Criticising Israel’s policies is not antisemitic, says JDA
More than 200 international scholars, including experts on Jewish and Holocaust history, have released a new declaration on antisemitism stating that opposing Zionism, criticising Israel’s policies and boycotting Israeli products are not inherently antisemitic acts.
The document, dubbed the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA), comes as a clarifying response to the 2016 working definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which Palestinian rights advocates say curbs free speech when it comes to criticism of Israel.
The Jerusalem Declaration, released on Thursday, says it seeks to offer a “coherent set of guidelines” as an educational tool.
“Conscious of the historical persecution of Jews throughout history and of the universal lessons of the Holocaust, and viewing with alarm the reassertion of antisemitism by groups that mobilize hatred and violence in politics, society, and on the internet, we seek to provide a usable, concise, and historically-informed core definition of antisemitism with a set of guidelines,” the preamble of the declaration reads.
The Jerusalem Declaration defines antisemitism as bigotry against Jews because they are Jewish.
“Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish),” it says.
Where it differs from the IHRA document is when it comes to detailing if and how antisemitism can manifest itself when it comes to Israel and Zionism.
The IHRA definition offers 11 examples of antisemitism, seven of which deal with Israel, including “applying double standards” to Israeli government policies.
In contrast, the JDA offers 10 examples of antisemitism, as well as five examples of views and actions endorsed by Palestinian rights activists, against the Israeli government that it says are not antisemitic.
“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,” reads one of the examples of criticisms of Israel that is not antisemitic.
“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.”
At a time when politicians from across the mainstream political spectrum describe efforts to boycott Israel for its policies against Palestinians as antisemitic, the Jerusalem Declaration says boycotts are not necessarily an expression of bigotry.
“Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic,” the document reads.
On Thursday, the BDS movement released a statement lauding some aspects of the JDA but it also criticised some elements of the declaration.
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA), despite its omission of representative Palestinian perspectives, provides an alternative to the fraudulent IHRA definition in the fight against anti-Jewish racism, discrimination and hostility.https://t.co/EiyMIUme3I pic.twitter.com/FCjlFJm6cn
— BDS movement (@BDSmovement) March 25, 2021
“The JDA can be instrumental in the fight against the anti-Palestinian McCarthyism and repression that the proponents of the IHRA definition, with its ‘examples,’ have promoted and induced, by design,” the statement said.
But it goes on to urge caution about fully embracing the document, objecting to its emphasis on Palestinian activism while excluding Palestinians from authoring and signing the document.
BDS also rejected some of the guidelines presented by the JDA, including the example warning against applying antisemitic symbols and negative stereotypes to Israel.
The boycott movement said that under the guidance, calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a child killer could be considered antisemitic, although more than 500 Palestinian children were killed under his watch during the 2014 Gaza war.
“Though the hard evidence is irreproachable, should Palestinians avoid using that term in this case simply because it is an antisemitic trope and Netanyahu happens to be Jewish? Is it Islamophobic to call the Saudi dictator Mohammed bin Salman – who happens to be a Muslim – a butcher due to reportedly orchestrating the gruesome murder of Khashoggi, not to mention the Saudi regime’s crimes against humanity in Yemen?”
