Why I Signed the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism

The Wire, 2021

On 25 March 2021, the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) was presented by a group of over 200 eminent Jewish scholars of antisemitism studies and related fields, some of whom had been engaged in discussion since June 2020. They defined antisemitism as follows: ‘Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish),’ and made it clear that ‘while antisemitism has certain distinctive features, the fight against it is inseparable from the overall fight against all forms of racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and gender discrimination’. The authors explain that the declaration is based on universal human rights principles, and is a response to two circumstances. One is the alarming resurgence of antisemitism by groups mobilising hatred and violence in politics, society and on the internet, which make it imperative to have a usable, concise and historically-informed core definition of antisemitism with a set of guidelines; and the other is the definition adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016, which they regard as unclear in key respects, widely open to different interpretations, and weakening the fight against antisemitism by causing confusion and generating controversy. They express particular concern that some of the ‘examples’ of antisemitism included in the IHRA exclude legitimate political speech and action concerning Zionism, Israel and Palestine. Thus, their aim is two-fold: ‘(1) to strengthen the fight against antisemitism by clarifying what it is and how it is manifested, (2) to protect a space for an open debate about the vexed question of the future of Israel/Palestine’.

Free Speech on Israel, 2021

Reveals the diplomatic history behind a controversial international definition of antisemitism, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in May 2016. Shows that this definition has been consequentially misrepresented by pro-Israel advocacy groups as well as senior IHRA officials. Media coverage: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/23/ihra-misrepresents-own-definition-of-anti-semitism-says-report Errata: https://jamiesternweiner.wordpress.com/2021/10/04/ihra-the-politics-of-a-definition-errata/

Middle East Critique, 2024

In this paper, I focus on the cultural and political work the IHRA definition of antisemitism carries out to explain why it has been adopted by hundreds of actors. I offer three key reasons to explain its effectiveness: First, it operates on an affective level, interpolating people who identify as Jews to also identify with Israel and Zionism; Second, it ties the right to Jewish difference with a Jewish State and Jewish sovereignty; Third, the definition provides a defence of a regime I call 'democratic apartheid'. The analysis reveals that the IHRA definition of antisemitism serves as a counterinsurgency tool aimed at shielding Israel from resistance to its oppressive form of racial governance and, following its recent war on Gaza, from accusations of genocidal violence.

Contending Modernities, 2021

2019

2019

In June 2017, the European Parliament (EP) passed a resolution “to combat Antisemitism.” The EP urged member states of the European Union, as well as its institutions and agencies, to adopt “the working definition of Antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and apply it to support efforts by justice and prosecutorial authorities to investigate and prosecute acts of Antisemitism more efficiently and effectively.”

Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations, 2011

On May 14, 1948, on the eve of the expiration of the British Mandate, Jewish leaders in Mandatory Palestine gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum and issued a Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. Like the American Declaration of Independence, this document sets forth their rationale for the formation of the state and the ideals that these leaders hoped it would embody. The founding of the state, mandated by the United Nations, was greeted with widespread joy in the Jewish world and with universal belligerence in the Arab world. Many parts of the Christian world, in many ways caught between the two and embedded in the legacy of its own anti-Judaism, were dismayed over this resumption of Jewish sovereignty over the Holy Land. Now, sixty years later, a revolution has occurred in the teachings of the Catholic and many Protestant churches about Jews and Judaism. In dialogue settings, the topic of Israel is very much on the table, no longer the proverbial "elephant in the room," even if full understanding remains an unattained goal. In this context, the editors of Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations have invited a series of brief reflections on the text of the "Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel" from the perspective of the author's own engagement in Christian-Jewish relations.

ResPublica, 2022

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) developed a 'Working Definition of Antisemitism' in 2016. Whilst the definition has received a significant amount of media attention, we are not aware of any comprehensive philosophical analysis. This article analyses this definition. We conclude that the definition and its list of examples ought to be rejected. The urgency to do so stems from the fact that pro-Israel activists can and have mobilised the IHRA document for political goals unrelated to tackling antisemitism, notably to stigmatise and silence critics of the Israeli government. This causes widespread self-censorship, has an adverse impact on freedom of speech, and impedes action against the unjust treatment of Palestinians. We also identify intrinsic problems in the way the definition refers to criticism of Israel similar 'to that leveled against any other country', ambiguous wording about 'the power of Jews as a collective', lack of clarity as to the Jewish people's 'right to self-determination', and its denial of obvious racism. We consider alternative definitions and prefer one like the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) definition, 'hostility to or prejudice against Jews', with the addition of the words 'as Jews'. We recognise that the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) can play a useful purpose in illustrating the shortcomings of the IHRA definition. However, we do not advocate promoting it as the prime international definition. Indeed, we question the efficacy of using complex new definitions to combat racism against Jews or other groups, and instead advocate combatting it through collective action across societies.

