New Jersey Spotlight News reports that there is Strong support in Assembly for adopting IHRA definition of antisemitism, but adds that “Aspects of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition are controversial.” Indeed. NJSN reports:
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition underlines widely accepted aspects of antisemitism, including statements that the Holocaust was a lie or exaggerated, or claiming that Jewish people control the media. What has proved controversial is the part of the definition that specifies certain criticisms of Israel — that Israel is a racist state, and that Israelis should be held to a different standard than other democracies — as antisemitic.
“This has nothing to do with Jews. This is about protecting Israel,” said Raz Segal, an associate professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Stockton University. “It silences Palestinians who, for example, will say that Israel is a racist state, which is a very legitimate critique against any other state in the world, including the United States.”
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition includes this example:
"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
Of course, identifying "the Jewish People" as a collective is racist, by definition. A group of Jews has no right to a state that legally prioritizes Jews over non-Jews. A legitimate state recognizes individual rights equally for all. If the above IHRA example is taken literally, then the state of Israel is a racist endeavor. All individuals have a right to their own personal self-determination, whether acting individually or in voluntary agreement with others as a group. But none should be favored or disfavored under the law.
So, is the State of Israel designed to guarantee only the Jewish people their collective right to self-determination?] If so, Israel is racist. But Israel's Declaration of Independence states:
THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be the Jewish people their right to self-determination and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
Despite the opening nod to "the Jewish people [and] their right to self-determination," that paragraph doesn't sound racist to me. In fact, Israel, while majority Jewish, includes 20% Palestinian, ranging from Arab descent to Christian orientation, as well as Muslim. There are atheists and the non-Jews also, all of whom live in equality under the law. But the point is that accusing Israel of being a racist state, or of having racist policies or laws, does not necessarily make that person anti-Semitic. The IHRA definition of antisemitism seems to shield racists who happen to be Jewish from criticism. But a racist who happens to be Jewish is still racist, and people should be free to call that person out without being accused of being an anti-Semite.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism includes some uncontroversial manifestations. For example:
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Yes, this is anti-Semitic. But such views are racist across the board. Substitute “Jews” with black and “Jewish” with black (or any other ethnic group), and you still get racism. Racism is the idea that a person's beliefs, character, choices, and moral standing are inherited through body chemistry—such as skin color, genes, or blood—and thus should be judged by the actions of ancestors of his ethnic group. That definition already describes anti-Semitism. It doesn’t need a special exception.
The IHRA’s definition of antisemitism is a bad, biased definition. It seems more designed to shield Jews from criticism than to present an objective definition of anti-Semitism.
I should clarify that NJ’s adoption of the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism would not have legal teeth, as there are no hate speech laws in the state, which would be anti-free speech and unConstitutional under the First Amendment. NJSN reports:
A bill that would have New Jersey adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism has overwhelming support in the state Assembly, with three primary sponsors and 56 co-sponsors out of 80 possible representatives.
Supporters say a clear definition of antisemitism would protect Jewish people and make hate speech easier to spot and stamp out.
But it is clearly a step toward censorship, especially given the prevalence of DEI initiatives in NJ. The government should never be in the business of “stamping out” any speech, either explicitly through laws or implicitly through biased legal language.
Related Reading:
Racism—Ayn Rand
Fighting Racism With Collectivism is No Way to Exterminate Racism
Facebook Backtracks on Free Speech Policy; Political Extortion?
Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle
No comments:
Post a Comment