Avi Benlolo: Definition of antisemitism only ‘polarizing’ to Israel’s detractors

Here is the inconvenient truth: the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) “working definition” of antisemitism is not polarizing to anyone other than Israel’s detractors and antisemites. This is what I told the Toronto Star’s editors in response to a controversial article they published last week with the headline: “Why the definition of antisemitism has become such a polarizing issue.”

According to Star columnist Shree Paradkar, the IHRA definition itself is “not controversial”. It states that “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish institutions and religious facilities.”

It’s the 11 examples of antisemitism listed in the definition that Paradkar seems to take an issue with. She specifically brings attention to the one example that says, “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavour.” Israel is not a racist endeavour. So why is Paradkar taking any issue and focusing on this singular example?

The IHRA definition has been adopted by three dozen nations, at least six Canadian provinces and numerous states in the U.S. Hundreds of universities in the U.K. have endorsed the definition and this has extended into the United States. Municipalities like Vancouver, Toronto and Vaughan, corporations and even European soccer leagues have endorsed the definition in order to root out antisemitism. In fact, I participated in a recent ceremony where the Austrian Football Association signed on to the definition, which was adopted by England’s Chelsea Football Club two years ago.

It’s just Canada’s so-called progressive “civil society” that seems to have a hard time accepting goal lines when it comes to racism against the Jews. At the University of Toronto, an entire study was done on the matter, concluding that a tool to understand and regulate antisemitism was not necessary. It would restrict too much speech and that could not be allowed to happen — especially criticism of the Jews and Israel. Even while Canadian universities have rejected the adoption of IHRA, Paradkar still contends “the IHRA definition has already served to chill academic freedoms.” How can that even be?

To my knowledge, no other definition of racism has endured as much controversy or scrutiny recently as the IHRA antisemitism definition. No other tool that is meant to fight hate has actually resulted in more hate against the victimized group it was meant to protect. Just last week, the City of Vancouver finally adopted the definition, after an intensive campaign by left-wing pro-Palestinian voices.

Its detractors say they are concerned with its supposed limitations on free speech. But there are no limitations and the definition is not legally binding. Those who oppose it say they are mainly defenders of defamatory Palestinian campaigns against Israel. The IHRA’s detractors refuse to acknowledge that modern antisemitism is often tied to the Jewish State (eg. Jewish soldiers being called Nazis). They accuse those of us who defend the definition “right-wing” and accusing us of “weaponizing antisemitism” in order to defend Israel. This is meant to undermine our efforts to protect ourselves against hate.

In her article, Paradkar quotes a Rabbi that said the definition is used to “deny employment, to reject proposals, to stop funding, to shut down events, to revoke rental agreements, to remove participants from panels and forums and more”. The truth of the matter is that the protesters who say this are the same ones blocking the entrance to the Israeli consulate, supporting the denounced boycott campaign against Israel and causing havoc in unions and universities. They seek to rid us of IHRA to perpetuate more of this bad behaviour.

It’s game on when it comes to scrutinizing the victimization of the Jewish people and questioning why this particular definition of antisemitism is considered polarizing despite its wide international acceptance. When was the last time any progressive contested, questioned or protested a definition of discrimination against any other community? Antisemitism may be unique, but no one other than the Jewish community has any right to define our pain and our history. No one.

In the Jewish community, we have become used to deniers of all kinds. These are people who attempt to deny our rights and historical memory. In the case of the IHRA definition, it’s often the same people who call for universal rights and freedoms who oppose those very same rights for the Jewish people, particularly as they define their relationship with the State of Israel. There are exceptions of course but on the whole, the IHRA definition is not “polarizing” to anyone other than those who either lack an historical understanding or are with an agenda to exacerbate the problem of hate and defame the Jewish state.

National Post

Avi Benlolo is the founder and chairman of the Abraham Global Peace Initiative.