Working definitions of racism

Any definition of Anti-Semitism, one of the most ancient forms of racism in this world, must include people like bin Laden and Adolf Hitler as being anti-semitic because they were. Still, it also must necessarily exclude people like Hannah Arendt, who, as a Jewish German woman in the 1940s who wrote some of the harshest and most eloquent descriptions of the Holocaust, must be excluded from the definition as well.

As this Rabbi eloquently describes in this blog post, this article could be considered anti-semitic by the definition proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, as do many positions held by a large majority of Jews in the United States and Israel. If we are to adopt rules for what sort of speech is considered dangerous, such rules must be made as clear as possible. Declaring the criticism of a government fits in the same bucket as the wholesale slaughter of families in death camps is reprehensible. It is incompatible with living in a free and democratic society; such societies work because we can criticize our governments, which is why we have a better quality of life.

In Hannah Arendt’s book, she quotes Dr. Magnes of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem:

“What a boon to mankind it would be if the Jews and Arabs of Palestine were to strive together in friendship and partnership to make this Holy Land into a thriving peaceful Switzerland in the heart of this ancient highway between East and West. This would have incalculable political and spiritual influence in all the Middle East and far beyond. A binational Palestine could become a beacon of peace in the world.”

I agree with this statement. That is what Israel/Palestine must be if there is to be any future for Jews or Arabs or Jewish Arabs in the region. Imagine what a world we could live in if that had become a reality where no one in the region would be left effectively stateless, which means every individual in the region would have citizenship in a UN member state.

Arendt continues:

In the same way Jewish spokesmen for Arab-Jewish understanding were discredited when their very fair and moderate demands were distorted and taken advantage of, as happened with the efforts of the Magnes group in 1936.

This quote of Dr. Magnes in Hannah Arendt’s book Peace or Armistice in the Near East proves three things:

• The dream of a binational state in Israel and Palestine has been there since before the founding of Israel. It was and is a view held by prominent Jews in the region. It cannot be considered antisemitic.
• Prominent Jews are not uniform in their views. Is every Jew who does not agree with Mr. Netanyahu an anti-semite? That is what IHRA is proposing in its definition.
• There was serious discussion by prominent Jews in Israel about the formation of a confederation where Jews and Arab Palestinians were equal in the 1940s. Israeli policy starting in 1948 and continuing to the present day has no realistic path for the Palestinians who live on land occupied by the Israeli government.

 

Another bombshell:

One of the chief advantages of federal (or confederate) solutions of the Palestinian problem has been that the more moderate Arab statesmen (particularly from Lebanon) agreed to them.

Just… God damn it. The Lebanese delegate to the United Nations pointed to the Constitution of the United States as a model of how to build a successful state in what is now Israel/Palestine.

When the President of the second-oldest Israeli university was actively campaigning against Aliyah and for a federation where Palestinians and European Jews would be equal… this cannot be seen as a fringe position. It should be the mainstream position.

The problem with IHRA’s definition is that the views of the Zionist President of The Hebrew University and Hannah Arendt, a German Jew who lost family in the Holocaust, could easily be construed to be anti-Semites by such a definition. Their views are so contrary to the reality of what exists in Israel that it is a criticism of the foundational structure of the Israeli constitution itself and a standing position of most Israeli Prime Ministers. This view should not have been seen as a fringe position.

One could claim that since it would be unrealistic to expect the Netherlands to be a federalist state modeled after the United Nations, that such a viewpoint falls under the

One of Judaism’s best and most admirable qualities is their willingness to debate one another and how diverse they are in their viewpoints. It is one of the most wonderful cultures in the world. A definition of anti-Semitism, which includes the statement “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” is itself anti-semitic and shows that whoever wrote this either doesn’t understand Jewish culture or despises it. It is far too vague, and that makes it a poor definition.

A better definition of anti-Semitism is very simple: anyone who believes the rights as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should not apply to Jewish People. That is real anti-semitism.

Note… the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was written in response to the Holocaust, includes the words: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Criticism of governments is a universal right across all free nations. It is a prerequisite for all other rights which we have.

If you need a more concise definition, I recommend using The Jerusalem Declaration written by over 350 scholars on antisemitism. Unlike the IHRA definition they are precise, and are much harder to distort.

So we now have three ways to define anti-semitism, two of which are not dismissive of Jewish culture. You can either take an already existing universal framework for human rights and rightfully claim anyone who advocates that any one of those 30 articles should not apply to Jews is anti-semitic. That is simple, effective, and clearly defined. Another good definition is The Jerusalem Declaration, which clearly separates political speech from hate speech.

