Weaponizing the Antisemitism Accusation
In an interview, Giovanni Fassina and Alice Garcia discuss why a controversial definition is penalizing support for Palestinian rights.
https://carnegie-mec.org/diwan/89880
Some excerpts from this fascinating interview with experts in the field:
"Yes, antisemitism is a scourge and it must be combatted, with appropriate tools. The IHRA definition of antisemitism does not offer such a tool, as hundreds of academics, including Jewish scholars specialized in Holocaust studies, antisemitism, Jewish history, and related fields, as well as hundreds of civil society organizations, including human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have confirmed. Moreover, our research shows that the definition is overwhelmingly aimed at suppressing Palestinian rights advocates in order to silence criticism of Israeli policies and practices.
First, despite having “IHRA” in its designation, the definition was not prepared by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. It was the result of a concerted effort—underway since the early 2000s—by individuals and organizations aligned with the Israeli government, to redefine antisemitism in a way that deflects and silences criticism of Israel for its human rights violations and violent repression against Palestinians. This reconceptualization of antisemitism focusing on criticism of Israel has come to be known as the “New Antisemitism” and has been documented by Antony Lerman in his 2002 book, Whatever Happened to Antisemitism? Redefinition and the Myth of the ‘Collective Jew’. Lerman is a former head of the World Jewish Congress’ Institute of Jewish Affairs.
As we have been observing, in practice these examples are used and broadly interpreted to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish prejudice. Example 7, for instance, is constantly used to repress the assertion that the Israeli government commits the crime of apartheid against Palestinians, which is based on factual findings and documentation of experts, lawyers, and human rights advocates.
But more problematic is how the Israeli government, allied groups, and advocacy organizations are using the definition, with the examples included, to target Palestinian rights advocacy, in an effort to silence any criticism of Israel and therefore shield it from any accountability.
Many Jewish historians and writers also reject the IHRA definition because it conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and this definition de facto harms Jewish individuals or Jewish organizations, as we have documented.
In 2021, more than 350 leading scholars on antisemitism, Holocaust Studies, and related fields rejected the IHRA definition and joined the initiative to approve an alternative definition called the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. In November 2022, 128 scholars specializing on antisemitism, Holocaust Studies, and related fields warned, in an open letter: “Don’t trap the United Nations in a vague and weaponized definition of antisemitism.”"