There are lots of good reasons to think the IHRA document, now adopted “in full” by Labour’s NEC and by Labour MPs, is, well, a bit rubbish.
• The actual definition of antisemitism is not up to much
• The illustrations are a legal mess
• It appears to be having no impact on antisemitism in the (few) countries which have endorsed it
• And it’s already being used to prevent open debate on university campuses
A recent article by Tony Lerman gathers together all of these points and more.
It was short-term political expediency which drove this week’s decision-making, necessitated by an ongoing high-stakes campaign of vilification that takes no prisoners.
The Liberal Democrat Party has also fallen into line, no doubt realising that attempting to conduct a rational discussion over the merits of the IHRA burns up too much political capital. And now we read that the Church of England wants to adopt it too. The sanctification of this document is going ecumenical.
But there’s a further problem which should be reason enough to dump the whole IHRA definition, and its illustrations, in the rubbish bin. And it goes beyond the need to guarantee freedom of speech.
The truth of the matter is, the Jewish community can no longer define ‘Zionism’, or indeed ‘antisemitism’, without the help of Palestinians.
The right to define
I know what some people will be thinking.
Surely, it’s for the Jewish community, through its leadership, to determine what antisemitism is? What Zionism is? Surely, an oppressed people should have the right to define the nature of the oppression perpetrated against them? Hence the insistence that the Labour Party adopt, in full and without amendments or caveats, the IHRA definition and illustrations.
That’s what the Board of Deputies of British Jews has asked for. So surely, that’s what it should get?
It’s become a politically difficult task, if not impossible, to challenge this assertion of the right to define what’s perceived as exclusively Jewish experience and terminology, especially at a time when identity politics rules our daily discourse.
The President of the Board of Deputies, Marie van der Zyl, provided a good example of the accepted parameters of the debate in her statement welcoming the NEC’s decision.
“It is very long overdue and regrettable that Labour has wasted a whole summer trying to dictate to Jews what constitutes offence against us.”
Similarly, the NEC’s addition of a one-sentence free speech caveat was characterised by Simon Johnson, CEO of the Jewish Leadership Council, as driving “a coach and horses” through the antisemitism definition:
“It is clearly more important to the Labour leader to protect the free speech of those who hate Israel than it is to protect the Jewish community from the real threats that it faces.”
Devoid of context
But this is a perspective devoid of historical context. It just doesn’t work for the situation in which we as a Jewish community now find ourselves, and which our leaders have done so much to create.
If defining ‘antisemitism’ has become, to a considerable extent, what can and can’t be said about Israel and Zionism, then how can it be a question which only (some) Jews get to answer?
And if this is really all about the right to define your own oppression, then why does this rule not apply to the Palestinians?
It’s a bit like trying to define ‘British colonialism’ by only asking the opinion of a 19th-century British diplomat. Or praising ‘American freedom and values’ without acknowledging the experience of Native Americans or African Americans. It makes no sense because you only get half the story, half the lived experience (at most). The language and the ideas in question have more than one owner.
For more than 100 years, the history of the Palestinians and the Jews has been inextricably linked. Neither of us can understand our past or present condition without reference to the other. Neither people’s story is complete without the other.
Of course, our interlinked relationship is not one of equality. Our story is shared but the consequences of our entanglement are vastly different.
One side has rights and national self-determination. The other side is denied those same things in the name of Jewish security and Jewish national sovereignty. In short, one side has been empowered by dispossessing the other.
The Palestinians have even become caught up in the telling of the Holocaust. Successive generations of young Jews have been taught to see Israel, as it’s currently constituted, as the only rational response to our 20th-century catastrophe. The Palestinians are seen as attempting to thwart that response.It’s this entanglement of narratives and the need to defend Israel’s legitimacy that have led to the muddle, the confusion and the deliberate politicisation of ‘antisemitism’ as a concept. And, by contrast, it’s led to the spiritualisation of ‘Zionism’ so it has become not a political project but an expression of Jewish faith.