Rosa Luxemburg Foundation Papers , 2019

The “Working Definition of Antisemitism” recognized by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016 is an instrument for collecting required data on and fighting antisemitism that has achieved wide dissemination. In a field of action characterized by a high degree of conceptual insecurity, the definition promises conceptual orientation by providing a basis for practical work. Indeed, with its concrete language devoid of technical jargon and its tangible examples that illustrate the concept of antisemitism using typical, recurring phenomena, the “Working Definition” has become the basis for the work of various groups of users. Moreover, the adoption of hitherto rarely examined aspects of antisemitism related to Israel provided an update for the discussion that was necessary at the time the definition was formulated (in the early 2000s). However, a closer examination also reveals severe deficits. In particular, the “Working Definition” is inconsistent, contradictory and formulated very vaguely. It therefore does not satisfy the requirements of a good definition. Moreover, the core definition of antisemitism is reductionist. It emphasizes some antisemitic phenomena and levels of analysis but largely omits other essential ones. This applies in particular to ideological and discursive aspects, for example antisemitism as a conspiracist worldview. Aspects of organizational sociology related to mobilization in movements and political parties as well as their consequences in discriminatory institutional regulations and practices are also not mentioned. Moreover, some of the examples related to Israel appended to the core definition can only be classified as antisemitic within context using further information, as what is described is ambiguous and occurs in complex, overlapping constellations of conflicts, which often do not readily allow singling out one specific problem such as antisemitism. An example is afforded by the so-called double standards. They are not sufficient criteria for distinguishing an antisemitic focus on Israel from one related to the specific features of Israeli policies and their geopolitical significance. As a consequence, the “Working Definition” is conducive to contradictory and error-prone application in practice and leads to assessments of incidents and facts that are not based on clear criteria but on the preconceptions of those applying it or on prevalent interpretations adopted without reflection. Applying the “Working Definition” creates the fiction of an objective assessment guided by criteria. The definition provides procedural legitimacy for decisions that are in fact taken on the basis of other criteria that remain implicit and are specified neither in the definition nor in the examples. The weaknesses of the “Working Definition” are the gateway to its political instrumentalization, for instance for morally discrediting opposing positions in the Arab-Israeli conflict with the accusation of antisemitism. This has relevant implications for fundamental rights. The increasing implementation of the “Working Definition” as a quasi-legal basis for administrative action promises regulatory potential. In fact, it is instead an instrument that all but invites arbitrariness. It can be used to abridge fundamental rights particularly freedom of speech with respect to disfavoured positions on Israel. In contrast to what the designation “Working Definition” suggests, no further development of the definition to rectify these weaknesses is occurring. The bottom line is that the attempt to solve problems of general conceptual clarification and universal applicability by means of the “Working Definition of Antisemitism” must be seen to have failed. Mainly due to its technical weaknesses, the deficient practice of its application, its nevertheless partly binding legal status and its potential for political instrumentalization with problematic implications for freedom of speech, the use of the “Working Definition of Antisemitism” cannot be recommended. A potential exception could only lie in narrowly defined pedagogical contexts. As the genesis of the “Working Definition of Antisemitism” and its wide dissemination indicate, there is— not least in view of the persisting threat from current antisemitism—a great need on the part of various institutions for practicable criteria for identifying antisemitic phenomena. The development of clear and context-specific instruments for practical application is therefore urgently recommended.

2024

Embark on a transformative journey with From Dissent to Action, a groundbreaking exploration of Jewish dissent against Zionism that reveals the complexities and nuances underlying one of the most pressing issues of our time. This compelling book invites readers to delve deep into the historical roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, examining how ideological foundations have shaped contemporary realities and impacted the lives of countless individuals across generations. Through the powerful voices of renowned thinkers and activists such as Judah Magnes, Hannah Arendt, Noam Chomsky, and Ilan Pappé, this book highlights a rich tapestry of Jewish thought that challenges dominant narratives. These dissenters not only critique the status quo but also advocate for justice, equality, and reconciliation. Their insights provide a fresh lens on a topic often shrouded in controversy, illuminating the urgent need for dialogue and understanding in a polarized world. From Dissent to Action goes beyond mere analysis; it serves as a clarion call for anyone passionate about social justice and human rights. By amplifying diverse perspectives, the book encourages readers to reflect on their own beliefs and consider the transformative power of activism. It emphasizes that dissent is not just an act of opposition but a vital component of a healthy society, fostering the potential for meaningful change. The book meticulously chronicles the evolution of dissent within the Jewish community, tracing its roots from early opposition to Zionism to contemporary movements advocating for Palestinian rights. It examines the moral and ethical dilemmas faced by those who choose to speak out, highlighting the courage required to challenge prevailing ideologies. Through personal stories and historical context, readers will gain a deeper understanding of the motivations behind dissent and the implications for both Israelis and Palestinians. This essential read is designed for students, activists, scholars, and anyone curious about the dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It offers a comprehensive examination of the historical context, the voices of dissent, and the pathways toward a more just future. As you navigate through its pages, you will find yourself inspired to engage with the complexities of identity, belonging, and the quest for justice. Moreover, From Dissent to Action encourages readers to envision a future where dialogue replaces division and understanding triumphs over conflict. It challenges you to consider your role in this ongoing struggle for justice and to recognize the power of collective action in creating meaningful change.