The Politics of Defining Antisemitism

Abstract

The Politics of Defining Antisemitism Joshua Shanes (bio) The editors of this new volume—following david engel's provocative essay "Away from a Definition of Antisemitism"—explicitly reject the idea that a single definition can capture the entire history of this phenomenon, doubting that it even constitutes a single phenomenon.1 "This volume is informed by the insight," they write, "that there is neither a single way to think about antisemitism, nor an unambiguous, universally accepted definition of the term itself."2 Instead, they approach it from twenty-one different, if at times overlapping, perspectives. They admit that this is "not merely a topic of 'academic' interest" and "recognize the importance of juridical efforts to define antisemitism for the purpose of curbing hate crimes," but remain skeptical of efforts to construct a single definition that covers all its history.3 This begs the question, however, of what definition should be used to curb those hate crimes and why there is such a contentious debate at this moment over the issue. Arguably, support for these "juridical efforts" contests Engel's essay and suggests antisemitism can be defined, despite their support for Engel's contextual approach. Toward this end, it would have helped to address popular efforts at definition, and yet not a single essay in this volume discusses the popular "working definition" of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) that has been so effectively weaponized in North America and Europe in debates over Israel and Zionism, nor the competing Jerusalem Declaration (JDA) composed and signed by hundreds of leading scholars of antisemitism around the world. The definitions are remarkable in both their similarities and differences. IHRA chooses a relatively open-ended definition of antisemitism, as follows: "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."4 It follows with eleven brief examples of antisemitism, seven of which focus on Israel. The Jerusalem Declaration opens with [End Page 188] a more concise definition—"Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)"—and then develops examples more fully and methodically, with a clear intention of responding to potential overreach regarding IHRA, in some cases affirming but in others countering explicit or implicit assumptions of antisemitism in the earlier document.5 As a result, a vigorous and often personal public debate quickly broke out, as advocates of the earlier definition rallied to defend their preference. Why is this debate happening now—a question that surely speaks to the timing of this volume's release—and what divides these two definitions and their advocates? To answer these questions, let's first look at defenses of IHRA published in response to the release of the Jerusalem Declaration. "The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism is itself antisemitic.… Their real objective is to use the fight against antisemitism as another weapon with which to vilify Israel."6 This was the title of the JDA analysis of Dr. Dana Barnett, from the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, and it is the broad consensus of nearly every critique of the JDA in defense of IHRA this author could find. In other words, the scholars behind the JDA were allegedly not working to fight antisemitism but rather hoped to manipulate the definition in order to harm Israel. David Hirsh, author of Contemporary Leftwing Antisemitism, went even farther. He accused the authors of the JDA of composing the definition not to fight antisemitism but rather to "fight efforts to fight antisemitism" and to protect antisemites.7 A consortium of other English scholars went farther still, accusing the "smug Jewish academics and intellectuals" who signed the JDA of seeking to "incite Jew hatred," adding for good measure that they were motivated by the "desperate longing to be regarded as 'good Jews.'"8 Why the vitriol, and what exactly is the argument about? The irony is that scholars—as this new volume makes clear—mostly agree on the basic features of antisemitism, at least implicitly, even when reticent to define it explicitly...