"Potential risk lies in the leniency shown to certain individuals by the liberal faction"
Loose Cannon: Uncensored Assistance, No Filters
Antisemitism: IHRA, JDA, and the Political Maelstrom
In the recent Left Party congress at Chemnitz, a contentious decision was made during a lightning-fast debate: The delegates voted to endorse the "Jerusalem Declaration" (JDA), an interpretation of antisemitism that often competes with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition. This resolution, however, sparked criticism within the party: "Anyone who wants to eliminate, destroy, or expel Jews is an antisemite!", asserted Bundestag Vice-President Bodo Ramelow.
Expert historian and antisemitism whiz Juliane Wetzel provides insight into the differences between IHRA and JDA in an interview with ntv.de. Both definitions, she states, are susceptible to misuse. Wetzel notes that criticism of Israel is antisemitic "only when loaded with antisemitic stereotypes."
ntv.de: What however, did you feel as you heard the Left Party officially embraced the Jerusalem Declaration (JDA)?
Juliane Wetzel: Criticism of the IHRA definition from the left spectrum has been relentless, so the Left Party's overall adoption of the JDA may perhaps be an unavoidable outcome. The issue lies in the fact that few understand this: The IHRA definition originated with a clause that explicitly permits and does not consider criticism of the Israeli government as antisemitic.
You mean something like this: "However, criticism of Israel comparable to that of other countries cannot be considered antisemitic."
Indeed. When the German government and the German Bundestag recommended the use of the IHRA definition in 2017, this clause was regrettably omitted.
Why omit it?
I can't say for sure; rumors suggest political motives, but I have no evidence to support that.
Why, then, do we require a specific definition of antisemitism?
In my view, it stems primarily from the IHRA definition not being initially intended as a scholarly definition. Instead, its purpose was to support practical work, particularly in the areas of Holocaust education and remembrance. Numerous requests were directed to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, so it was deemed necessary to offer this definition; Wetzel was a member of the German delegation at the IHRA for more than twenty years. There was a deliberate choice to make the definition broad due to the knowledge that there would be countries unwilling to agree otherwise. The definition was intended to serve as a guideline, and we were well aware that it would be open to interpretation. When the definition was adopted in 2016, our primary focus was determining where the boundaries of legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and government lie.
Of course, criticism of Israel is not necessarily antisemitic.
Correct. Regrettably, this notion remains widespread today.
Government Politics: Klein answers Is criticism of Israel antisemitic, Mr. Klein? Where lies the boundary between antisemitism and criticism of Israel?
I was a member of the Independent Expert Group on Antisemitism, which published a report for the German Bundestag in 2017. In it, we defined criticism of Israel as antisemitic if it is loaded with antisemitic stereotypes, if it indulges in comparison to National Socialism with the typical perpetrator-victim reversal of antisemitism, or if it questions the right of Israel to exist. There are, of course, many ambiguous areas in this matter, as we candidly stated in our report. The key questions are always: Who says what, when, in what context, with what intention, and with what aim? Each case should be judged independently. The accusation of antisemitism is currently being deployed more frequently, particularly in matters pertaining to Israel, and statements are often labelled as antisemitic without concrete evidence or reasoning. This is problematic because it dilutes the gravity of antisemitism.
The Jerusalem Declaration was a rebuttal to the IHRA definition.
It emerged five years after the IHRA definition, by which time 800 organizations and numerous countries, including all EU states, had adopted it. Interestingly, the Jerusalem Declaration does not significantly differ from the IHRA definition in many regards, albeit it provides more specificity in some points, such as regarding the BDS movement.
Politics Uproar before the end: The Left is doing too well The demand for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel is "not inherently antisemitic," according to JDA. What are your thoughts on this?
It hinges on context. It's important to note that the founding principles of BDS contain antisemitic underpinnings. Personally, I find a boycott of Israel to be ridiculous. Why would one boycott Israeli scientists, for instance?
Left Party Leader Jan van Aken opposed ending the scientific debate on this matter at the party conference in Chemnitz but failed to do so. Is there indeed a scientific debate?
