US releases plan to combat anti-Semitism amid definition debate

World
By William

Washington, D.C. – The White House has released a plan to combat the rise of anti-Semitism amid an ongoing debate over how to define anti-Jewish hatred, especially as it pertains to Israel.

President Joe Biden presented the strategy on Thursday and called on all people to push back against anti-Semitism.

“In recent years, hate has been given too much oxygen, especially with the record rise in anti-Semitism. It’s just wrong,” Biden said. ‘It’s immoral. It’s unacceptable. It’s up to all of us to stop it.”

The plan called for improving education around anti-Semitism; strengthening safety and security for Jewish communities; reversing the “normalization” of anti-Semitic discrimination by celebrities and politicians; and building “cross-community solidarity” to counter intolerance.

It cited FBI statistics that said anti-Semitism was responsible for 63 percent of reported religiously motivated hate crimes, even though Jewish Americans make up 2.4 percent of the population.

The definition debate

In its plan, the Biden administration did not adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism as the sole framework for understanding anti-Jewish hatred — in effect, circumventing a demand by some pro-Israel groups.

Defining anti-Semitism proved controversial for the White House even before the plan was released. Pro-Israel Jewish groups had pushed for the IHRA definition, which focuses heavily on Israel.

The IRHA’s definition yielded 11 examples of anti-Semitism. Six of them cited Israel, including “applying double standards” to Israeli government policies.

While the IHRA document states that “critique of Israel similar to criticism of any other country cannot be considered anti-Semitic,” Palestinian human rights lawyers said its definition has been used to suppress legitimate debate about Israeli human rights violations.

In one of the examples, the IHRA definition denounced claims “that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist enterprise”. But critics have argued that this restriction has been used by Israel’s defenders to censor discussions about the mass displacement of Palestinians during the country’s founding in 1948.

As a result, progressives — including some American Jewish organizations — urged the Biden administration not to adopt the IHRA definition in its plan to tackle anti-Semitism.

The White House debated the issue on Thursday. It said the US “embraced” the IHRA document but acknowledged that there are other definitions of anti-Semitism.

It also nodded to the Nexus document, prepared by a task force formerly at the University of Southern California, which says that even “harsh criticism of Israel for its policies and actions” is not necessarily anti-Semitic.

“There are several definitions of anti-Semitism, which serve as valuable tools for raising awareness and understanding of anti-Semitism,” the Biden administration’s strategy statement said.

“Most prominent is the non-legally binding ‘working definition’ of anti-Semitism adopted in 2016 by the 31 member states of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which the United States has embraced. In addition, the administration welcomes and appreciates the Nexus document and notes other such efforts.

The language seemed to please both sides of the debate.

Americans for Peace Now, a progressive American Jewish organization, praised the plan and thanked Biden for “not yielding to those who demanded the codification of the IHRA definition so they could use false accusations of anti-Semitism to attack those who criticize the indefensible Israeli policy”.

At the same time, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a staunchly pro-Israel group, welcomed “the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism as part of the plan.”

J Street, a Jewish-American liberal group that describes itself as pro-Israel and pro-peace, also applauded the plan, calling it “comprehensive, inclusive and focused on action to dismantle the machinery of division and hatred.”

“Importantly, the strategy avoids exclusively codifying a specific, sweeping definition of anti-Semitism as the sole standard for use in enforcing national laws and policies, recognizing that such an approach could do more harm than good,” it said. J Street in a statement.

On Israel

Palestinian rights advocates have long argued that pro-Israel proponents often “weaponize” accusations of anti-Semitism to shield Israel from criticism.

Leading human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have accused Israel of imposing apartheid on Palestinians.

Thursday’s plan made several references to Israel. “If Jews are targeted because of their faith or their identity, if Israel is singled out because of anti-Jewish hatred, that is anti-Semitism. And that is unacceptable,” she said.

The document also suggested that the US will support Israel with international organizations as part of countering anti-Semitism.

Washington has used its veto power in the United Nations Security Council dozens of times to block resolutions denouncing Israeli violations and violations of international law.

The Biden administration, like its predecessors, has also resisted attempts by Palestinians to account for possible Israeli war crimes at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

“The U.S. government, led by the State Department, will continue to combat anti-Semitism abroad and in international forums — including efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel,” the plan said.

Abed Ayoub, executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), a US-based advocacy group, praised efforts to combat anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry. He said his group also welcomed the White House’s reluctance to officially adopt the IHRA definition.

“It’s a definition and an approach that has been used to target and silence our community,” Ayoub told Al Jazeera. “And we’re glad they didn’t officially adopt it or try to make it legally binding in any way.”

Still, he expressed concern about the language in the plan, which he said confused criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

“That’s a dangerous precedent and a dangerous approach for the administration,” he said. “Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitism, and that should be reflected in all training, and that should be reflected across the board.”

You might also like More from author