All of this has forfeited our right to independently define our oppression without consulting the victims of our new faith in Jewish nationalism. The meaning of ‘antisemitism’ and ‘Zionism’ is no longer ours to determine alone. These words, and most importantly the experiences they bring with them, now belong to the Palestinian people too.
To get beyond this, we as a Jewish community, need to confront Zionism’s past and present. We need to rethink Jewish security in a post-Holocaust world. We need to build broad coalitions to tackle all forms of discrimination. That must include antisemitism from the left, and more often the right, which uses anti-Jewish myths and prejudices to promote hatred of Jews for being Jews. And that includes those who use anti-Jewish tropes to critique Israel.
Above all the though, if we want to be serious, rather than tribal, about a fair definition of Zionism, we need to ask the Palestinian people what they think and believe and feel about it. And if they tell us “Zionism is a racist endeavour” we’d better pay attention.
Reflection and repentance
The Jewish High Holidays are coming up. They are a time for reflection and repentance as an individual Jew and as part of a Jewish community. I doubt we’ll see much sign of reflection or repentance on the question of Israel/Palestine. The denial is too deep. The fear of ‘the other’ is too great. The emotional layers of self-preservation are too many.
Not all Jews can or should be held responsible for what’s done in the name of Zionism or the actions of the State of Israel. That’s antisemitism. But all Jews ought to feel obligated to speak out against the discrimination, ill-treatment, and racism carried out in the name of protecting Israel. To me, that’s Judaism. And if you don’t see the discrimination, ill-treatment and racism – then read more books, listen to more Palestinian voices, open your heart.
But whether we choose to face into it or not, our relationship with the Palestinian people will remain the single most important issue facing Jews and Judaism in the 21st century.
To my Jewish readers, ‘Shana Tova!’ A good New Year! May our names be written in a ‘Book of Life’ that is filled with love and justice for all who call the Holy Land home.
Ten questions to the President of the Board of Deputies
For those not following me on Facebook or Twitter, I’ve been asked to reproduce the ten questions I put earlier this week to Marie van der Zyl, the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. No response forthcoming so far.
IN A CRITICAL WEEK FOR LABOUR AND THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IN BRITAIN, HERE’S MY TEN QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF DEPUTIES – MARIE VAN DER ZYL
1. Why are you ignoring the Jewish academic experts, notably: David Feldman, Director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism; Dr. Brian Klug of Oxford University; and Tony Lerman, the former Director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, who have all made critical studies of the IHRA document and found it inadequate and unhelpful in numerous ways?
2. Why are you ignoring the concerns expressed by the original drafter of the IHRA definition and its illustrations, Kenneth Stern, who has said the document is already being used around the world to chill free speech?
3. Why are you ignoring the legal opinions of the document provided by Sir Stephen Sedley, Hugh Tomlinson QC and Geoffrey Robertson QC, who have drawn out its failings in detail?
4. Why do you defend Jewish rights to determine antisemitism but support a document which will deny the Palestinian people their right to define their experience of racism caused by Zionism?
5. Can you explain why you think that Israel’s 51-year occupation of the West Bank does not meet the international definition of Apartheid?
6. Will you acknowledge the findings of the 2016 Home Affairs Select Committee report on antisemitism which noted that “there exists no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party”?
7. Are you able to provide evidence that antisemitism is “rife” among the Labour Party’s half a million members?
8. Can you explain why the Board chose to pursue its campaign against the Labour Party only after Jeremy Corbyn became its leader and despite a YouGov survey indicating a fall in antisemitism among Labour voters since 2015?
9. Are you at all concerned that the Board’s campaign against Jeremy Corbyn is creating an environment of fear within the Jewish community in Britain which is unjustified and disproportionate?
10. Having stated your commitment “to being a leader for the entire community”, when do you plan to meet formally with Independent Jewish Voices, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jewdas, Jewish Voice for Labour, or Na’amod – British Jews Against Occupation?