Progressive Jewish groups oppose codification of IHRA antisemitism definition into US law

Pro-Israel Jewish groups have opposed efforts to codify a controversial definition of antisemitism into US law, saying that doing so would “suppress legitimate free speech”.

Progressive Israel Network called on federal, state and university authorities to refrain from adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.

Progressive Israel Network is a group of ten organizations that “care deeply about the State of Israel and about the wellbeing of the Jewish people.”

“As organizations that care deeply about the State of Israel and about the wellbeing of the Jewish people, we are deeply committed to the struggle against antisemitism,” said the Progressive Israel Network in a statement on Tuesday.

The group warned that instead of combating antisemitism, the IHRA definition “is being misused and exploited to instead suppress legitimate free speech, criticism of Israeli government actions, and advocacy for Palestinian rights”.

“We are thus obligated to share our concerns about ways in which the effort to combat antisemitism is being misused and exploited to instead suppress legitimate free speech, criticism of Israeli government actions, and advocacy for Palestinian rights.”

Ameinu, Americans for Peace Now, Habonim Dror North America, Hashomer Hatzair World Movement, Jewish Labor Committee, J Street, New Israel Fund, Partners for Progressive Israel, and Reconstructing Judaism and T’ruah are the members of the group.

“We respect the original creation of the IHRA Working Definition as an illustrative tool and as part of a larger and ongoing conversation about the nature of antisemitism,” the group said.

It added, “Our concern with its adoption as a legal tool is with the IHRA definition’s “contemporary examples,” which have been included as integral to the definition.”

The group also called Pompeo’s statements against BDS “a harmful overreach”.

“This overreach, which is primarily aimed at shielding the present Israeli government and its occupation from all criticism, is made possible by the use of the Working Definition’s ‘contemporary examples,'” the statement reads.

“The examples regard as antisemitic the claim that “the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” and the application of “double standards” to Israel “by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

In November, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement that claimed anti-Zionism is the same as antisemitism. Anti-Zionism is a movement against an ideology that says ‘Israel’ is an inherently Jewish state for only the Jewish people.

In his statement, Pompeo said the US was, therefore, “committed to countering the Global BDS Campaign as a manifestation of anti-Semitism”.

The group concluded their statement by calling Biden administration and the new Congress to “refrain from legislating bans on constitutionally-protected speech and legitimate activism, which often wrongfully target those who harbor no hatred towards Jews, and which make it more difficult to identify and confront genuine instances of antisemitism. ”

Related Articles

Back to top button