The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement.

 

At the beginning of August, I attended an international conference on “Global Antisemitism – A Crisis of Modernity Revisited” at Cambridge University, organized by Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP). Over 100 academics and activists from around the world attended. I delivered a paper on the State of Israel’s changing role in the struggle against antisemitism. (More on that below.)

A series of disturbing trends in global antisemitism affairs were analyzed, among them the following:

  1. The use of false equations. Even when condemning antisemitism, politicians and intellectuals feel the need to simultaneously condemn “Islamophobia and all forms of racism” in the same sentence. This is a politically correct refusal to recognize the uniqueness of antisemitism above and beyond all other forms of hatred, and itself illustrates precisely that Jew-hatred. People can’t stand the uniqueness of antisemitism because they can’t stand the uniqueness of the Jewish People.
  2. The mainstreaming of antisemitism. Michigan Democratic congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and some her “Squad” colleagues are using their notoriety to bring antisemitic policies and rhetoric into the mainstream. Even when Tlaib and Ilhan Omar regurgitate the “dual loyalty” charge against pro-Israel Senators – a classic antisemitic trope – the national Democratic leadership has found it hard to condemn them outright or explicitly, without wrapping rejection of the slur in the bland blanket of rejecting “all racist” language.This is because the American left has stumbled into the bottomless rage of identity politics. They have embraced the new racial-gender taxonomy, which reimagines thousands of years of Jewish history into a wokified diorama. Today, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be seen through this flattening prism, with Israel playing the role of the white, colonial settler and the Palestinian that of the settler’s dark-skinned, indigenous victim.So now we are confronted with the spectacle of members of Congress droning-on on the House floor about how the Israeli army is somehow guilty of systemic racism and superimposing complicated ideas concocted by a French philosopher they’ve never read onto a conflict they barely comprehend.

    As Peter Savodnik has written, “By squeezing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the Procrustean Bed of left-wing identitarianism, the new progressives have alienated the Jew, who, for the most part, remains attached to the Jewish State, from the American body politic. By transforming the Jewish State into a force for evil, they have forced the Jew to defend that attachment. They have created a space separating the Jew from America, and, in that space, they have legitimized violence against the Jew for defending the indefensible: Israel’s supposed apartheid, colonialism, white supremacy, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.”

  3. Academic abdication. Prof. Sylvia Barack Fishman warns that young American Jews are running away from Israel. Many of them are susceptible to the argument that Jews are ‘privileged’ and that anti-Semitism is not ‘in the same category’ as racism, sexism, and other ills. They distance themselves from the sins of white privilege not only by declaring themselves to be ‘allies’ of ‘minoritized’ non-white populations but also by condemning other, less ‘woke’ Jews. In its most extreme guises, it is as if Jews who wish to distance themselves are saying to anti-Semites: ‘Don’t hate me – I’m not that kind of a Jew’.”This gives free rein on campus, she says, for the “most virulently anti-Semitic and destructive groups today” like Students for Justice in Palestine.
  4. Loss of American Jewish moral confidence. Prof. Ruth Weiss warns of a loss of American Jewish moral confidence, especially when it comes to supporting Israel, and this is, perhaps, the most dangerous thing. “If prospective Jewish leaders and teachers cannot withstand the malice, malevolence, and murderous cruelty of the [antisemitic and anti-Zionist] evildoers, they do much more than expose their fellow Jews to hurt. They let down America, the best chance that democracy ever had.”
  5. The State of Israel’s changing role in the struggle against antisemitism. As raw anti-Semitism around the world has risen and morphed into virulent anti-Israel sentiment—making the two phenomena almost indistinguishable—the State of Israel has moved from indifference to active involvement in the struggle against such hate.This was not always the case. Israel has not always seen the struggle against global anti-Semitism as its fight. For the first 25 years of Israel’s existence, the unspoken attitude in Jerusalem was that if Jews abroad had a problem with anti-Semites, they could always immigrate to Israel. Immersed in the business of building and defending the Jewish state, Israel’s leaders had no time for “troubles of the Diaspora.”Attitudes began to change after the Yom Kippur War; after the infamous 1975 “Zionism is Racism” resolution at the UN; after the 1980 Rue Copernic synagogue bombing in Paris and other terror attacks; after the disintegration of the Communist bloc; following the wave of neo-Nazi violence that swept Germany in 1993; and especially after the 2001 World Conference against Racism (under UN auspices) known as Durban I – which was a watershed moment.
    In 1988, then-Cabinet Secretary Elyakim Rubinstein established an “Inter-Ministerial Forum for Monitoring Anti-Semitism,” and expanded it to include Diaspora Jewish representatives and academic experts. The Forum compiled reports on anti-Semitism around the world and eventually won a place on the Israeli Cabinet’s agenda, reporting once a year.

