between Israel's current policy and that of the Nazis."
These elements of the definition have aroused not only outright and hidden anti-Semites, but also hundreds of academics, including quite a few Israelis. What would an Israeli Holocaust researcher do, for example, whose hobby is comparing Israel's actions and policies to the Nazis? His articles, and other articles opposing the new definition, can be found in Haaretz, which will be interesting to examine how many of its columns are characterized as antisemitic according to the new definition.
One of the most astonishing examples is from a few years ago, when Israeli academics signed a petition calling on Germany not to view BDS organizations as an expression of anti-Semitism. The reactions to the Iron Sword War in the world in general, and in the academic world in particular, clarify not only the correctness of the definition, but also its necessity. The common chant at the demonstrations "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" in the wake of the atrocities means not only the elimination of Israel as a political entity – but genocide, apparently in the style of October 7.
Anti-Israel champions of defaming Israel are the only ones demanding complete freedom and protection, without the restrictions usually imposed on blatant discrimination, unequal treatment, and hate speech. The 2016 working definition explicitly calls it antisemitism
Many in Western academia have been stripped of their masks of "human rights," "humanitarianism," "war ethics," and the like. Anti-Semitism was revealed in its depths. For example, the petition of the critical anti-Semitic geographers, which did us a favor by saying that life as a whole has holiness, but what? The oppressed have the right to respond, while Israel has no right to self-defense against them. And this is just one of many petitions. Various women's organizations around the world have disappeared in the face of atrocities, usually for much less than rape, abuse and murder.
Anti-Israel champions of defaming Israel are the only ones demanding complete freedom and protection, without the restrictions usually imposed on blatant discrimination, unequal treatment, and hate speech. The 2016 working definition explicitly calls it antisemitism.
In the past debate, in response to one of the opponents of the new definition, sociologist David Hirsch wrote the bitter truth in a sharp and exhaustive sentence: The definition of antisemitism does not threaten anyone but anti-Semites.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us