To share the actual definition of antisemitism

[LemonyTicket]

The boards have been full for a week with cries of woe that you can't criticise Israel without being accused of antisemitism. So to make life easy, below is a summary of what defines antisemitism as agreed by more or less the leading experts in the world. If you'd like to discuss Israel without being antisemitic, you can follow these guidelines to say what you would like to say without causing pain to Jewish people:

POINT 1
What is particular in classic antisemitism is the idea that Jews are linked to the forces of evil. This stands at the core of many anti-Jewish fantasies, such as the idea of a Jewish conspiracy in which “the Jews” possess hidden power that they use to promote their own collective agenda at the expense of other people. This linkage between Jews and evil continues in the present: in the fantasy that “the Jews” control governments with a “hidden hand,” that they own the banks, control the media, act as “a state within a state.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

So when you're criticising Israel, please do so without implying Jews, Israel or anything relating to Jews is part of a plot to control things or act in evil ways generally or that Jews or any Jewish organisation have control over institutions. This isn't how other countries are spoken about and it's particularly antisemitic in line with Nazi propaganda.

POINT 2
Antisemitism can be manifested in words, visual images, and deeds. Examples of antisemitic words include utterances that all Jews are wealthy, inherently stingy, or unpatriotic. In antisemitic caricatures, Jews are often depicted as grotesque, with big noses and associated with wealth

This is one most people instinctively know is racist - to apply certain characteristics to Jews - like having lots of money or big noses etc.

POINT 3
Antisemitism can be direct or indirect, explicit or coded. For example, “The Rothschilds control the world” is a coded statement about the alleged power of “the Jews” over banks and international finance. Similarly, portraying Israel as the ultimate evil or grossly exaggerating its actual influence can be a coded way of racializing and stigmatizing Jews. In many cases, identifying coded speech is a matter of context and judgement, taking account of these guidelines

This means, don't be antisemitic when using any words which clearly refer to Jews in particular. "Jews own the banks" is antisemitic. It remains antisemitic when you substitute words, like "The Israel lobby owns the banks" or "Zionists own the banks" or "George Soros owns the banks". Substituting code words is not a free pass for being antisemitic.

POINT 4
Denying or minimizing the Holocaust

A pretty obvious one which needs no explanation.

POINT 5
Applying the symbols, images and negative stereotypes of classical antisemitism to the State of Israel

So this means taking classic antisemitic tropes or canards, such as "The Jews are puppet masters" and applying the same language to the only Jewish state. We see right through this, please don't do it!

POINT 6
Requiring people, because they are Jewish, publicly to condemn Israel or Zionism (for example, at a political meeting)

This means making a Jewish person, anywhere, anytime feel obligated, pressured or required in any way to condemn Israel or Zionism. It means you don't "put them on the spot" in public by singling them out as a Jew to ask their opinions on Israel's atrocities. Their views of these things will be coloured by a completely different perspective to yours, and likely more personal knowledge, their family history and so on - so please be respectful of their right to determine their Jewish identity and opinions without your critique.

POINT 7
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion

Another one which should be obvious, but clearly "gas the Jews" is unacceptable.

POINT 8
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews

Again, fairly obvious.

POINT 9
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations

This is a common form of prejudice in Britain where Jews are frequently accused of being in on some plot with Israel, or part of a group of Jews acting against their own country for the benefit of Israel. It's madness, and please don't do it.

POINT 10
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor

Jews, like everyone else, have a right to self-determination. If you don't make other countries feel ashamed of existing or if you don't make other groups feel ashamed of their national identity; then Jews should be entitled to the same. You are free to have your own opinion on if Israel should be a country or not, and how it should be. You are not free to deny Jews the right to decide that for themselves though.

POINT 11
Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation

Another very common one, where Israel is often held to a very different standard to other countries. An allowance can be made for the fact surrounding countries generally aren't democracies and as such are generally held to a different standard, but you should aim to treat Israel in the same, balanced way that you would treat any other country.

POINT 12
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

This is another very common one. Do not compare things which are incomparable just for the sake of hyperbole. It's very offensive. Almost every Jew in existence lost family in the Shoah. Please don't use it to attack.

Those are the things you can't do. What you can do is criticise Israel robustly, like you would any other country

And Desmond Tutu lived most of his life under an apartheid regime so I guess he knew what such a regime looks like.

