As a Jew not living in Israel, I really don’t want to be collateral damage. That hasn’t happened, for sure, but there increasing number of antisemitic incidents being reported around the world (and admittedly, more outside of this country than inside it) is worrisome. And I am not one usually worried about such things.

And that brings me to the old discussion of what is antisemitism after all. I know that there is now a somewhat universally accepted definition of antisemitism, drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and the IHRA gives eleven examples of antisemitism, of which seven which refer to the State of Israel. These include (1) comparing Israeli actions to Nazi actions, (2) claiming that Israel is a racist “endeavor”, and (3) holding all Jews responsible for the actions of Israel. There has been a lot of pressure for the adoption of the IHRA definition by national governments, and it has been adopted by about a dozen countries, including Israel and many European countries, but not yet by the United States as I understand it. The advocates of this definition tend to favor equating the bashing of Israel or Israeli policy with antisemitism.

The definition itself is rather straightforward: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Nothing there about Israel – but the interpretation of the definition, both by its creators and its advocates bring in Israel and, to me, confuse the issue. If Israel bashing is to be considered antisemitic, shouldn’t this have been clearly stated in the definition, rather than handled so obliquely? As it is, I think it creates problems, rather than promoting solutions. Let me explain….

There are at least three types of critics of Israel. First, there are those who criticize Israel without meaning to criticize Jews in general. After all, there are Jews who criticize Israel, and there are certainly those who might criticize the actions of Israel without holding any animosities towards Jews who live outside of Israel, or those who live inside of Israel but are not supporting or implementing governmental polices. Then, there are those who criticize Israeli policies and have an animus towards Israeli citizens or more specifically Jewish Israeli citizens, but do not have any animus towards Jews who live in the United States, or elsewhere outside of Israel. And finally, of course, there are those who equate Israel and Israelis with Jews in general and hate them both.

The IHRA definition does not distinguish between these groups, just as it does not distinguish between those who absolutely hate Jews, and those who find Jews a bit distasteful and would just as soon not be intimate with them, but who tolerate them by and large.

Look at the wording of this definition: “….a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews….” What does that even mean? It reminds me more of Justice Potter Stewart’s comment about pornography: “I know it when I see it.” And that is just not very helpful.

But the problem goes beyond the IHRA’s definition and examples. The State of Israel, by and large, wants to identify itself with all Jews of the world. It has legislated itself to be a “Jewish” nation, and, through the “right of return” allows all Jews (with very few exceptions) to live and become citizens of the State. And so many Jews around the world give large amounts of money to Israeli institutions, have relatives in Israel, and travel to and from Israel, that they seem to sometimes equate themselves with Israel. When they talk about the actions of the state of Israel, for example, they talk about “we” do this or that, not that “they” are doing this or that.

So, like everything else, it becomes complicated. And it becomes especially complicated when there is a war going on. Or, even when there is no war, when the conversation goes to the relationship between Israel and the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip or the Golan Heights.

And, as we see more and more, this complexity spills over into, or sometimes seems centered in, American institutions of higher learning. Here, much more than anywhere else in this country, Jews and Israel are equated.

How should we react to this? What should we do to relax the tension that exists in so many places, not just within student bodies, but within faculty groups as well?

Ah……we have a long (and important) post already and…….as opposed to my usual situation….I think I know about what I will write tomorrow.

See you then.