Unpacking the Antisemitism Debate: Clarifying IHRA vs Jerusalem Declarations
"Potential existance of leniency for certain individuals by the liberal faction"
At the Left Party's congress in Chemnitz, the leadership's attempts to prevent the adoption of the "Jerusalem Declaration" fell short. The decision led to a storm of criticism, with Bundestag Vice-President Bodo Ramelow stating, "Whoever wants to eliminate Israel and destroy or expel Jews, that is antisemitism!"
Historian and antisemitism expert Juliane Wetzel weighs in on the differences between the two definitions, the IHRA and the Jerusalem Declaration. She explains that the IHRA definition is misused, primarily because its key clause, which allows for legitimate criticism of Israel, isn't commonly cited in Germany.
In an interview, Wetzel discusses her thoughts on the Left's decision to join the Jerusalem Declaration. She highlights that the IHRA definition contains a clause that exempts critical assessments of the Israeli government from being labeled antisemitic. However, this clause was not included when the German government and parliament recommended the IHRA definition in 2017. Wetzel believes this omission was likely a political decision, though she can't provide solid evidence for that claim.
The primary focus of the IHRA definition isn't to serve as a scientific definition but rather to support practical work, namely Holocaust remembrance and education. The definition was intentionally kept broad to accommodate various countries' different perspectives, recognizing it would always be open to interpretation.
The key question is where the limits of legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and government lie, and Wetzel emphasizes that criticism of Israel is not automatically antisemitic, despite widespread beliefs to the contrary.
The Independent Experts' Circle on Antisemitism, of which Wetzel was a member, published a report in 2017. In this report, they define criticism of Israel as antisemitic if it's loaded with antisemitic stereotypes, makes false comparisons to National Socialism, or questions the right of Israel to exist.
Interestingly, the Jerusalem Declaration came five years after the IHRA definition and doesn't significantly differ in many aspects, except regarding the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Some scholars argue that support for BDS is not inherently antisemitic, depending on the context.
However, critics point out that the Jerusalem Declaration is more precise in certain areas and offers a clearer perspective on the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Ultimately, both definitions serve different purposes and can coexist without contradiction.
Community policy should address the differences between the IHRA and Jerusalem Declarations regarding the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement in the context of education-and-self-development and general-news. The politics surrounding the omission of a clause exempting critical assessments of the Israeli government from being labeled antisemitic in the German government's recommendation of the IHRA definition in 2017 necessitates further examination.