I’m sorry things are so difficult for you and your family and so many others @LemonyTicket. I also admire your persistence on here.
Getting back to the original post, I think you were unreasonable to use the phrase ‘the actual definition’ as if there were only one that God Himself wouldn’t question. Secondly, you didn’t post an actual definition - not from the IHRA, not from the Jerusalem Declaration and not from the Oxford English Dictionary. What you posted were examples, illustrations and explanations.
I think this matters because if you were trying to educate people on how to criticise Israel without being antisemitic, then what you’ve done hasn’t helped. There isn’t a single definition that clarifies this point and the IHRA and Jerusalem Declaration don’t entirely agree on the question.

I feel really ignorant, because it is only now, through this thread and others on MN, that I have learnt that there is a legally adopted definition of “anti-semitism”. I didn’t realise that several countries have agreed to it and that the definition has several clauses (kind of akin to a contract). Prior to learning this, I had thought anti-semitism was just a specific type of racism, targeting Jewish people.

Not really like a contract though because a contract requires the consent of both parties, rather than one party simply being told by the other that that's how it is.

Actually according to the clause in the Jerusalem Declaration that @LemonyTicket withheld from her edited concoction of the two documents, you CAN question Israel's right to exist. Just not the right to exist of the individuals who currently live there.

@SinnerBoy I was right the first time. You REALLY don’t know what you’re talking about.

Not one inch of Gaza is “occupied” by Israel. It is at war with Gaza. Hardly the same thing. Gaza is “occupied” by Hamas and has been for the past 17 years. The Geneva Convention has precisely no application here at all - other than the observation that Israel actually follows all laws to the letter. Hamas does not.

Gaza and the West Bank are not the same.

sigh Basic history lesson:

Without any provocation whatsoever several countries attacked Israel in 1967. One of them was Jordan of which Judea and Samaria (aka The West Bank) was part. Israel begged them not to join in, but they did anyway & Israel ended up with the West Bank. It didn’t want it and considered offering it back to Jordan but instead decided to make an agreement with the Arabs living there to live alongside them, which they were happy with.

Then the Islamic world issued it’s famous Khartoum Resolution with the “three noes”: No peace with Israel, No negotiation with Israel, No recognition of Israel - so the Arabs in the West Bank had to stop cooperating with Israel, and Israel became the occupier. It had to do that because it couldn’t give land back to a state that had vowed to destroy it.

In the same war, Israel took Gaza from Egypt, and held on to it. Again, to keep it out of the hands of an Arab state which did not want peace. It is highly likely that had Israel not made the decisions it did, it would not exist today because it would have been entirely surrounded by enemies.

Israel did not steal Gaza or the West Bank, it took them in a war it neither sought nor wanted, but thankfully won.

17 years ago, in a desperate effort to make peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. It removed all Jews living there and even dug up Jewish graves. It left a decent, well constructed territory with full infrastructure.

Peace didn’t happen as almost immediately the people of Gaza elected a psychopathic death cult as their government who, as part of their founding charter, swore that they would eradicate Israel and eliminate all the Jews. They immediately began a siege which has not stopped to this day.

Hamas literally uses the people of Gaza as shields. Literally. It fires rockets from schools, hospitals and mosques in order to cause Israel to kill children and sick people so that it has bodies to show the useful idiots in the Western media who then, with predictable ignorance, duly blame Israel.

It uses all of the billions and billions it receives in aid from all over the world to buy bombs and build tunnels (with child labour) to shield the terrorists, while leaving civilians on the surface. It takes fuel to run hospital generators & water filtration plants for weapons. It digs up clean water pipes to make pipe bombs. It radicalises it’s people from the day they start school and brainwashes them into believing the best thing they could ever do is kill a Jew and die doing so. It even produces cartoons to this effect (you can see them on Youtube).

And let’s not even talk about the horrific human rights abuses - the rape culture, the habit of throwing gays off roofs and executing dissidents.

The are subhuman scum. And to the individual upthread objecting to calling them Nazis…well, you’re right. This lot are worse than the Nazis, who didn’t actually use their own people as shields. So there’s that.

Israel does not want to occupy the West Bank, but it has absolutely no choice. Look what happened when it handed over Gaza? Hamas has large support in the West Bank which would be there in a heartbeat the moment Israel pulls out - meaning the same level of siege, but coming from two sides rather than one, and another population to be slaughtered by it’s own “government”. It’s a problem that no one can find a solution to but one entirely created by the Arab world, not Israel.

I do wonder whether those of you (including @cakeorwine ) wringing your hands over the people of Palestine have actually thought this through. Anyone who actually cared about these people - as opposed to posturing on social media for virtue points - ought to be rooting for Hamas to be wiped off the face of the fucking earth. Or do you want the status quo preserved so that Palestinians can continue living the most miserable life imaginable? Really?