The IHRA definition is only 269 words long. It is not long enough to be used legally because you cannot clearly define any terms in a way that can be clearly stated in such few words. For comparison, the UDHR is 1455 words long. Definitions like this, which are accepted by states worldwide, need to be very precise in their definition not to be highjacked for political purposes. IHRA fails to do this. The Jerusalem Declaration succeeds on these key topics.

However, the Jerusalem Declaration still has one important problem. It is too focused on the challenges of today, and if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is solved, it will be significantly less relevant than it is today. Both definitions have this fundamental problem. The IHRA definition has 7 points that directly relate to Israel, and if the crisis is solved, only four will remain relevant. The Jerusalem Declaration has only 5 points that relate to anti-Semitism directly and not to the State of Israel.

I’m sorry. Anti-semitism cannot be summarized in 4 or 5 points. It is far bigger than that. These definitions despite their signatures utterly fail to define anti-semitism to a sufficient degree.

I prefer my much simpler yet also much more complex definition of anti-Semitism, which is anyone who advocates that any of the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should not apply to Jews. I believe the UDHR is particularly relevant because it was written as a direct response to the Holocaust.

I will now go through them one by one. The beauty of this is it also works for people who are anti-Palestinian.

1. Free and equal. Well, most politicians in the Middle East are clearly defined as racist by this definition here. Any politician here who does not explicitly argue that every person in Palestine should have citizenship is clearly and definitely categorized as racist by the first article. Anyone who argues for the deportation of Jews who live in Israel also fits under the definition here as well. Simple, to the point, and precise.
2. All people have these rights always and everywhere. Very bad news for Netanyahu and every member of Hamas and the IDF who have shot at civilians.
3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of person. Israel and Hamas consistently violate these rights towards Palestinians and Jews.
4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. Not relevant, thank God.
5. Prohibition against torture. Bad news for IDF and Hamas again.
6. Recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Same.
7. Equal before the law and entitled to equal protection and against discrimination. Palestinians need to be granted property rights.
8. Everyone has the right to a fair trial. Palestinians don’t have this right.
9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile. This is consistently violated against Palestinians. Over a million refugees with no path to citizenship is a clear violation of this rule, which was written IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO THE HORRORS OF THE THIRD REICH!!!!
10. Fair trial again.
11. Innocent until proven guilty. No police shootings.
12. No arbitrary arrest and equal protection of the law. This does not exist for Palestinians.
13. Freedom of movement within the borders of a state. Checkpoints violate this article.
14. Right to seek asylum. The denial of asylum for the Palestinians in Gaza is reminiscent of Jews being turned away in the 1930s when they were fleeing the Holocaust. It is the same crime.
15. Right to a nationality. In other words, recognize Palestine or grant Israeli citizenship to all Palestinians.
16. Equal rights to marriage. Israel passes this bar. The Palestinian Authority fails miserably.
17. Right to own property. No deprivation of property. The Aliyah was a direct violation of this right, continuing to the present.
18. Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
19. Right to freedom of opinion and expression. Claims that all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic are invalid because of Article 19.
20. Peaceful assembly and association. Frequently violated for Palestinians.
21. Right to take part in the government of his country. Palestinians are denied a country.
22. Right to social security.
23. Right to work, equal pay, and to form a union.
24. Right to rest and leisure.
25. Right to an adequate standard of living. The blockade of Gaza violates this right.
26. Right to education. Israel has bombed schools in Gaza.
27. Right to participate in cultural events. Hard to do that when your mosque is bombed.
28. Entitled to a social and international order where the rights and freedoms are fully realized. The United States has violated this right the Palestinians have according to our own government by opposing Palestinian membership in the United Nations.
29. Everyone has duties to the community.
30. Do not misinterpret these rights.

Hamas believes these thirty rights should not apply to Jews. Likud believes these rights do not apply to Palestinians.

I believe these rights need to apply to everyone. That includes Jews. That includes Palestinians.

This is a much more concise and measurable definition of anti-semitism or any other form of racism.

Bonus points for being written in response to the Holocaust, I guess. These were deliberately written with Jews in mind. This is a far better definition than any specific definition.

Please read the chapter Peace or Armistice in the Near East. It is an important contemporary Jewish account of the foundation of the State of Israel. It is critical reading if you want to understand the situation in Israel fully.

https://pensarelespaciopublico.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hannah-arendt-the-jewish-writings-2007.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9092927/