Last March, 140 faculty members in Canada signed a statement against the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
As with literally every other criticism of the IHRA Working Definition, they do not mention that it explicitly contradicts what they claim it says.
We write as Jewish faculty from across Canadian universities and colleges with deep concern regarding recent interventions on our campuses relating to Israel and Palestine. Addressing all forms of racism and discrimination, including antisemitism, is imperative at this historical moment. Among the signatories, many share family histories profoundly and intimately shaped by the Holocaust. We write out of a strong commitment to justice, which for some of us is vital to an ethical Jewish life.We add our voices to a growing international movement of Jewish scholars to insist that university policies to combat antisemitism are not used to stifle legitimate criticisms of the Israeli state, or the right to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people. We recognize that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is a legitimate, non-violent form of protest. While not all of us endorse the BDS movement we oppose equating its support with antisemitism. We also are deeply disturbed by the upsurge of antisemitic acts in recent years which display painfully familiar forms of antisemitism.We are specifically concerned with recent lobbying on our campuses for the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. This definition offers a vague and worrisome framing of antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews” and that may be “directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property.” The most serious problem however is that the definition is tied to a series of examples of which many are criticisms of the Israeli state.
Notice that these people who claim to be mainstream Jews have a hard time saying the word “Israel,” instead making up something called “the Israeli state.”
The IHRA working definition says as clearly as possible that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” It also says that the examples given are dependent on context. Beyond that, it states that the definition is non-legally binding.
These signatories knowingly lie about it.
If this group, and the many critics of the IHRA, really cared about antisemitism and freedom to criticize Israel, they would highlight the parts of the definition that support their views if – as they claim – it is used to silence them. But they support the idea that one should be allowed to criticize Israel out of proportion to criticism of every other state. They deny that left-wing antisemitism even exists. They deny that Arab antisemitism exists.
To them, antisemitism is the Holocaust, Nazis, the KKK – and not much else.
It takes a great deal of hate to create an organization dedicated to minimizing the definition of antisemitism.
The ironic part is that IHRA could support legitimate criticism of Israel. These efforts to quash it show that legitimate criticism is the last thing they are interested in.
People who really care about antisemitism don’t try to minimize the definition of antisemitism, just as people who really care about racism wouldn’t exert effort to limit what is considered racist. These Jews want to enable most types of modern antisemitism, not fight it.
The letter came and went with little notice but the faculty members’ hate of Israel didn’t disappear. So they now decided to create an entire organization dedicated to telling the world that they aren’t that kind of Jew who supports the existence of a state that is a safe haven for Jews.
So they are relaunching their “network” that was already launched in March, and scheduled a press conference for Thursday.
Notice that they chose a name, “Jewish Faculty Network,” to make it appear like they have the support of most Jewish faculty. This is especially ironic since they say as one of their principles, “we oppose the intervention on campuses that level spurious charges of antisemitism from organizations claiming to represent a singular ‘Jewish community.’ Not in our name. ” Yet they are doing the same thing! Their claim to represent Jews is their very claim to legitimacy.
JFN is just another group of hypocrites who hide their hate behind claims of caring about justice, peace, academic freedom and fighting antisemitism.
Leave a Reply