Civilians will die - Hamas will make damn sure of it. Israel will continue to do what it has always done - to do everything in it’s power to avoid that but, even under different circumstances (ie: without an enemy actively placing civilians in harms way) people die. That’s a fact of war.

So don’t bring me the Geneva Convention like you understand it, @SinnerBoy There are rules of war - Israel is going above and beyond to abide by them. Hamas is not. It’s that simple.

FactFairy · Today 10:06

Gaza is one eighth of the size it was in 1947.

Israel has taken the other seven eights of it over the years.

It has expelled the Palestinians and replaced them with Jewish settlers. That is invasion, deportation of the population and replacing them with their own people.

The West Bank is well over 80 illegally settled by Israelis.

The international consensus, which is not in contention by anybody serious, is that the settlements are illegal, under international law, including the Geneva Conventions, I refer you to the fourth Geneva Convention in particular.

This comes from the Red Cross, the UN and other organisations and individuals, who are qualified to understand the situation.

Netanyahu has stated, a few days ago, that Gaza is going to get smaller still. He intends to have it annexed, illegally.

It's incontrovertible to all reasonable people.

@SinnerBoy WTF? Where on earth are you getting this shite?

The Gaza Strip as it exists today was handed over in it’s entirety in 2005. Before that it was occupied by Israel with Jewish & Arab settlements & before that (until 1967) it belonged to Egypt, as it had done since 1947.

You are still getting the Gaza Strip & the West Bank mixed up. Look at a fucking map.

Israel has never thrown Arabs out of anywhere, except a few during the 1947/48 war (most fled, some were ordered to leave by Arab states and some Israel ejected).

You are desperately googling, aren’t you?! Stop it and read a damn book. Schama’s History of the Jews (I think it’s called) is excellent, although it’s a while since I read it.

Certainly, Israel has made choices that were bad but the overall picture is of a small nation entirely willing, usually desperate, to make peace with it’s neighbours but can’t. And, yes, certainly, Gazans have suffered because of some of those bad choices - such as the blockade - but, for fuck’s sake, we’ve now seen what happens when Hamas get in which is precisely why Israel has keep the gates locked 🙄

Oh, and since I am sure you’ll hit me with the idiotic assertion that the Israelis were “colonisers” yada yada yada - let me fix that.

No.

The Israelis were refugees returning to the place they considered their ancestral home because they had nowhere else to go.

The area was being overseen by the British at the request of the League of Nations (later the UN) who were given it by the decaying Ottoman Empire. No one had a claim on it, there were Jews, Arabs and Christians there. Jews bought land they were entitled to buy but the Arabs objected because they hate Jews and wouldn’t tolerate them having their own self-governing state. Once the British left, one day after Israel was born, five Arab states attacked. Many Israeli fighters were fresh out of concentration camps, and many of them died…but Israel won.

The only group who has any verifiable claim on the land are the Jews,btw. All archaeological artefacts prove this…there is zero evidence of a single Arab civilisation there. And they were more than willing to share - the Arab world was not. And here were are with burned babies and tortured children all these years later.

This is true, but the other parties have consented, since they have all signed the declarations, no?

Either way, I just wonder if it is only the Jewish community who is protected from hate and prejudice in such an official way or whether are communities have the same level of protection. I have seen the birth of Palestinian children being described as the “breeding of terrorists” and Islam described as a “disease” on MN just in the last few days (and I’m sure there have been others), yet, while MNHQ rightfully took these posts down as soon as I reported them and there were a few other people in the comments calling the blatant racism and Islamophobia out, I’m not sure it would be protected from an official standpoint in the way that I have recently learnt that anti-semitism is.

This poster is YET AGAIN posting incorrect information. Its the same misinformation she's posted over and over again despite being corrected several times.

The first time she read either definition of antisemitism was a couple of days ago, for the express purpose of trying to debunk this thread and make unpleasant allegations towards me personally.

She has posted antisemitism herself on these forums - including, but not limited to, the preposterous allegation that members of the Jewish Union of students are part of the "Israel lobby". I'd advise against considering her any authority of the subject of antisemitism.

The IHRA definition is the one that is accepted as standard by the British government, as well as almost every government around the world, the UN and almost every major organisation.

It states it is antisemitic to deny Jews the right of self determination in Israel. The definition of Islamophobia similarly prohibits denying the same rights to Palestinians in Palestinine.

Her interpretation of the Jerusalem declaration is entirely erroneous and misleading as well and - while not the accepted definition currently- it also states that anyone advocating against zionism must advocate for solutions which provide equality for Jews in the land of Israel.

Which in effect makes the concept of being against the existence of Israel rather academic, unless the Palestinians are offering a multicultural one state solution with equal rights amd robust human rights for all.