    Shortly after Durban I, in 2003, Israeli Minister for Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs Natan Sharansky (a noted human rights activist) founded the Global Forum against Antisemitism, under the auspices of the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office. (Working for Sharansky, I was the coordinator of the Global Forum). This brought together Jewish leaders and intellectuals from the Diaspora with all relevant Israeli agencies.

    Sharansky introduced a benchmark, the “3D test,” for distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemitism – by scrutinizing criticism of Israel for demonization, double standards, and delegitimization. Use of these tactics mark the devolution of commentary about Israel into the dark zone of antisemitic expression and intent, he argued.
    Sharansky’s intellectual leadership brought discipline and focus to global Jewish community activity against anti-Semitism.

    But this did come easy. Many American Jewish leaders were opposed to Israel’s initiatives in this regard, including Israel’s very leadership on the matter. This was partially a “turf war,” and partially a function of the fact that some were uncomfortable with Sharansky’s insistence that the delegitimization and demonization of the Jewish state must be considered a clear and unequivocal expression of antisemitism. There also were differences of opinion regarding the balance between the principle of free speech and the demand for regulation of hate speech on the internet and social media platforms. In 2022, these battles are long past, and in retrospect, were misplaced. Antisemitism and anti-Zionism have morphed into one monster that threatens both Israel’s diplomatic standing and the safety of Jewish communities across the globe – necessitating Israeli action and leadership.Social media has become the central tool for dissemination of noxious, blended antisemitic/anti-Zionist messaging, as well as Holocaust denial and terrorist operations, impacting especially on younger generations – requiring urgent oversight and even regulatory restriction on social media corporations.

    As a result, the State of Israel indeed has moved from indifference to active involvement in the struggle against such hate. Almost all Israeli leaders today believe that the Jewish state must continue to play a role in highlighting and trying to combat both the “old” antisemitism and the “new” toxic new blend of antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
    Jewish leaders in the Diaspora also have come to terms with Israel’s leadership in this regard, based on the understanding that in most cases the two phenomena – antisemitism and anti-Zionism – are practically indistinguishable, and on the understanding that working together in a common front best serves the struggle against antisemitism.

  6. The fight over IHRA. In 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted a working definition of antisemitism based on Sharansky’s work. The IHRA definition explicitly recognized that anti-Zionism – the delegitimization and demonization of the Jewish state – is a clear and unequivocal expression of antisemitism. Since then, more than 30 countries and 100 other municipalities and territories around the world have endorsed the IHRA definition.On the other hand, many “human rights” NGOs (such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the World Council of Churches) explicitly reject the IHRA framework, claiming that it has “chilling effect” on free speech in criticizing Israel.
    Left-of-center academics, in Israel and abroad, also have rejected the IHRA definition, similarly arguing that it has a chilling on free speech. In March 2021, under the auspices of the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem, about 200 scholars released the “Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA),” which was a direct retort to and repudiation of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism – because of its “undue emphasis on one arena, on the limits of legitimate political speech and action concerning Zionism, Israel, and Palestine.”The battle for adoption of the IHRA definition continues. Adoption of IHRA is critical to stemming the surge in global antisemitism and to blocking the transformation of Israel into a “criminal” state that is a key target of the so-called “woke” world.
  7. Conclusion. About one matter there was a remarkable consensus at the conference I attended: That the future of the Jewish People and of Jewish national life is clearly in Israel; that the safety and security of Jews around the world depends to a great extent on Israel remaining strong and self-confident. Jews everywhere are respected when Israel is winning and looked down upon when Israel is weak.