An email sent out to Peace Now supporters boasted that “we and many of our fellow progressive organizations oppose the IHRA definition [of antisemitism], as it has been continually used to delegitimize critics and criticism of Israel and its policies, as well as suppress voices and activism in support of Palestinian rights. We are happy to see the ABA take this action and we are proud to have helped lead the opposition to the use of the IHRA definition.”
On Wednesday, the American Bar Association passed resolution 514 which “urges federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments in the United States to condemn antisemitism, as referred to in The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, encouraged for use by other governments and international organizations by the U.S. Department of State: ‘Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.’”
Here’s where the ABA’s resolution 514 could become a festering wound: the ABA’s report notes that the US State Department uses the IHRA standard for antisemitism, and wants “other governments and international organizations to use it as well,” calling the IHRA definition a “broadly endorsed definition” of antisemitism. The resolution states: “In an era of rapidly rising global antisemitism, now is not the time to discard one of the most fundamental and critical tools in the arsenal to combat it.”
But by removing from the list the five poignant items that describe antisemitism in its anti-Israel connotation, the ABA weaponizes the IHRA list against Israel.
A case in point: Palestine Legal sent a letter to the ABA, supported by 37 groups, including Peace Now, stating that “the IHRA definition dangerously conflates criticism of the Israeli state with antisemitism and is routinely deployed to censor those who speak out in support of Palestinian rights. Seven of the 11 contemporary guiding examples attached to the IHRA definition concern Israel […] These guiding examples falsely conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism and have been weaponized to smear anti-Zionism and support for Palestinian rights as per se antisemitic. Under this definition, Palestinians telling their stories of dispossession and discussing the racism they face as Palestinians could be punished for anti-Jewish discrimination, an absurd and unlawful result.”
After six labored pages detailing the history of antisemitism, the resolution gets to what it dubs “the three Ds” – Demonize, Double standard, and Delegitimize, on the IHRA list of what constitutes antisemitism. Those are:
Demonize: Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism to characterize Jews, Israel, or Israelis.
Double standard: Applying double standards by requiring behavior not expected or demanded of any other people, group, or democratic nation, and protecting the national aspirational rights of other peoples, but not of Jews.
Delegitimize: Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, denying Israel the right to exist, and denying the ability of Jews to have a homeland.
However, in the end, even after reviewing at length the antisemitism US and European Jews endure over their support of Israel and Zionism, the 17-page resolution omits from its learned discussion of antisemitism the IHRA items that define the connection between antisemitism and hatred of Israel:
- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
- 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.
- 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.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel.
The American Jewish Committee issued a statement criticizing the ABA: “AJC appreciates that the American Bar Association adopted a resolution to condemn antisemitism and commit the ABA toward taking a leadership role in fighting anti-Jewish hatred. It is an important statement at a time when antisemitism has risen to alarming levels in this country.
“At the same time, AJC is disappointed the resolution omits the widely recognized definition of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which provides clear guidance on what is antisemitism and what it is not. Some ABA members claimed the IHRA definition inhibits free speech because it considers all criticism of Israel antisemitic. That is false. Even a cursory reading of the definition would disprove that.”