All minorities are protected under various methods, including the human rights systems we have and various mechanisms of law.

Agreed on definitions of many different sorts of discrimination or racism exist. The definition of Islamophobia is almost word for word the same as for antisemitism, with it slightly adjusted to allow for the different tropes used towards the different groups.

FactFairy· Today 10:44

WTF? Where on earth are you getting this shite?

Well as you may already know, there are these things called words. They can be put onto surfaces, for reference by people who come later. You can also put pictures onto paper, some of these are called maps and they set out the bounds of geographical areas.

We can consult these maps and compare them with others of the same geographical areas and note changes, if there are any, which leads neatly to our next point:

The Gaza Strip as it exists today was handed over in it’s entirety in 2005.

There's the rub, in 2005, bereft of its best land, the final eighth of Gaza was abandoned by Israel. Now, bear with me here; the other seven eighths had been subsumed into Israel.

Are you still with me?

Well, we can compare the 1947 / 1948 maps with the one from 2005.

Are you following this?

Well, when you look at the difference between the two maps, you can see that Gaza was wider from the sea, Eastwards, on a North-South axis. As well as that, it extended a long way to the Southeast, along the Egyptian border.

Since before 2005, it's been an awful lot smaller. This, as I have tried patiently to explain, is because Israel invaded it, cleared the Palestinians out and illegally settled its own people there.

I don't know why you are so keen to pretend that these incontrovertible facts are not facts.

@DrinkingMyWaterMindingMyBiz and yes, what you describe certainly sounds Islamophobic. The definition is here

@LemonyTicket thank you! I don’t know if I was searching the correct terms on google. I had tried things like “EU signed alliance on (insert discrimination type here” or “UN agreement about xyz” but couldn’t find anything specific, so what you have shared is useful. Thanks.

@FactFairy

in 1967 Israel was NOT invaded first. Are you mixing it up with 1948?
israel is the one who started the 6 day war later alleging that it was struck first by Egypt (debunked later) and that it was preemptively attacking (although later it was clear that US intelligence passed to Israel did not see evidence of Egypt preparing to invade).
After that it occupied West Bank and Gaza lands (which are much much bigger than current Gaza strip)

to deny that is just ridiculous

noone can question right of Israel to exist, as it has UN mandate to exist IN ITS 1947 BORDERS
what is being questioned is its right to occupy lands beyond this mandate and keep pretending that this is no big deal. this is illegal under current international laws agreed post WWII.

The only reason Israel wasn’t sanctioned by the UN Security Council is because the US consistently blocked all resolutions to this effect throughout the years (being SC permanent member with veto right).

mind you (and I just drew parallels up thread here) Russia just did the same with Ukraine (with similar justifications about imminent invasion, security threat, historic rights to this land etc) and has been heavily sanctioned and ostracised by the international community. (Even though it also blocked all UN SC resolutions also being permanent member).

but in this particular case, despite all existing anti semitism (which im not denying), Israel as a state is getting more favourable treatment for breaking international law and occupying lands illegally. Not because its Israel, but because the US is batting for it for various reasons including its own geopolitical gain.

And for avoidance of doubt I absolutely do not condone the abhorrent violence by Hamas - not just now (it is heartbreaking) not before. And anyone who excuses these crimes against civilians is wrong.
Hamas only appeared recently though in historical terms, and the lands were occupied before that. This does not make the occupation ok. two wrongs do not make a right.

@LemonyTicket what’s the source of this definition please?

@DrinkingMyWaterMindingMyBiz
I just wonder if it is only the Jewish community who is protected from hate and prejudice in such an official way or whether are communities have the same level of protection
I'm not sure the issue is whether the Jewish faith has special protection compared to other communities. It seems to be more that the Islam faith has special animosity compared to other communities.
In other words, it seems that Islam rather than Judaism is the outlier

@DrinkingMyWaterMindingMyBiz

you need to be googling:

definition of XYZ in UK (EU/international law) law
International conventions/treaty on Xyz /definition of XYZ in international convention/treaty
could also try UN resolutions etc

@DrinkingMyWaterMindingMyBiz

This is true, but the other parties have consented, since they have all signed the declarations, no?

By "other party" I meant the public who are expected to accept and abide by this definition of antisemitism. Yes, there have been various governmental and non-governmental organisations across various countries who have either contributed to or accepted ONE of the TWO different definitions that each form part of @LemonyTicket 's mashup. But if you're then going to describe it as a contract between them and the people expected to abide by it, those people would need a say in it, not to simply be told that that's how it is.

