Scholars to UN: Don’t adopt ‘weaponised’ antisemitism definition

New York (QNN)- Some 128 scholars of Jewish history and Holocaust studies from around the world have warned that ‘Israel’ is trying to gag its critics by formally labelling them as “antisemites” in the United Nations.

In a letter published in EUobserver on Thursday entitled: “Don’t trap the United Nations in a vague and weaponised definition of antisemitism,” the Jewish academics have called the UN to not adopt the ‘weaponised’ the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, but the EU Commission says there’s no cause for alarm.

The academics did so over an Israeli push for the UN to say “manifestations [of antisemitism] might include the targeting of the state of Israel” or “applying double standards” to Israel.

The examples are part of a 572-word definition elaborated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), an intergovernmental body in Berlin.

The IHRA definition has been formally adopted by the governments of the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Hungary, the United States, the European Parliament and more than 30 other countries.

However, the IHRA definition includes problematic examples of antisemitism that have been criticised by human rights groups as well as some liberal Zionist organisations.

Some of the most controversial examples of antisemitism provided by the IHRA include banning anyone from “applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”.

Another example presented in the IHRA definition: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

The examples have also been used by Israel lobby groups to disrupt the activities of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement around the world by claiming that a boycott of Israel is anti-Semitic.

But it’s also notorious for being used in Israeli bashing of people who try to hold it to account on Palestine, the academics said.

“We find this definition deeply problematic. Vague and incoherent,” Thursday’s letter said.

IHRA wording was systematically abused “to deter free speech and to shield the Israeli government from accountability for its actions,” it said.

“Human rights defenders and organisations challenging Israel’s violations would be fully exposed to smear campaigns based on bad-faith allegations of antisemitism, harming their freedom of expression,” if the UN went ahead, it added.

The appeal comes after 54 scholars issued a similar warning last year.

But ‘Israel’, with full-throated EU support, is pressing ahead with plans to set the IHRA wording in political stone in New York despite the growing academic outcry.

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) discussed the pros and cons of the definition in a hearing on October 31, in which the EU ambassador spoke out in favor.

One possible option is to enshrine it in a non-binding UNGA resolution, for instance on International Holocaust Remembrance Day in January next year, the EUobserver said.

The campaign is being spearheaded by Israel’s UN ambassador Gilad Erdan, himself no stranger to throwing around accusations.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, the UN’s Human Rights Council, the International Criminal Court in the Hague, and the UN itself were all “antisemitic”, Erdan has said in public remarks or tweets in recent months.

And the IHRA-definition battle comes after Israeli elections brought to power a new right-wing bloc, including the extremist Religious Zionists party, auguring badly for Palestinian wellbeing.

But for her part, Katherina von Schnurbein, a senior EU official tasked with combatting antisemitism, told EUobserver the IHRA text “does not limit freedom of expression”.

She did so on grounds it also includes the line: “Criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”.

“It [the IHRA text] has been endorsed by EU member states, numerous local governments around the world, many cities, dozens of universities, major sport and football clubs,” she said.

“Defending … all human rights is important to me,” Von Schnurbein added.

“We know that the IHRA [definition] has been adopted by multiple governments, mainly in Europe and the US. That in itself is problematic. However, if the UN were to endorse [it], the harm would be exponentially greater,” the 128 academics said in their letter.

“This could also weaken the UN’s ability to act as a neutral mediator in Israel and Palestine,” they said.