There is such a debate, but it's not about determining which definition - JDA or IHRA - is scientifically sound. The Jerusalem Declaration gives the impression of being backed by scientific rigor, unlike the IHRA definition. However, neither definition is a scientific definition. For academic purposes, I'd recommend the 2002/2003 definition proposed by Werner Bergmann and me for the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, which is based on Helen Fein's definition: "Antisemitism is a latent, persistent complex of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collective. These beliefs manifest themselves in individuals as prejudices, in culture as myths, ideology, folklore, and visual imagery, and in individual or collective actions - social or legal discrimination, political mobilization against Jews, and collective or state violence - intended to distance oneself from, expel, or destroy Jews."
Can it then be said that the Jerusalem Declaration is more specific than the IHRA?
Yes, and no. In one aspect, the IHRA definition is remarkably specific: It states that antisemitic acts can be directed against non-Jews perceived as Jewish. We have observed this phenomenon during the pandemic, such as Bill Gates being labeled as Jewish, although he is not. Such attribution is certainly antisemitic, as it is designed to discredit a wealthy and influential man who is supposedly benefiting from the coronavirus crisis. Institutions or individuals endeavoring against antisemitism are often regarded as Jewish. The JDA does not address this issue.
Politics Left Party in Hot Water with Antisemitism Resolution At the Left Party Conference, it was presented as though the Jerusalem Declaration and the IHRA are mutually exclusive. Can both definitions be supported?
While some signatories of the Jerusalem Declaration may be more critical of the IHRA definition, it's crucial to acknowledge that the IHRA definition and the Jerusalem Declaration do not conflict fundamentally. For example, Wolfgang Benz, the long-time director of the Center for Anti-Semitism Research at TU Berlin, signed the Jerusalem Declaration but still acknowledges the IHRA definition as an important milestone.
Is antisemitism something more than a form of racism?
Indeed, it is. Antisemitism can manifest in racist forms, as it did at the end of the 19th century when the term antisemitism was coined. However, in contemporary times, racist forms of antisemitism play a lesser role, except in fringe right-wing extremist groups. Antisemitism, since the end of World War II, has also involved the falsification or denial of the Holocaust, for instance, the assertion that Israelis are inflicting on the Palestinians today what Germans inflicted on the Jews. This aspect is absent from the Jerusalem Declaration.
Politics Herzog in Berlin: Gaza War casts a shadow over Israeli-German Jubilee The Jerusalem Declaration claims that it's "not inherently antisemitic to advocate for full equality for all residents 'between the river and the sea'. Is this a blank check for the slogan 'From the River to the Sea'?
It can be perceived in that light, although the authors of the JDA would probably disagree. At the same time, I contend that many who echo this slogan may be unaware of its true meanings. They are, in essence, advocating for the eradication of Israel and its citizens. This phrase is even criminalized in Germany. Whether such criminalization is always appropriate is open to debate. Once again, context and intent play decisive roles.
The Left Party's resolution states that the IHRA definition is "a massive door for authoritarian state action to prevent unwanted criticism and political protest". Is this groundless?
Not at all; it has never been the intention of the definition.
But isn't it possibly being utilized with such intentions today?
The issue lies in the constant misapplication of the IHRA definition - also in Germany, as the missing clause stating that criticism of Israel, comparable to criticism of other countries, is not antisemitic is usually left out. This is not the fault of the definition itself. A critique of the IHRA involves its heavy focus on identifying antisemitism within criticism of Israeli government policies, which critics argue may potentially restrict free expression and political dissent.
Left Politician Renner opines that it's not about definitions but "exempting individuals and groups from antisemitism charges to continue cooperating."
If the Jerusalem Declaration is interpreted as some within the Left do, there is a risk of granting certain individuals a free pass. Because the JDA can also be misconstrued, it's not fair to blame it for being misused.
- Science expert Juliane Wetzel emphasizes that criticism of Israel laden with antisemitic stereotypes is considered antisemitic.
- The discussion on the definitions of antisemitism, such as that between the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and the Jerusalem Declaration (JDA), is a topic that falls under the umbrella of education-and-self-development, politics, and general-news.
- The Left Party's endorsement of the Jerusalem Declaration (JDA) has drawn criticism due to the party's failure to recognize the boundary between legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and government, and antisemitism.
