Published: 19 October 2021
Last updated: 4 March 2024
In a Zoom event hosted by The Jewish Independent, Jeremy Jones maintained the IHRA definition is broad and sound; Dov Waxman argued it contains ambiguity that allows people to misuse it
THE IHRA DEFINITION of antisemitism, which the Australian government has now adopted, does not of itself suppress criticism of Israel but contains sufficient ambiguity for it to be misused for that purpose.
These were the two main arguments put forward, if not wholeheartedly agreed, by two authorities on the subject in a panel discussion on Zoom hosted by The Jewish Independent on Sunday.
In a robust but always respectful exchange, Jeremy Jones, from the Australian and Israel Jewish Affairs Council, and Professor Dov Waxman, from the University of California, Los Angeles - moderated by journalist Deborah Stone - covered a wide range of issues around the contentious subject.
The discussion included the framing of the IHRA definition to the motivations for the alternative “Jerusalem Document” definition, identifying when criticism of Israel is antisemitic and whether boycotts applied to Israel are antisemitic.
Dov Waxman said the “IHRA's vagueness and failure to specifically address the suggestion that criticism of Israel could be interpreted as antisemitism is what led to more than 300 scholars to draft the Jerusalem Declaration (JDA).
“The point of the JDA was to have a definition that is more clear, precise and more nuanced than the IHRA and less liable to be misused than the IHRA definition, and thus protect freedom of speech,” he said.
Jeremy Jones rejected the idea that the IHRA definition casts its net so wide that it suppresses debate on Israel. “It was very difficult to find examples of IHRA shutting down political debate,” he said.
“People invoke it to support their argument to shut down debate but IHRA doesn’t shut down debate of itself.”
Waxman agreed that “if you just pay attention to the IHRA text, it doesn’t shut down debate.
“The problem is that its ambiguity has allowed people, willingly or not, to misuse it.”
For this reason, he added the JDA tried to address the omissions to stop this misuse. “The JDA says antizionism is not antisemitic, whereas the IHRA doesn’t refer to it and by doing so gives the impression that it is,” he explained.
It was very difficult to find examples of IHRA shutting down political debate - Jeremy Jones
“Dov has made my point,” Jones countered. “The misuse of a definition doesn’t weaken IHRA of itself; JDA’s specifics can be misused to support antisemitism.”
In response to the question of how to tell if criticism of Israel is antisemitic, Waxman replied: “one tell-tale sign is when the criticism projects classic antisemitic tropes onto Israel.”
Jones agreed, adding: “Another is when the criticism expresses ‘something about Jews that [implies] Israel behaves in a certain way’.” He said it was very hard to apply any set of formal rules or tests because the context of each criticism is so nuanced. “The IHRA definition makes clear that context is very important,” he explained.
“In my research over the years into antisemitism through complaints about Israel, I threw out 9/10 complaints because they were not clear cut enough to accept them as being antisemitic.”
Deborah Stone raised the hot-button issue of whether boycotts against Israel are inherently antisemitic, and if not, when are they not antisemitic.
“People boycotted South Africa; it’s a political tactic. The question to ask is what is the logic behind a boycott and how does it affect the victim?
The problem is that the ambiguity in IHRA has allowed people, willingly or not, to misuse it - Dov Waxman.
“The BDS movement as a movement has a pretty strong [record] to mount an argument that it is antisemitic. But I don’t like doing that. I don’t like using those labels.”
Waxman said he largely agreed with Jones. “The key thing here is to distinguish between why an individual may support BDS - as a form of action to protest the occupation in the absence of anything else.
“They don’t necessarily take on the whole movement. I don’t think most BDS supporters are antisemitic. But there are individuals who see this as a way of attacking Israelis and Jews.”
Asked for final summaries, Waxman said: “Since the establishment of Israel, debate has become much more complex. We need to recognise that complexity.
“We shouldn’t call into question people’s motives in questioning definitions. Much as they are important, the bigger threat is people plotting to kill and hurt Jews.”
“Dov is 100% correct,” Jones said. “We can have a conversation about better and worse ways to fight it. But the main thing is fighting it.”
Photo: From left, Jeremy Jones, Deborah Stone, Dov Waxman
