Mark Stern

The Massachusetts Legislative Special Commission on Combatting Antisemitism issued its report and therein relied on the IHRA definition of antisemitism for most of its conclusions and recommendations. That is a serious mistake, as there are many problems with the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

One frequently leveled charge is that it defines all criticism of the state of Israel as antisemitic. It purports not to do, as its authors clarify: “… criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” The following comments address the question of whether that statement is belied by what the IHRA has defined as “antisemitic,” and whether the exemplars the IHRA gives are inherently flawed. Several of those exemplars are analyzed hereinafter.

• For one, the IHRA defines one as antisemitic if they accuse “… Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.” 

Depending on how one defines the phrase “Jews collectively” (Does it mean all Jews, or some Jews acting together?) any critic of AIPAC is deemed an antisemite where AIPAC admits that it endorsed Republican members of Congress who were election deniers because their sole criterion was the person’s position on Israel. Ergo, AIPAC, who represents many Jewish citizens, says it is more concerned about protecting Israel from criticism than protecting “democratic” elections in the US.

• In another, IHRA defines antisemitism as “… claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

The Civil Rights Act has made it clear that discrimination against Arab people is race discrimination. 28 U.S.C. sec. 1981. So U.S. law plainly defines Israel’s avowed purpose of setting up a state in which Jews have priority” as racism. ¹

• In another IHRA example, it says: “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

There are wholly fair “comparisons” that can and should be made, and are indeed made by persons, institutions, courts, and countries throughout the world. While it is certainly extreme to say they are comparable, that is, equally horrific, that is not what the example prohibits.

• In another, but not the last, IHRA says, “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

I respectfully refer to the comments I made above regarding AIPAC.

• Another IHRA example is “[m]aking … or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about … Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Again, simply telling the truth about the extent to which influences, indeed virtually controls certain decisions of “the government or other societal institutions” or certain media institutions is defined as antisemitic.

1 Furthermore, whether or not the “Jewish people … [have] a right to self-determination” in the location where Israel lies, or an expanded location emanating therefrom, is a very complicated legal question. It is not antisemitic to argue the validity of the proposition that it does not have that right. Indeed, it is a dangerous infringement on the right of free speech, depending on where the speaker is asserting the proposition.