With antisemitism on the rise, it’s vitally important to have a respected definition of what constitutes anti-Jewish hatred and intolerance. In recent years, one definition of antisemitism is gaining traction. Drawn up by the Berlin-based International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, this definition has been adopted and endorsed by a growing number of governments. See for yourself the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism.
With the guidance of a coherent definition, lawmakers can devise more nuanced policies, police and prosecutors can more effectively respond to hate crimes, and colleges can more adequately deal with campus antisemitism. Local activists don’t have to flounder with feeble “I know it when I see it” arguments.
The media, too, should be tied down to a clear definition of what’s unacceptably anti-Jewish.
The definition has already served as a powerful tool for public accountability: When Britain’s Labour Party sought to adopt a watered-down version of the definition, the controversy it sparked proved too embarrassing. Labour adopted the full definition — but a dark cloud still hangs over the party.
The controversy stirred by Labour’s waffling highlights one aspect of the IHRA definition that many Israel-bashers can’t accept. Examples of antisemitism listed by the IHRA include “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination,” “claiming that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor” and “applying double standards by requiring of it behavior not expected or demanded by any other democratic nation.” Anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism. People who cross that line can no longer say, “I’m anti-Zionist, not antisemitic.”
One can criticize the policies of Israel’s government without crossing the line into antisemitism, and the IHRA acknowledges that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
While the IHRA’s definition isn’t legally binding, more countries and organizations will hopefully join the UK, Germany, France, Holland, the European Parliament, the US departments of State and Education, the Greek Ministry of Education, (and HonestReporting) and others who are already on board.
Where the media comes in
Beyond the governmental level, there’s another sector that needs to adopt the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism: The media.
By choosing what to cover and how to cover it, news services set the agenda for public discourse. Guided by the IHRA, journalists would make better-informed decisions in covering hate crimes. Coverage of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), especially on local campuses, would be better nuanced. With a consistent standard, editors would be able to better judge op-eds and letters while moderators could keep website comments more civilized.
Certainly, that’s a win-win situation.
And in a time when public figures on the right and left engage in varying degrees of antisemitic rhetoric, the press will be better poised to fulfill its role of holding leaders accountable.
Featured image: vectors by Vecteezy;
Before you comment on this article, please note our Comments Policy. Any comments deemed to be in breach of the policy will be removed at the editor’s discretion.
Time for the Media to Adopt Antisemitism Definition
Reading time: 3 minutes
With antisemitism on the rise, it’s vitally important to have a respected definition of what constitutes anti-Jewish hatred and intolerance. In recent years, one definition of antisemitism is gaining traction. Drawn up by the Berlin-based International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, this definition has been adopted and endorsed by a growing number of governments. See for yourself the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism.
With the guidance of a coherent definition, lawmakers can devise more nuanced policies, police and prosecutors can more effectively respond to hate crimes, and colleges can more adequately deal with campus antisemitism. Local activists don’t have to flounder with feeble “I know it when I see it” arguments.
The media, too, should be tied down to a clear definition of what’s unacceptably anti-Jewish.
Join the fight for Israel’s fair coverage in the news
The definition has already served as a powerful tool for public accountability: When Britain’s Labour Party sought to adopt a watered-down version of the definition, the controversy it sparked proved too embarrassing. Labour adopted the full definition — but a dark cloud still hangs over the party.
The controversy stirred by Labour’s waffling highlights one aspect of the IHRA definition that many Israel-bashers can’t accept. Examples of antisemitism listed by the IHRA include “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination,” “claiming that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor” and “applying double standards by requiring of it behavior not expected or demanded by any other democratic nation.” Anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism. People who cross that line can no longer say, “I’m anti-Zionist, not antisemitic.”
One can criticize the policies of Israel’s government without crossing the line into antisemitism, and the IHRA acknowledges that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
While the IHRA’s definition isn’t legally binding, more countries and organizations will hopefully join the UK, Germany, France, Holland, the European Parliament, the US departments of State and Education, the Greek Ministry of Education, (and HonestReporting) and others who are already on board.
Where the media comes in
Beyond the governmental level, there’s another sector that needs to adopt the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism: The media.
By choosing what to cover and how to cover it, news services set the agenda for public discourse. Guided by the IHRA, journalists would make better-informed decisions in covering hate crimes. Coverage of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), especially on local campuses, would be better nuanced. With a consistent standard, editors would be able to better judge op-eds and letters while moderators could keep website comments more civilized.
Certainly, that’s a win-win situation.
And in a time when public figures on the right and left engage in varying degrees of antisemitic rhetoric, the press will be better poised to fulfill its role of holding leaders accountable.
Featured image: vectors by Vecteezy;
Before you comment on this article, please note our Comments Policy. Any comments deemed to be in breach of the policy will be removed at the editor’s discretion.
Related
The Financial Times Distorts Reality to Paint Israel as Aggressor in Lebanon
▶ How Palestinian Children Are Taught To Worship Death
Pseudo-Journalism: CNN’s Non-Story Demonizes Israel
How CBS News Is Facing A Crisis of Its Own Making
▶ The Iranian Regime at the UN Security Council: When the Perpetrator Plays the Victim