A Look at the IHRA and JDA Definitions of Antisemitism: Clashing Views on Criticism
Potential Risk: Some Individuals Might Escape Consequences, Due to Left-Wing's Tolerance
In a recent event, the Left Party decided to back the "Jerusalem Declaration (JDA)," an antisemitism definition alternative to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition. This decision sparked debate, with concerns about the potential for either definition to be misused and the implications on free speech. Historian and antisemitism expert Juliane Wetzel sheds light on the key differences between the two definitions.
Qt: What were your thoughts when you heard the Left supports the JDA?
JW: For some time now, the left spectrum has been critical of the IHRA definition, so it's no surprise the Left Party has joined the JDA. However, few understand the ramifications: The IHRA definition originally contains a passage that permits and does not consider criticism of the Israeli government to be antisemitic.
You mean the sentence, "However, criticism of Israel that is comparable to criticism of other countries cannot be considered antisemitic."?
Correct. When the German government and parliament recommended using the IHRA definition in 2017, this passage was omitted.
Why was it left out?
I can't say for certain, but rumors suggest it was a political decision.
What purpose do we need a specific antisemitism definition?
The IHRA definition was not developed as a scientific definition. It was more about supporting practical work, especially in the realm of Holocaust remembrance and education. Criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic, despite the widespread belief to the contrary.
Is criticism of Israel antisemitic, Mr. Klein? Where does the boundary lie between antisemitism and criticism of Israel?
In our 2017 report for the German Bundestag, our expert committee defined criticism of Israel as antisemitic if it employs antisemitic stereotypes, reflects typical perpetrator-victim reversals of antisemitism, or casts doubt on Israel's right to exist. Gray areas do exist, as we emphasized in our report. The antisemitism charge is often triggered too quickly, especially in connection with Israel, for statements are frequently labeled as antisemitic. This dilutes the concept of antisemitism.
How do the JDA and IHRA definitions differ?
The IHRA definition is more specific in some aspects, such as regarding the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The JDA, on the other hand, provides a more specific definition in some aspects, including the BDS movement.
Is it possible to support both definitions?
Certain signatories of the JDA may indeed view the IHRA definition more critically than others. Yet, the IHRA definition and the JDA are not mutually exclusive. For instance, Wolfgang Benz, a renowned antisemitism expert, signed the JDA but still believes the IHRA definition is an essential stepping stone.
Is anti-Semitism merely a form of racism?
No, anti-Semitism is much more than just a specific form of racism. Unlike racism, anti-Semitism always revolves around the alleged power of Jews. Holocaust denial or falsification is another crucial component of anti-Semitism since World War II. The JDA does not address this issue.
The JDA states that supporting regulations granting full equality to all residents "between the river and the sea" is not inherently antisemitic. Is this an open invitation for the "From the River to the Sea" slogan?
While many interpreters of the JDA might view it that way, the authors likely disagree. However, it is essential to acknowledge that the slogan implies eliminating Israel and its citizens, which is criminalized in Germany. Whether the German law on this matter is always justifiable is debatable.
The Left's resolution declares the IHRA definition a "massive gateway for authoritarian state action to prevent unwanted criticism and political protest." Is there any basis for this claim?
No, this was never the IHRA definition's intention.
However, isn't it possible that it's being used that way today?
Indeed, the IHRA definition is often misused, particularly in Germany, where the clarifying sentence regarding criticism of Israel is absent. For instance, criticizing Israel may be wrongly interpreted as antisemitic, which cannot be blamed on the definition itself.
Left politician Martina Renner contends, "It's not about definitions, but about exonerating persons and groups from the antisemitism charge to continue co-operating."
If the JDA is interpreted as some in the Left appear to do, there's a risk of granting certain people undue leniency. The JDA, like the IHRA definition, can also be misinterpreted and used beyond the intentions of its authors and signatories.
Interview by Juliane Wetzel, conducted by Hubertus Volmer
Source: ntv.de
- Interviews
- Antisemitism
- Israel
- Israel-hostility
- Gaza Strip
- The Left
- Party Congress
- Chemnitz
Additional Insights
- The IHRA definition of antisemitism was initially developed to support practical work in Holocaust remembrance and education.
- Critics of the IHRA definition argue that it may be used to stifle political dissent against Israeli policies, as some interpret the examples as limiting legitimate criticism of Israel.
- The IHRA definition's examples have a strong focus on Israel, while the JDA emphasizes the context and intent of criticism.
- The debate around the IHRA and JDA definitions of antisemitism extends to the discussions about community policy, education-and-self-development, and politics, as these definitions have implications on free speech and the definition of criticism.
- The IHRA and JDA definitions of antisemitism differ in their approaches to criticisms of Israel, notably in their perspectives on the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and the JDA provides a more specific definition in some aspects compared to the IHRA definition.
