Breaking down Antisemitism Definitions: "The Risk is that Leftist Ideals are Alienating Certain People"
"Risk emerges as some individuals may escape accountability on the political left"
In recent news, the Left Party held a conference in Chemnitz where a debate about the Jerusalem Declaration (JDA) on antisemitism ensued. This stunning turn of events has sparked heated discussions, with historian and antisemitism expert Juliane Wetzel offering insights into the differences between the JDA and the widely-adopted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition.
Q: What was your initial reaction when you heard the Left was endorsing the JDA?
JW: Criticism of the IHRA definition has been prevalent within the left spectrum, so it's only logical that the Left Party joined the ranks. However, the problem lies in the fact that most people are unaware that the original IHRA definition contains a crucial passage that supports legitimate criticism of the Israeli government — a passage that is often left out in Germany.
Q: But why is that?
JW: I can't definitively say why, but there have always been rumors surrounding political decisions. The IHRA definition was intended to serve as a practical tool, particularly for Holocaust remembrance and education, and it was developed with flexibility in mind, knowing that it would be open to interpretation.
Q: So, why do we need specific definitions of antisemitism?
JW: The IHRA definition was never intended to be a scientific one. Rather, it emerged from practical needs, supporting Holocaust remembrance efforts worldwide. It was adopted only after various requests to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which elected me as a member for more than twenty years. Our goal was to create a broad definition that would be universally acceptable, despite differing political viewpoints.
Q: Does this mean that criticism of Israel is always antisemitic?
JW: Absolutely not. The idea that criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic is a misconception that persists today.
Q: But aren't there gray areas?
JW: Indeed, there are. Each case must be considered within its proper context, factoring in who makes the statement, when it's made, the intention behind it, and its aim. The focus should be on eliminating genuine expressions of antisemitism while preserving the freedom of speech.
Q: How do the Jerusalem Declaration and the IHRA differ?
JW: The JDA was developed five years after the IHRA definition, by which point it had already been embraced by 800 organizations and all EU states. It differs from the IHRA definition in some aspects, such as its stance on the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
Q: Is support for BDS inherently antisemitic?
JW: It depends on the context. One must consider the founding character of BDS, which had antisemitic underpinnings. I personally believe that placing a boycott on Israel is unproductive and only serves to polarize the conversation.
Q: Was there a scientific debate on the party congress in Chemnitz regarding the definitions?
JW: There is indeed a debate, but it is not about which definition, JDA or IHRA, is scientifically correct. Both definitions lack a scientific foundation and should instead guide practical efforts against antisemitism.
Q: Can one support both definitions?
JW: The JDA and IHRA can coexist, albeit not without differences in interpretation. For example, Wolfgang Benz, a renowned expert on antisemitism, signed the JDA while still acknowledging the IHRA definition as an important milestone.
Q: Is anti-Semitism more than just a particular form of racism?
JW: Yes, absolutely. Anti-Semitism goes beyond the realm of racism with its unique history, stereotypes, and distortions that have persisted for centuries.
Q: Is it fair to label the JDA as more specific than the IHRA?
JW: The JDA can be seen as more specific in some respects, but it also falls short in areas that the IHRA addresses, such as the perception of Jews as a collective that is not Jewish by blood.
Q: Can the JDA and IHRA be used concurrently?
JW: The IHRA and the JDA can coexist, with each serving to combat antisemitism in its unique way. Overemphasis on any single definition could lead to misunderstandings or the inadvertent silencing of important perspectives.
Source: ntv.de
- Interviews
- Anti-Semitism
- Israel
- Israel-hostility
- Gaza Strip
- The Left
- Party Congress
- Chemnitz
Enrichment Data:
Overall:
- The IHRA definition, adopted in 2016, includes a broad range of examples to illustrate antisemitism. It defines antisemitism as certain perceptions of Jews, conceived as hatred toward Jews, that include manifestations such as calls for Israel's destruction or the denial of Jewish self-determination[1][5].
- The more nuanced Jerusalem Declaration definition, published in 2016 but developed in 2011-2012, aims to differentiate between legitimate criticism and antisemitism more clearly. It is slightly more tolerant of anti-Zionist rhetoric, such as advocating for a single binational or democratic state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean[3].
Specifics:
- IHRA Definition: Criticizing Israel is not considered antisemitic if similar criticism is leveled towards any other country, but drawing comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, denying the Jewish people's right to self-determination, or calling for Israel's destruction is considered antisemitic[1][5].
- Jerusalem Declaration (JDA) Definition: The JDA is less likely to categorize advocating for a single binational or democratic state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean as antisemitic, focusing more on illegal violence and aggressive behaviors towards Israelis[3].
In the ongoing discourse about antisemitism, it's essential to recognize that community policies should foster open dialogue and understanding. To this end, policy-makers might want to consider both the IHRA and Jerusalem Declaration definitions as they navigate the complexities of antisemitism, particularly when it comes to criticism of Israel. For instance, engaging with social media, books, entertainment, and pop-culture platforms could provide opportunities to educate the public about antisemitism, discrimination, and the importance of promoting a respectful and inclusive society.