This is what's usually meant when "contract" is used in a loose, sociological rather than legal sense, like the social contract or the contract we have with our politicians to represent us.

@FactFairy

Without any provocation whatsoever several countries attacked Israel in 1967. One of them was Jordan of which Judea and Samaria (aka The West Bank) was part. Israel begged them not to join in, but they did anyway & Israel ended up with the West Bank. It didn’t want it and considered offering it back to Jordan but instead decided to make an agreement with the Arabs living there to live alongside them, which they were happy with.

In the same war, Israel took Gaza from Egypt, and held on to it. Again, to keep it out of the hands of an Arab state which did not want peace. It is highly likely that had Israel not made the decisions it did, it would not exist today because it would have been entirely surrounded by enemies.

Israel did not steal Gaza or the West Bank, it took them in a war it neither sought nor wanted, but thankfully won.

???

Some of your "history lesson" is indeed important and often overlooked, but this is just nonsense. Israel launched the air strikes that started the six day war. You could make an argument, as they did, that Egypt's actions in closing the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping were a legitimate casus belli, but there was no military action by Egypt or any other state preceding those air strikes.

So how do you claim that you "neither sought nor wanted" a war that you started?

This poster is YET AGAIN posting incorrect information. Its the same misinformation she's posted over and over again despite being corrected several times.

The first time she read either definition of antisemitism was a couple of days ago, for the express purpose of trying to debunk this thread and make unpleasant allegations towards me personally.

Gosh, you seem to know an awful lot about me. Where did you get this (incorrect) information about my reading history, out of interest?

She has posted antisemitism herself on these forums - including, but not limited to, the preposterous allegation that members of the Jewish Union of students are part of the "Israel lobby". I'd advise against considering her any authority of the subject of antisemitism.

This is a lie. I never made that allegation. You raised it as an example of something you objected to in a book we were discussing, and I described the reasons given in the book for its stance, pointing out that it was tangential to the point of the book anyway. I ended by saying "but fair enough - you have personal experience of this and I don't so I believe you".

But wow - personalisation much. You could try simply discussing the issues openly and honestly rather than resorting to personal attacks against those who disagree with you. It would have much more credibility.

The IHRA definition is the one that is accepted as standard by the British government, as well as almost every government around the world, the UN and almost every major organisation.

Then why did you not simply quote that definition at the start of your thread - which was supposed to be about "THE definition of antisemitism" - instead of claiming to quote the Jerusalem Declaration with just a few additions from the IHRA definition?

Her interpretation of the Jerusalem declaration is entirely erroneous and misleading as well

Here you go. No interpretation whatsoever. This is exactly what it says:

B. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are antisemitic:

10. Denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality.

C. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are not antisemitic

12. Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants “between the river and the sea,” whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form.

and - while not the accepted definition currently- it also states that anyone advocating against zionism must advocate for solutions which provide equality for Jews in the land of Israel.

Which in effect makes the concept of being against the existence of Israel rather academic, unless the Palestinians are offering a multicultural one state solution with equal rights amd robust human rights for all.

See, THAT is an interpretation (though a perfectly reasonable one). You don't seem very clear about the difference between straightforward factual quotation and interpretation (this being the fatal flaw at the root of this thread).

The Jerusalem Declaration - which you, not I, originally cited as the root source of THE definition of antisemitism - does not equate opposition to the existence of Israel as a state with antisemitism. That is the bottom line, and that is all I have claimed.

Op, thank you for the definition, I've seen the accusations of antisemitism thrown around on mn and it has helped me put it in perspective.

From the threads about Gaza, the point that probably comes to mind the most is the following:

POINT 11
Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation

This is a contentious one I think. Quite often the accusation of antisemitism is being used in the current context against those criticising Israel's bombing of Gaza, often without any prior knowledge of the specific poster's political beliefs and posting history. It's quite conceivable that the same posters were equally critical of the US response to 9/11, British colonialism, the Iraq War etc.

It's a slippery slope if we cannot challenge the actions and policies of government administrations, whoever/ wherever they are.

Which one?

The definition of Islamophobia is from the APPG (All parliamentary group put together by British Muslim)

The definition of antisemitism is the AHRA definition, which is the one widely accepted by states and organisations, but as it shares many of the same points as the previously accepted Jerusalem declaration, some of the language is used from that as they have more detailed description words which makes it easier for people to identify.

You don't have to accept it.

You can continue saying things that the majority of Jews, majority of States and key organisations fighting racism, promoting human rights or policing International justice (like the UN) have deemed to be antisemitic.

And then most people will think you're antisemitic.

What you dont get to do is whine about it.

You've got a choice to be respectful, or not, haven't you?