Will posting this get me called a self-hating Jew? Not the first time I bet.
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism is
a tool to identify, confront and raise awareness about antisemitism as
it manifests in countries around the world today. It includes a preamble, definition, and a set of 15 guidelines
that provide detailed guidance for those seeking to recognize
antisemitism in order to craft responses. It was developed by a group of
scholars in the fields of Holocaust history, Jewish studies, and Middle
East studies to meet what has become a growing challenge: providing
clear guidance to identify and fight antisemitism while protecting free
expression. Initially signed by 210 scholars, it has now around 370
signatories.
Preamble
We, the undersigned, present the Jerusalem Declaration on
Antisemitism, the product of an initiative that originated in Jerusalem.
We include in our number international scholars working in Antisemitism
Studies and related fields, including Jewish, Holocaust, Israel,
Palestine, and Middle East Studies. The text of the Declaration has
benefited from consultation with legal scholars and members of civil
society.
Inspired by the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the 1969
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, the
2000 Declaration of the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust,
and the 2005 United Nations Resolution on Holocaust Remembrance, we
hold 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.
Conscious of the historical persecution of Jews throughout history
and of the universal lessons of the Holocaust, and viewing with alarm
the reassertion of antisemitism by groups that mobilize hatred and
violence in politics, society, and on the internet, we seek to provide a
usable, concise, and historically-informed core definition of
antisemitism with a set of guidelines.
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism responds to “the IHRA
Definition,” the document that was adopted by the International
Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. Because the IHRA
Definition is unclear in key respects and widely open to different
interpretations, it has caused confusion and generated controversy,
hence weakening the fight against antisemitism. Noting that it calls
itself “a working definition,” we have sought to improve on it by
offering (a) a clearer core definition and (b) a coherent set of
guidelines. We hope this will be helpful for monitoring and combating
antisemitism, as well as for educational purposes. We propose our
non-legally binding Declaration as an alternative to the IHRA
Definition. Institutions that have already adopted the IHRA Definition
can use our text as a tool for interpreting it.
The IHRA Definition includes 11 “examples” of antisemitism, 7 of
which focus on the State of Israel. While this puts undue emphasis on
one arena, there is a widely-felt need for clarity on the limits of
legitimate political speech and action concerning Zionism, Israel, and
Palestine. Our aim is twofold: (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. We do not all share the same political views
and we are not seeking to promote a partisan political agenda.
Determining that a controversial view or action is not antisemitic
implies neither that we endorse it nor that we do not.
The guidelines that focus on Israel-Palestine (numbers 6 to 15)
should be taken together. In general, when applying the guidelines each
should be read in the light of the others and always with a view to
context. Context can include the intention behind an utterance, or a
pattern of speech over time, or even the identity of the speaker,
especially when the subject is Israel or Zionism. So, for example,
hostility to Israel could be an expression of an antisemitic animus, or
it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or it could be the
emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience
at the hands of the State. In short, judgement and sensitivity are
needed in applying these guidelines to concrete situations.
Definition
Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).
Guidelines
A. General
It is racist to essentialize (treat a character trait
as inherent) or to make sweeping negative generalizations about a given
population. What is true of racism in general is true of antisemitism in
particular.What is particular in classic antisemitism is the idea
that Jews are linked to the forces of evil. This stands at the core of
many anti-Jewish fantasies, such as the idea of a Jewish conspiracy in
which “the Jews” possess hidden power that they use to promote their own
collective agenda at the expense of other people. This linkage between
Jews and evil continues in the present: in the fantasy that “the Jews”
control governments with a “hidden hand,” that they own the banks,
control the media, act as “a state within a state,” and are responsible
for spreading disease (such as Covid-19). All these features can be
instrumentalized by different (and even antagonistic) political causes.Antisemitism can be manifested in words, visual
images, and deeds. Examples of antisemitic words include utterances that
all Jews are wealthy, inherently stingy, or unpatriotic. In antisemitic
caricatures, Jews are often depicted as grotesque, with big noses and
associated with wealth. Examples of antisemitic deeds are: assaulting
someone because she or he is Jewish, attacking a synagogue, daubing
swastikas on Jewish graves, or refusing to hire or promote people
because they are Jewish.Antisemitism can be direct or indirect, explicit or
coded. For example, “The Rothschilds control the world” is a coded
statement about the alleged power of “the Jews” over banks and
international finance. Similarly, portraying Israel as the ultimate evil
or grossly exaggerating its actual influence can be a coded way of
racializing and stigmatizing Jews. In many cases, identifying coded
speech is a matter of context and judgement, taking account of these
guidelines.Denying or minimizing the Holocaust by claiming that
the deliberate Nazi genocide of the Jews did not take place, or that
there were no extermination camps or gas chambers, or that the number of
victims was a fraction of the actual total, is antisemitic.
B. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are antisemitic
Applying the symbols, images and negative stereotypes of classical antisemitism (see guidelines 2 and 3) to the State of Israel.Holding Jews collectively responsible for
Israel’s conduct or treating Jews, simply because they are Jewish, as
agents of Israel.Requiring people, because they are Jewish, publicly to condemn Israel or Zionism (for example, at a political meeting).Assuming that non-Israeli Jews, simply because they are Jews, are necessarily more loyal to Israel than to their own countries.Denying the right of Jews in the State of
Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in
accordance with the principle of equality.
C. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are not antisemitic
(whether or not one approves of the view or action) Supporting the Palestinian demand for
justice and the full grant of their political, national, civil and human
rights, as encapsulated in international law.Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form
of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements
for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the
Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord
full equality to all inhabitants “between the river and the sea,”
whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state,
federal state, or in whatever form.Evidence-based criticism of Israel as a
state. This includes its institutions and founding principles. It also
includes its policies and practices, domestic and abroad, such as the
conduct of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza, the role Israel plays in
the region, or any other way in which, as a state, it influences events
in the world. It is not antisemitic to point out systematic racial
discrimination. In general, the same norms of debate that apply to other
states and to other conflicts over national self-determination apply in
the case of Israel and Palestine. Thus, even if contentious, it is not
antisemitic, in and of itself, to compare Israel with other historical
cases, including settler-colonialism or apartheid.Boycott, divestment and sanctions are
commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In
the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic.Political speech does not have to be
measured, proportional, tempered, or reasonable to be protected under
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or Article 10 of
the European Convention on Human Rights and other human rights
instruments. Criticism that some may see as excessive or contentious, or
as reflecting a “double standard,” is not, in and of itself,
antisemitic. In general, the line between antisemitic and
non-antisemitic speech is different from the line between unreasonable
and reasonable speech.
For list of signatories: https://jerusalemdeclaration.org
