Opponents of antisemitism definition fight back

MARTIN MUNZ defends the opposition to the IHRA definition, which was this week adopted by the University of Melbourne.

Two The Jewish Independent articles by Andre Oboler and Philip Mendes attacking the opposition to the IHRA definition of antisemitism misrepresent the recent academics’ letter to Australian Vice-Chancellors opposing the adoption of the definition by Australian universities.

This debate raises important issues that are germane to the past, present and future of all of us who care about the community of Israel. They will have added import as the fate of Palestinians worsens and as the crisis in Israel deepens.

Mendes' article misrepresents the contents of the recent letter from 117 Australian and international  academics (not a small number),  opposing the adoption of the IHRA definition. He says the letter provides no evidence that adoption will undermine academic freedom. This is false. The letter references examples of the undermining of academic freedom including The IHRA Definition at Work, which documents the effect of the definition at universities in the US, Canada, the Uk and Europe. It also cites a study of it effects in Canada entitled  Unveiling the Chilly Climate- The Suppression of Speech on Palestine in Canada.

Mendes accuses BDS advocates of pursuing an ‘unrelated political agenda’ of the Palestinian nationalist cause instead of dealing with the problem of antisemitism. But it is the IHRA definition which couples antisemitism and Israel criticism. The majority of the IHRA definition’s examples are concerned with speech about Israel, limiting what can and cannot be said about it, and therefore criticism of how Israel treats its Palestinians. The IHRA definition is thus really a political project designed to suppress criticism of Israel’s responses to Palestinian nationalism.  The two have unfortunately become inseparable by dint of unrelenting pro-Israel advocacy linking them.

Oboler’s general characterisation of the academics’ letter is also remiss. This is disappointing from a delegate to the  IHRA who otherwise does important work combatting online antisemitism.

Oboler states that the IHRA definition is the best framework for ‘differentiating legitimate debate from incitement to hate.’ However, numerous technical experts in Modern Jewish History, Holocaust Studies and Antisemitism disagree with him. In fact, one of the letter signatories, Amos Goldberg is one of the authors of the alternative Jerusalem Declaration and a Holocaust specialist.

The academics' letter does not come from a position of allowing all forms of racist speech on campus, as alleged by Oboler. In fact, the letter concludes with a request that the universities develop a consistent policy for combatting racism on campus. The letter rather expresses concerns about the wisdom of a separate definition of antisemitism, as developed by the IHRA.

Oboler presents an anodyne description of what would happen if the IHRA definition is adopted. It would merely be an  ‘aid in identifying antisemitism’, a mere ‘preliminary consideration’. However, this is not what has happened elsewhere and evidenced in the reports cited in the academics’ letter.  Supporters of the IHRA  now claim antisemitism emanates from all sorts of organisations, including the Zionist New Israel Fund.

His attempt to discount argument about speech codes as being foreign to Australia is specious. There has been plenty of debate in Australia about speech codes going back decades. Oboler doesn’t hesitate to refer to them to castigate the academics’ letter for referencing an Institute of Public Affairs spokesperson. To use convoluted  legalese and try to impugn local academics as supporters of the tobacco lobby,  is to deflect from the cogency of the argument against the IHRA definition presented by the American Association of University Professors.

Oboler also uses guilt-by-association arguments, attacking the fact that the letter opposing the definition uses quotes from BDS advocate Nick Riemer and from Professor Rebecca Gould. These ad hominem arguments do not address the substantive issues. In particular the shameful slurs against Professor Rebecca Gould, claiming that she seeks to legitimise antisemitic discourse and that she is a Holocaust denier, are unfortunately stock-in trade for proponents of the new antisemitism that the IHRA definition mobilises. This gratuitous defamation of a scholar, via quoting a single sentence taken completely out of context from a longer article addressing the thorny issue of the uses and abuses of Holocaust memory as factor in Israeli policy and conduct, presages the sort of scurrilous attacks that can be expected from pro-Israeli lobbyists under the guise of the IHRA definition.

Finally, what is the probative value of reciting the number of countries, universities and entities that have adopted the IHRA definition. What is the evidence that such adoption reduces antisemitism, other than that which it was designed to suppress, ie inconvenient speech about Israel?  

RELATED STORIES

Academics reject antisemitism definition (The Jewish Independent)

Mebourne University has adopted IHRA antisemitism definition: This is why it’s right to do so (Andre Oboler, The Jewish Independent)

Academic freedom is a red herring when discussing antisemitism (Philip Mendes, The Jewish Independent)

Photo: Graffitti at Melbourne University last year (Dashiel Lawrence)