by Paul Braterman
The International Holocaust Remembrance Association definition of anti-Semitism is unacceptable, incoherent, and harmful, and should not be used in formulation of policy.
First, my own credentials. I am Jewish. I passed my bar mitzvah test at what was then Jews’ College, London, with distinction. I have led congregations in prayer, and after decades of godlessness still feel nostalgia for that shared activity. And there is a field in northern Israel, close to the Lebanese border, that I helped clear of stones with my own hands.
At the tiny rural Church of England school that I went to when evacuated from London during World War 2, the older children would dance round me in a ring, singing
Jew, Jew, put him in the stew.
I think my dislike for bad poetry dates from that time.
I have been told that the Jews killed Jesus, and had fistfights at school in response to anti-Semitic insults. And of course, I was told that the Jews had all the money.
I remember the first images out of Belsen in Life magazine. My parents tried to hide them, but whether by accident or design they did not make a very good job of it.
When I applied to a secondary school in the highly competitive environment of the late 1940s, I knew that I had to do better in the entrance exam than a Gentile applicant, because the school had decided to place a limit on the number of Jews it would admit (common practice at the time, although it would now of course be illegal).
I have known Holocaust survivors, and been good friends with people whose escape from the Nazis was a matter of lucky contacts and good fortune.
And more recently, I have been addressed by people scolding me for this or that action of the Israeli government as if I were personally responsible for it.
So I regard myself as well acquainted with anti-Semitism, from the horrific to the trivial.
I have been thinking much of late of the distinction between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel, and had come to conclusion that the attempt to stifle such criticism by labelling it as anti-Semitic is despicable.
Then, belatedly. I came across the definition adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. Although it is, on the timescale of the phenomenon, very recent, and describes itself as non-legally binding, it has been enormously influential. I consider it self-contradictory, divorced from reality, and likely to cause dissension and do great harm.
The definition proper reads:
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.
So far, so good, but so non-specific that any alleged example would require a judgement call (actually, this may not be such a bad thing). For this reason, the definition is accompanied by what is intended to be helpful text, which early on states that
criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
Unfortunately, two important examples of what is considered anti-Semitism directly contradict this worthy principle:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Is the state of Israel a racist endeavor? Yes, because the Law of Return gives any Jew, together with their family, the right to enter Israel and become citizens. No, because Jews are not a race. Yes, because almost always “Jew” is defined by inherited identity. No, because Jews have a special need for a refuge from persecution. Yes, because you do not need to be suffering persecution in order to have the right to enter. No, because within Israel there are 2 million Arab citizens with full citizen rights, among them Arab judges and university professors. Yes, because Arab citizens are discriminated against and under-served, to say nothing of the very different ways in which Jews and Arabs are treated in the Occupied Territories. No, because that last represents a strategic necessity. Yes, because…
Is contemporary Israeli policy comparable to that of the Nazis? Yes, because Arab lives are treated as of no value. Because children are being starved to death. Because of mass destruction and displacement. Because Israeli plans for the Gaza strip and, implicitly, for the West Bank, include seizure of Lebensraum and removal of populations. No, because there is no explicit policy of mass extermination (though it is worth remembering that mass extermination of Jews only became Nazi policy in 1942).
You may agree or disagree with what I just said. That’s not the point. The point is that these are matters that we urgently need to discuss. The IHRA would shut such discussion down, since in my last two paragraphs I have on their definition committed anti-Semitism more than half a dozen times.
It is difficult and dangerous to set limits to acceptable speech, for many reasons. Such limits may work best for very specific cases (e.g. when the IHRA, and many others including the German government, describe Holocaust denial as anti-Semitism), or where couched in terms of broad generalities, as in the part of the IHRA definition that they (and I) have presented in bold. Beyond that, the task becomes increasingly difficult in these tumultuous times, and much of what I have written here in 2025 would not have been applicable in 2016 when the definition was formulated. Faced with these realities, I would suggest that an organization whose noble mission it is the remembrance of the past may not be the best guide for how to respond in the future.
***
Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.