Was Einstein an Anti-Semite?
JVL Introduction
You’d think the IHRA definition was dead and buried but, zombie-like, it keeps rising again.
Here Neve Gordon and Mark LeVine offer reasons why they believe powerful critiques offered in the past have barely dented the definition’s acceptance within the corridors of institutional power. So far.
And they drive yet another stake into its heart with a further powerful demolition.
They point to the ways in which the IHRA definition, in a Devil’s bargain, is used not only to suppress progressive causes, but also to legitimate Israel’s alliances with antisemites.
It cannot end up benefiting Jews, particularly in the diaspora.
What that requires is “the most honest and robust debate about Israel and Zionism, on campus as well as more broadly.”
“[Only that], will ensure Jewish students and the wider Jewish community are truly protected from anti-Semitism and can participate most fully in the struggles for social, racial, economic and climate justice that have finally been foregrounded today.”
This article was originally published by Inside Higher Education on Fri 26 Mar 2021. Read the original here.
Was Einstein an Anti-Semite?
According to an increasingly dominant definition, the answer is yes, Neve Gordon and Mark LeVine argue.
Loading article text…
Are Jewish people evil
Do they commit evil acts because they are Jewish or because they are people
My conclusion after my visit to Auschwitz / Birkenau was the German people are not uniquely evil, we all are
Brian Klug, the Jewish philosopher noted that he grew up thinking there was only one book which should be treated as holy writ – the Torah. And what has become so disturbing or recent years is that the IHRA document seems to have pushed the Torah aside. If you look at the expert commentary on the IHRA document, it ALL comes from eminent critics (and critics whose positions on the Zionist/non Zionist spectrum vary greatly). All other commentary simply asserts the primacy of the IHRA document or accuses those who challenge it of antisemitism. The IHRA document has become uncriticisable and unchallengeable. But on NO argument or justification whatsoever. I think this is a historic first.
People (all right, journalists) who would normally never take something like the IHRA document on trust, appear to have never read it, and certainly not read or thought about the criticism of innumerable illustrious critics, many of whom are Jews (and as for its many Palestinian critics – who they??!! They are treated as irrelevant, by being Palestinian). Is this about fear of being called antisemitic? is it laziness – now there is such consensus over the IHRA document, nobody dares or thinks there is a point even put a nose over the parapet to question it?
I know that while we on the left try to deal in argument and reason, we are up against huge disparities in power. And in the end, power trumps reason. But that does not explain what feels to me an unprecedented failure of independent thought – a degree of moral cowardice across the liberal spectrum which I cannot recall before, at least not on such a wide and deep scale. I don’t feel that the article gets to grips with this terrifying phenomenon. I also think this underlines the importance of supporting and pushing the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. Doesn’t matter that it has deficiencies, nor that it is still Jewish/Israel-centric (this is, after all, as much an intra-Jewish struggle as one between some Jews and the Palestinians). Or that it is arguing on the terms the IHRA supporters have set. We need to assert the importance of reason and demand that anyone who seeks to utilise/adhere to/support the IHRA document sit down with the JDA one, and then try to explain why the IHRA rubbish has been touched by the hand of God.
I particularly welcome the spelling out as to how and why the criticisms of the IHRA oeuvre have been so easily swept aside. The explanations are largely, to me at least as a non-Jew scratching his head over how such a shoddy original piece of work has been so successful, insightful and cogent.
The IHRA definition has become the multi-tool of choice, bopping on the head a whole range of issues that some would rather were not given an airing.
I agree entirely about the ambiguity and illogicality of the IHRA “definition” .
The following is from Labour List and concerns the Labour Party’s
review of the complaints procedure –
https://labourlist.org/2021/03/labour-seeks-to-boost-confidence-in-complaints-process-via-new-documents/
Not sure how or if it will indeed “boost confidence” or if the IHRA definition still applies?
Heres hoping ..