The State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism moved one step closer to widespread adoption this week as University of California President Janet Napolitano endorsed the definition.
“I have my own personal view, and my personal view is that we should” accept the State Department’s definition, Napolitano told Boston Public Radio program Hear and Now. The issue, she said, will be up for a vote by the Board of Regents in July.
With campus debate on Israel increasingly slipping into anti-Semitism, particularly at several University of California schools, it is vital for all parties to adopt a definition of anti-Semitism that will draw a clear line between what is legitimate criticism and what is not.
The State Department definition includes a section called “What is Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel,” delineating when criticism crosses the line. According to the definition, speech is anti-Semitic when it demonizes Israel, holds Israel to a double standard not demanded of any other democratic nation, or delegitimizes Israel by denying it’s right to exist.
Naturally, BDS supporters – many of whom deny Israel’s right to exist – have mounted an offensive against the adoption of the definition.
[sc:graybox ]Join the Fighting BDS Facebook page and follow @FightingBDS on Twitter and stand up against the delegitimization of Israel.
In a letter to Napolitano signed by a bevy of BDS-supporting academics, the pro-BDS Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) claimed the definition’s clauses on Israel “could be, and have been, construed to silence any criticism of Israeli policies.” The letter urged the State Department to “revise its definition of anti-Semitism to reflect its commitment to opposing hate and discrimination without curtailing constitutionally protected freedom of speech.”
Not surprisingly, none of the 250+ critics of Israel who signed the letter offered any suggestions for an acceptable revision. There was also no acknowledgment of the growing number of anti-Semitic incidents on campuses, including threats and violence against supporters of Israel.
In fact, the JVP letter is nothing more than a mirror image of the very thing it is purporting to criticize. The letter claims that charges of anti-Semitism are too broad and used to silence criticism of Israel. But the letter itself seeks to silence those who wish to fight anti-Semitism, including the demonization and delegitimization of Israel.
If JVP and its supporting academics, such as Richard Falk and Neve Gordon, cared more about fighting discrimination in all its forms, including anti-Semitism, than about fighting against Israel’s legitimacy, they would welcome a universal definition of anti-Semitism and condemn it when they see it, including among those who support BDS. That is the only way to clear the public discourse on Israel.
As it stands, it’s hard to read the letter as anything more than an attempt to “legitimize” speech against Israel that would be unacceptable in any other context.
A clear definition of anti-Semitism, accepted by all parties, is the best guarantee that campus debate will consist of legitimate criticism of Israel, free of anti-Semitism and accusations of anti-Semitism. Until a definition is firmly established, discourse will consist of little more than accusations and counter-accusations, achieving little understanding between the sides and little meaningful debate on real issues.
Legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies is not anti-Semitism. But calling Israel a Nazi state is not criticism; it is demonization designed to create antipathy for Israel, not bring about change. The State Department definition of anti-Semitism makes the distinction clear.
It’s time for the BDS to grasp the difference.
Here is the relevant section from the State Department definition:
What is Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel?
EXAMPLES of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel, taking into account the overall context could include:
DEMONIZE ISRAEL:
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
- Blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions
DOUBLE STANDARD FOR ISRAEL:
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation
- Multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations
DELEGITIMIZE ISRAEL:
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.
