An important and increasingly sharp debate is taking place today on what is antisemitism, or to use a more accurate term — Jew hatred.

The Statement from Concerned Jewish Faculty Against Antisemitism we are publishing below, now signed by more than 1,000 Jewish faculty members across the United States, is a welcome and important contribution to this debate.

The statement opens with these words:

Criticism of the state of Israel, the Israeli government, policies of the Israeli government, or Zionist ideology is not — in and of itself — antisemitic. 

We accordingly urge our political leaders to reject any effort to codify into federal law a definition of antisemitism that conflates antisemitism with criticism of the state of Israel. This includes ongoing efforts to codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which has been internationally criticized for conflating antisemitism with legitimate criticism of Israel  [emphasis in the original].

A counterposed view has been put forward in another statement, In Our Name: A Message from Jewish Students at Columbia University, signed by 540 people as of May 9. It argues, “We proudly believe in the Jewish People’s right to self-determination in our historic homeland as a fundamental tenet of our Jewish identity. Contrary to what many have tried to sell you — no, Judaism cannot be separated from Israel. Zionism is, simply put, the manifestation of that belief.”

This gets to the heart of the dispute. Judaism and the state of Israel are not identical. The Columbia student statement attacks those who hold that belief: “Most notably, some are our Jewish peers… tokenize themselves by claiming to represent ‘real Jewish values,’ and attempt to delegitimize our lived experiences of antisemitism. We are here, writing to you as Jewish students at Columbia University, who are connected to our community and deeply engaged with our culture and history.”

If these students are genuinely concerned about antisemitism, they have chosen the wrong target. The issue is not whether Jews in Israel today have a right to live there. The issue is whether Israeli Jews have a right to a state based on Jewish supremacy over all others who live in Israel proper, in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, and in the Gaza Strip — besieged for months by the barbaric aggression of the Israel Defense Forces.

Such a state — far from being a “safe haven” for the Jewish people — has proven to be quite the opposite.

Jew hatred is a deadly danger. It is based on one of the oldest and most reactionary conspiracy theories — that Jews control world politics and the banking system. It has been a fundamental tenet of fascist and rightist regimes and groups, most notably Hitler’s Naziism. It should be opposed unconditionally. But conflating Judaism with the state of Israel undermines the fight against Jew hatred, it does not strengthen it. 

Rashid Khalidi is a Palestinian American, the author of The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine, and the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia. In a recent interview he addresses these issues.

I’ve been following very closely what’s been happening since October 7, since our campus has been the scene of protests ever since. I don’t think the people who organize demonstrations are antisemites. In fact, a large proportion of them are Jews. So, we are talking about a conflation between Jew-hatred, ergo antisemitism, and a critique of Israel and Zionism in response to a political phenomenon carried out by a state. Off campus, some of the groups that demonstrated may have included slogans that were antisemitic. In fact, the pro-Israel right-wing demonstrations led by people like the Proud Boys and Christian-nationalist groups are quite antisemitic. But the attempt to argue that using a term like “intifada” is antisemitic is simply absurd.

Intifada simply means “uprising.” In the Palestinian case, an uprising against a fifty-six-year-old violent, illegal occupation. Now, if you believe that that Israeli occupation and control over the West Bank is God-given and that any opposition to it is antisemitic, that’s your problem. The occupier may as well be Danish, it really makes no difference. If persecuted, divinely inspired Danes were taking over Palestine, it certainly wouldn’t be anti-Christian to resist or to critique their settler-colonial project. But somehow, it’s antisemitic to resist or to critique this settler-colonial project? This makes no sense.

Khalidi’s reference to right-wing forces who are pro-Israel, and simultaneously antisemitic, is an important one. The list goes well beyond those he mentions. It includes prominent political figures, such as U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who have criticized the Congressional legislation adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism, for their own reactionary reasons. Greene, Republican of Georgia, said she opposed the bill because it “could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews.”

That canard, “the Jews killed Christ,” is one of the oldest biblical myths promoted for centuries by the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations long before the rise of the Nazis. It has been used as justification in countless acts of Jew hatred.

As Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro explained in a 2010 interview, “This went on for maybe two thousand years. I don’t think anyone has been slandered more than the Jews. I would say much more than the Muslims…because they are blamed and slandered for everything.” The Iranian government, Fidel explained in that interview, in response to that regime’s denial of the Nazi Holocaust, should understand that the Jews “were expelled from their land, persecuted and mistreated all over the world, as the ones who killed God.’”

Criticism of the Congressional bill that would adopt a false definition of antisemitism by Taylor Greene and other rightists is based on their commitment to the centuries-old biblical slander of Jews and Judaism, while they cheerlead for Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza.

As the concerned Jewish faculty explain clearly, “By stifling criticism of Israel, the IHRA definition hardens the dangerous notion that Jewish identity is inextricably linked to every decision of Israel’s government. Far from combating antisemitism, this dynamic promises to amplify the real threats Jewish Americans already face.”

Khalidi acknowledges a Jewish ancestral connection to Palestine. But this, he explains, does not justify the oppression of others, including Palestinians who are indigenous to that land. “As I quote at the beginning of my book,” Khalidi notes, “when an ancestor of mine once wrote a letter to Theodor Herzl, he said: ‘You have an ancestral connection to this country.’

“Christian and Muslim Palestinians believe in the Jewish people’s connection to this land,” Khalidi continues. “Does that give them a real estate deed? Do the Romans have the right to take over Libya and North Africa and Turkey because Rome controlled it once upon a time? Do the Muslims have the right to take back Spain because they controlled it once? Once upon a time, there was a Jewish minority in a part of Palestine. Does that give modern Israeli nationalists a real estate deed to the land? Of course not.”

World-Outlook has previously taken up these issues in the article In Defense of Free Speech – Anti-Zionism is Not Antisemitism.

We publish the statement that follows for the information of our readers and encourage those eligible to sign it.

— World-Outlook editors

*

Statement from Concerned Jewish Faculty Against Antisemitism

Criticism of the state of Israel, the Israeli government, policies of the Israeli government, or Zionist ideology is not – in and of itself – antisemitic. 

We accordingly urge our political leaders to reject any effort to codify into federal law a definition of antisemitism that conflates antisemitism with criticism of the state of Israel. This includes ongoing efforts to codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which has been internationally criticized for conflating antisemitism with legitimate criticism of Israel.  

We hold varied opinions on Israel. Whatever our differences, we oppose the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism. If imported into federal law, the IHRA definition will delegitimize and silence Jewish Americans–among others–who advocate for Palestinian human rights or otherwise criticize Israeli policies. By stifling criticism of Israel, the IHRA definition hardens the dangerous notion that Jewish identity is inextricably linked to every decision of Israel’s government. Far from combating antisemitism, this dynamic promises to amplify the real threats Jewish Americans already face. 

If our leaders are earnestly concerned with antisemitism, they should join hundreds of Jewish scholars from across the globe who have endorsed alternative definitions of antisemitism–such as those contained in the Nexus Document or Jerusalem Declaration. Unlike the IHRA definition, these documents offer meaningful tools to combat antisemitism without undermining Jewish safety and civil rights by insulating Israel from legitimate criticism.

TO ADD YOUR SIGNATURE*, CLICK HERE

For media inquiries and questions, please contact concernedJfaculty@gmail.com

If you appreciate this article, subscribe to World-Outlook (for free) by clicking on the link below.

Type your email in the box below and click on “SUBSCRIBE.” You will receive a notification in your in-box on which you will have to click to confirm your subscription.