- by Peter Farmer
- The Guardian
- Issue #2154
Photo: Harald Groven – flickr.com (CC BY-SA 2.0)
The IHRA definition of anti-semitism is globally accepted, according to anti-semitism envoy Jillian Segal, who wants to use it to pass judgement on Australian universities, students, protesters and media outlets. According to the Jewish Council of Australia, the definition is widely discredited. Amnesty international calls it “deeply flawed.” Amnesty International Australia’s Occupied Palestinian Territory Spokesperson Mohamed Duar calls it “dangerous.”
So what’s wrong with it?
The IHRA definition conflates legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. One of the definition’s examples is “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.”
Israel was founded on the ethnic cleansing of indigenous Palestinians. It’s not anti-semitic to point that out.
Another of the definition’s examples of anti-semitism is “Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” This just weaponises ‘whataboutery,’ whereby any criticisms of Israel can be met with “Well what about (insert name of other nation)? You’re not criticising them, so you’re anti-semitic.”
The definition also conflates anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. It has been described as a “weaponised smear against Palestinians and their supporters” by the Institute for Middle East Understanding.
The use of the IHRA definition has been criticised by Kenneth Stern, its chief author, who has spoken out against weaponising the definition to silence criticism of Israel.
There is an alternative: the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemisim, which was written in response to the IHRA definition. It clearly links the fight against antisemitism with the fight against other forms of bigotry and discrimination.
jerusalemdeclaration.org
