Advertisement
Advertisement

Opinion: Jews get to define antisemitism

Share

Danzig is a lawyer who lives in Encinitas. He was a drill sergeant and combat conditioning and hand-to-hand combat instructor with the Israeli Defense Forces from 1982 to 1985 and a New York City police officer from 1989 to 1992.

On Oct. 26, the board for the San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) passed a resolution condemning antisemitism. A resolution that affirmed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, a definition agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of Jews, and in the case of the SDUSD resolution, by every mainstream Jewish organization and synagogue in San Diego.

We live in an age where antisemitic hate crimes are on the rise, where Jews account for more than 60 percent of the victims of all faith-based hate crimes, and where hate crimes against Jews in the U.S. outnumber, on a per capita basis, those against Black and Muslim people in the U.S. more than 2 to 1.

Advertisement

The day before the San Diego school board’s action, the American Jewish Committee released the results of its latest study on antisemitism in the U.S. to highlight the need for important institutions to stand against the scourge of antisemitism. In pertinent part, that study found:

  • 1 in 4 American Jews (24 percent) were the target of antisemitism over the past 12 months.
  • 4 in 10 American Jews (39 percent) changed their behavior due to fears of antisemitism over the past year, with 22 percent saying they avoided wearing or displaying things that would enable others to identify them as Jewish.
  • While 82 percent of American Jews believe antisemitism has increased in the U.S. over the past five years, only 44 percent of the general public agrees — though 41 percent of Americans say they’ve witnessed at least one antisemitic incident over the past year.

The rise in antisemitic hate crimes and of Jews directly experiencing antisemitism speaks to the need for our institutions to clearly condemn antisemitism — as the vast majority of Jews and Jewish institutions define it — without equivocation.

Despite the foregoing, we not only live at a time when Jew-hatred and systemic antisemitism is on the rise, we also live during a time when many non-Jews feel it’s appropriate to gaslight Jews about what is and isn’t antisemitic.

Read this essay for another viewpoint.

Why do some authorities feel free to define us and measure the severity of the hate we experience?

Nov. 12, 2021

The reality is that in order to have free rein to express their version of antisemitism, some people want to define antisemitism as narrowly as possible, and for that reason they oppose resolutions like the one recently passed by the San Diego school board.

As cover for the real reasons they want a veto over the Jewish community’s definition of antisemitism, those gaslighting Jews generally make three arguments.

They argue the IHRA definition will “chill free speech” because it makes legitimate criticism of Israel antisemitic. As a part of that argument, they claim the IHRA definition is actually a tool for “weaponizing antisemitism.” They argue that adopting the IHRA definition will increase anti-Arab or anti-Muslim hatred. Lastly, they assert that because there are Jews or Jewish groups who oppose the IHRA definition, this supports the adoption of a more narrow definition of antisemitism.

All of these arguments are specious.

First, “hate speech” is protected by the First Amendment. Thus, defining something as hate speech doesn’t impact legitimate First Amendment rights. It is also a fabrication that IHRA defines ordinary criticism of Israel as antisemitic. As it relates to Israel, what IHRA defines as antisemitic is equating Israelis with Nazis, denying the Jewish people their collective right to self-determination (their very peoplehood), and holding Israel to standards not demanded of other democratic countries — certainly not “ordinary criticism.”

This argument is also antisemitic. Effectively, the claim is the overwhelming majority of Jews, and every mainstream Jewish institution in San Diego, doesn’t believe the IHRA definition is accurate. Rather, these Jews want to “weaponize antisemitism” to “stifle free speech.” Meaning, almost every Jew and Jewish institution in San Diego —according to those opposing IHRA — are engaged in a conspiracy against free speech.

As the late great Rabbi Jonathan Sacks often discussed, at its core, antisemitism is a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies about Jews or Jewish groups conspiring to harm others through nefarious means are a central feature of antisemitism going back centuries. Here, the argument that IHRA is wrong and not designed to try and stem the rising tide of antisemitism, and is instead part of an effort to stifle free speech, is itself an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

As for the claim that adopting the definition of antisemitism supported by almost all Jews and Jewish institutions will somehow increase anti-Arab or anti-Muslim hate, it is hard to imagine a bigger red herring. There is nothing in the IHRA definition that even refers to Arabs or Islam, nor should it. Sadly, Jew-hatred and Jew-haters come in all stripes. No one group or faith owns a monopoly on the oldest form of bigotry. Moreover, if people are promoting anti-Arab hate or anti-Muslim hate, that should be addressed too, though not at the expense of addressing by far the per capita No. 1 hate crime in America, and certainly not by “all lives mattering” Jew-hatred.

Lastly, and perhaps most insulting, is the argument that because a tiny minority of Jewish groups want a narrower definition for antisemitism, the IHRA definition should be disregarded. This is tokenism. It is equivalent to far-right members of a largely White group, like the Proud Boys, asking for a school board to more narrowly define anti-Black racism and to ignore endorsements for the broader definition supported by the NAACP, the National Urban League, the Rainbow Coalition, etc., as well the endorsement of every predominately African American church in the city — based on the argument that Candace Owens, a conservative commentator who is Black, agrees with the Proud Boys.

This is the chutzpah of the arguments being made by those who wish to exclude almost all Jews and mainstream Jewish organizations from defining antisemitism. Sadly, while it does require chutzpah to make these arguments, it is not surprising that those who want to demonize what polls have shown are at least 8 out of 10 U.S. and Israeli Jews (who support, care about and identify with Israel) also want to exclude their brand of Jew-hatred from the definition of antisemitism. What is surprising is how many people give credence to such arguments to those telling Jews they don’t get to define Jew-hatred. It would not be tolerated for anti-Asian hate, anti-Muslim hate or anti-Black hate. And it shouldn’t be tolerated for antisemitism. Not for one second.

Advertisement