What is the International Holocaust Rememberance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism? I mean, we hear about it in the news a lot but its never really explained.
So i will explain it for you.
The working definition can be separated into two categories, the uncontested section* and the contested section.
The uncontested section
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
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.
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.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
All basic stuff that most people hopefully should already consider antisemitism.
The contested section.
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.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
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 actions of the state of Israel.
This section is contested due to Israel being included as a group you can be antisemitic towards.
Well, what is the criticism of the contested section?
The criticism of the IHRA working definition is that it stiffles free speech and criticism of Israel. People alledge that it also enabled the state of Israel to be violent towards Palestinians.
Is any of that true?
No. The IHRA states on their website that antisemitism is only criminal when defined by the law. The law is decided upon by each country's government, not the IHRA. Whether or not saying an opinion that falls into the working definition is included in free speech or is a crime is dependent on a country's legislation and the IHRA maintains each country has control over that.
Most points of the definition aim to consolidate anti israeli xenophobia into the definition of the antisemitism, like is the case for other countries and their peoples.
To give an example, if someone said "CCP were all C words", most people would go "thats not criticism of the Chinese communist party, thats sinophobia." Even if the defense of "oh but I'm just anti the CCP i never said chinese people" is given, most people would still affirm that statement is racist because the statement is applying a sinophobic term to the Chinese government. (And they are correct, that statement is racist)
Currently, people go "the Israeli government are all reptilian" and hide behind the defense of "oh but im just anti the Israeli government I never said jews." The working definition is consolidating that into antisemitism. It is bringing the definition of antisemitism in line with its peers of sinophobia, anti black racism, anti Hispanic racism, etc etc etc.
This even includes the double standard point.
To give another example, let's say Joe Smith, who lives in New Zealand, says that he hates that Chinese companies are collecting his data and is all up in arms about it. You then bring up to him that Amercian companies often collect the same data and he responds that he is fine with it. People would label Joe Smith as sinophobic and say that he is applying a double standard. They would be correct in labeling him as such.
The working definition also has that exact same logic applied to Israel and antisemitism. An example for Israel would be people being up in arms for unfairly detaining Palestinian citizens of Israel, but actively say its fine for Iran to unfairly detain Iranian civilians. Both are bad. Both are wrong. When you apply it to Israel but not Iran, you are not saying that its wrong to falsely detain your own citizens, you are saying its only bad when jews do it.
What about the point where they claim calling the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor? Doesn't that erase Palestinian suffering?
No, it does not. The IHRA is not claiming that there is no anti Palestinian racism in Israel or that Palestinians didn't suffer when the Modern State of Israel was formed.
They are saying that claiming jews having our own country is an inherently racist thing, is antisemitic.
The motivation for having a Jewish state was not because jews looked at Palestinians and went "ayo fuck these guys we want to oppress them". The motivation was A) We come from the levant and we should be able to live and self govern in our homeland and B) Non jewish countries have continuously harmed jews, we want a country were we are safe
What the working definition of antisemitism does is go "spreading disinformation about the motivations implies that the jewish want for safety and the jewish want to live in the land jews originate from is racist towards Palestinians and that implication is antisemitic".
"But clownie, intention ≠ impact"
Correct. It does not. The IHRA is not claiming that intention trumps impact. What its claiming is that spreading disinformation and implying jewish safety and jews living in our homeland is racist, is antisemitic.
If you go, "the motivation of the formation of the modern state of Israel was because jews deserve the right to self-determination in the land jews originated from and safety. In the actions taken to create the modern state of Israel, Palestinians suffered and still suffer today. Palestinians in Israel are disproportionately unfairly detained, experience human rights abuses in israeli prisons, and experience racism in Israel"
then congrats! According to the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, you have not said anything antisemitic! That statement i gave as an example is also one i myself believe and agree with
To help further clarify
In the EU handbook written by IHRA they state, "Manifestations [of antisemitism] might include the targeting of the State of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."
Aka, as long as its not a double standard, criticism of the Israeli government is not antisemitic. This is because the antisemitism lies not in "x action is bad" but instead in "x action is only bad when jews do it, when others do it its fine".
An example of the point of the working definition in question is given by IHRA from the aforementioned EU handbook
Berlin (Germany), July 2020: An antisemitic caricature of a Jew in a crossed-out red circle was printed on a laminated card. Additionally, Israel was demonised and delegitimised and Judaism was equated with racism: “Stop Israhell Apartheid! Judaism is Racism!”
TL:DR: you can still criticize Israel and the Israeli government.
*the use of the phrase 'uncontested section' is being used to mean what the current generally accepted standards are. Of course *technically* there is no true uncontested section as neo nazis and other groups will contest all definitions of antisemitism
no idea who you are xclowniex but you're dead wrong here, the state of israel is absolutely a racist endeavor. it is a racist endeavor because it is founded on the principle of ethnonationalism: the belief is there should be a state with a Jewish ethnic majority. this majority is kept in place by systemically denying Palestinians, even and particularly those living in areas under Israeli control, rights in Israeli society. this is also why Palestinians are uniquely not allowed to convert to Judaism on the basis of their nationality.
this is not a criticism I would level uniquely at Israel. the United States is a racist endeavor. Apartheid South Africa was a racist endeavor. Canada is a racist endeavor. but Israel is absolutely a racist endeavor as well, and the idea that expressing that is antisemitic is why the IHRA definition of antisemitism is useless.
