An appeal to Facebook to show some sense on antisemitism
JVL Introduction
Prof Amos Goldberg of the Hebrew University explains why he and 55 other academics around the world have sent an open letter to Facebook, urging it to fight hate speech but not by using the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
As the letter points out the IHRA definition is highly problematic and controversial, neither neutral nor nuanced.
“Fight all forms of hate speech on Facebook. But don’t do so by adopting and applying a politicised definition of antisemitism, which has been weaponised to undermine free speech, in order to shield the Israeli government and to silence Palestinian voices and their supporters.”
This article was originally published by Forward on Sun 13 Sep 2020. Read the original here.
Dear Facebook: Please don’t adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism
Loading article text…
Interesting that those advocating adoption of the IHRA definition seek to bolster their argument by citing how many countries and organisations have already adopted it.
Shouldn’t we recognise how misleading – and destructive – majority opinions can be.
I look back on the misguided and ill-informed decision in July 2017, when my own borough Council – Haringey – adopted the IHRA “definition”.
I wasn’t at the meeting as – thankfully – I was no longer a councillor. But realised how most of my former colleagues had been suckered into voting for a deeply flawed resolution presented as a way to: “take a stand against antisemitism”. And against: “any form of racism, hatred or bigotry in our borough”.
The flaws were smoothly glossed over with an assurance from the then Council Leader. “No-one thinks criticism of any state should be silenced – not Syria, not Britain, not Saudi Arabia and not Israel”.
Well, more of us now know better. As its critics suggested, the “examples” in the IHRA “definition” have turned out to be its substance. So that a key sentence in the letter by Professor Amos Goldberg and 55 other academics is the statement that:
“These examples can be and have been weaponized to attack, delegitimize and silence activists, experts, human rights defenders and civil society organizations criticizing the State of Israel and Zionism within the limits of freedom of speech.”
The enemies of free speech and supporters of authoritarian governance have learned the lesson only too well. Complaints can be used – “weaponized” – to silence dissenting views, threaten jobs; block promotions; damage reputations; discredit whistle blowers. We may hear about prominent tenured academics and well-known journalists forced into exile. How many people lower down the pecking order are bullied into silent aquiesence?
It is utterly essential that we have free speech on Israel, just as we are able to criticise the US, Iran, China, Saudi or any other sovereign state. This shouldn’t even be up for debate. Some of the examples in the IHRA definition of AS are nothing more than gagging clauses. I suspect that those organisations and nations that have signed up to the IHRA definitions did so because they were afraid of seeming anti-Semitic. How many more times do we have to repeat it: criticism of Israel is not of itself anti-Semitic.
Hi Vera Lustig, while agreeing with what you posted I’d like to ask you to consider a couple of extra examples which I’ve also observed.
Yes, people may support the IHRA “definition” out of fear of seeming antisemitic – or being accused of it. But perhaps their motivation might also be more positive. Over the years I’ve met many Labour Party members who are appalled by antisemitism. They may be Jews, non-Jews, or people who choose not to state any religion.
But then they are offered an apparent opportunity to speak-out or stand-up and “do something”. In this case to support the IHRA resolution. The process may be a version of what’s sometimes referred to as the “The Politicians’ Fallacy” or Syllogism .
● Something Must Be Done
● Here’s Something
● We must do it.
The intentions are good. Maybe a whole bunch of people who you like and respect are also in favour. What could possibly go wrong?
Less positive is the “bait-and-switch” approach; the well-known “upselling” of a bargain which turns out to be out-of-stock; or where the salesperson talks you into a set of higher priced products and extra charges.
Not everyone who recognises and resists this in a store will automatically spot the technique in a political context.
So, as we know, decent, caring left-wing people may have been willing to endorse a nice short simple “definition” of antisemitism – as part of opposing something they deplore. But then the proponents throw-in, entirely for free, a handy list of “illustrative examples”?
I notice that someone posts on Facebook using the tag “Mavet La’aravim” (“Death to Arabs”). A common cry in Israel, especially on Yom ha Yerusalayim. And a sentiment shared by advocates of the ‘IHRA’ misdefinition of antisemitism. Listen to these people in their cups, especially those who “believe in Israel”, chortling at the deaths of Palestinian. (dining out during the last Conference at Blackpool, for example); or look at Tower Hamlets council and its refusal to permit aid to Palestinian children. And plenty of others. Were it not for the principle that we believe in political discourse and persuasion we might be tempted to point out that the LP is offering itself up to the EHRC for discriminating against Palestinians.
Supporters of the IHRA definition use a variety of terms to describe it. These include “Internationally recognised”, “established” and “authoritative” I’ve even come across it being described as a “gold standard”. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I am aware, the majority of governments to adopt it are confined to Europe along with Canada, Uruguay and Argentina. Its quite bizarre that anti semites in parts of Europe support it. There is no shortage of critics of this definition. I call it “controversial”, “contested” and “of little value”. In reality this relatively new redefinition is an unsubtle attempt to expand the coverage of the term antisemitim to include opposition to zionism. Supporters of Israel are simply rebranding anti zionism as the “new antisemitism” or”left wing antisemitism”. It seems defending ethnic cleansing and apartheid has become more important to them than fighting real anti-Jewish racism. Time for a proper definition of antisemitism that can be taken seriously and achieve international recognition! JVL have produced a statement on what is and what is not antisemitic misconduct. No doubt there will be other useful statements and definitions out there. If only they could be developed further to present an alternative to this awful IHRA definition.
[JVL web suggests you take a look at this one: What is – and what is not – antisemitic misconduct]