Haaretz
Shvat 10, 5767
In January 2005, an international
working definition of anti-Semitism was accepted for the first time since
the term was coined in the late 19th century. This definition, approved in
June 2005 at a conference in Cordoba, Spain, is the result of a joint
effort on the part of two institutions - a center established in Vienna by
the European Union to monitor racism and xenophobia, and a center set up
in Warsaw by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) to strengthen the institutions of democracy and human rights among
its 55 member countries.
And this is the essence of the
international working definition of anti-Semitism: "Anti-Semitism is a
certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.
Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed
toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward
Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." However, why was
a new, international, practical definition needed, and why did non-Jewish
organizations invest ongoing efforts in discussions on its formulation?
After all, there has been no shortage of different definitions of
anti-Semitism ever since the term was first coined 125 years ago in
Germany and they can be found in encyclopedia and lexica, reflecting both
temporal and geographic circumstances.
A long list of
personalities and institutions sought to define the anti-Semite and the
Jew he so hates: Jean-Paul Sartre, who sarcastically defined an
anti-Semite, blaming the Jews for every tragedy, as a man who fears not
Jews, but himself and the need to accept his responsibility; Encyclopedia
Britannica, which as early as 1966 defined opposition to Zionism as
anti-Semitism, but whose dictionary still features to "Jew Down" as a verb
meaning to insist on haggling and deception; the Jewish Encyclopedia,
published in the United States about one hundred years ago, includes a
description of Jews as being perceived by others as greedy people, who are
tribal in nature, devoid of tact and patriotism, and evade hard work; or
the definition of Prof. Jacob Toury, of Tel Aviv University, who in the
1970s described anti-Semitism as a manipulation of sentiments directed
against an unrealistic figure for political purposes.
However, our
focus here is not on the definitions of learned people, but on
international bodies and their perception of anti-Semitism as a problem
that needs fixing. It is hard to believe, but even the United Nations, for
example, did not define anti-Semitism or racism after World War II; no
international organization mentioned these two basic terms in the basic
conventions that were formulated and signed after that war, even though
racism and anti-Semitism were among the primary causes of its outbreak.
Various international conventions mention tolerance and minority
rights in very general terms, indicating a desire to forget the past and
not to blame a specific person or regime. When the Cold War began, U.S.
efforts were directed at the Soviet Union and in this undertaking, even
the contribution of former Nazis was welcomed. Former first lady Eleanor
Roosevelt, who headed the group that in the late 1940s formulated the
Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man, several years later wrote the
preface to the first edition of "The Diary of Anne Frank" in English. In
her introduction, she makes no mention at all of the fact that Anne was
Jewish or that she was forced to hide from German persecutions.
For almost 50 years, from the end of the Second World War until
the early 1990s, anti-Semitism is not mentioned and is certainly not
defined in the documents, conventions or summaries of European and
international conferences. Since 1990, with the collapse of the Soviet
bloc, the reunification of Germany and the waves of immigrants who started
flooding the industrialized countries, new questions regarding definition
and legislation in all matters relating to foreign labor, political asylum
seekers, immigrants, their offspring and their rights made it onto the
agenda.
At the same time, expressions of anti-Semitism were
clearly voiced by the extreme right, which blamed the Jews for bringing in
foreigners and profiting from their labor; and by the left, which accused
the Jews of being behind the spread of globalization because of their
being owners of giant corporations and international banks; and by the
immigrants, primarily Muslims, who were not absorbed by their host
countries and occasionally vented their frustration on the veteran Jewish
communities.
Therefore, the 1990s were filled with conferences and
initiatives whose goal was to strengthen human rights and to promote the
fight against racism. At a huge conference (numbering 5,000 participants)
organized by the UN in Vienna in 1993, a decision in principle was adopted
and approved several months later, stating that anti-Semitism should be
considered as a form of racism. This resolution was described as
"historic" and considered a great accomplishment by UN institutions, as if
this fact had not been obvious. In the same manner, xenophobia, fear of
foreigners, Negrophobia (fear of Blacks) and Islamophobia (fear of
Muslims) were also defined as racism. Yet racism and anti-Semitism itself
were not defined at that conference.
Even the August 2001 Durban
conference in South Africa, which the UN's bodies had prepared for more
than two years and which was supposed to have been the world conference
with a capital "W" against racism, strayed from its set agenda and turned
into a forum for anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Semitism. The conference
did not resolve a single one of the many problems and tensions experienced
by immigrants. Violent anti-Semitism continued to increase, at first
parallel to the second intifada but later, especially in Western Europe,
also without any connection to the Middle East. The definition approved
some two years ago indeed reflects the need to ease tensions and reach a
form of coexistence for the European host society, the immigrants and the
Jewish communities. It tries to be a clear and practical tool that is not
academic or theoretical, does not discuss the motives of anti-Semites, and
does not try to portray the traits and images of a Jew or the gap between
these and reality.
The definition presents a list of acts and
statements that are anti-Semitic because they are directed against Jews,
harm them, or incite against them, and therefore their perpetrators can be
tried and punished. Laws prohibiting anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial
already exist in a dozen countries and if anti-Semitism is a form of
racism, it is also possible to punish perpetrators under laws prohibiting
racism.
One may argue with the approach behind the definition,
which disconnects the motive from the action and focuses solely on the
action and the statement. Even the boundary between freedom of speech and
incitement needs to be refined and it will be difficult to find or enact a
single, uniform law that will address all components. However, this does
mark a courageous step and an effort to find ways to deal with acts of
anti-Semitism. Whether the definition will truly be able to serve as a
solid foundation that remains relevant in the face of an intensification
of anti-Semitism, and as the elements included in it become the bon ton,
only time will tell.
Prof. Dina Porat is the head of Tel Aviv
University's School of Jewish Studies.
The working
definition of anti-Semitism
The purpose of this document is to
provide a practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data, and
supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with
anti-Semitism. The practical definition of the phenomenon: "Anti-Semitism
is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward
Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed
toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward
Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."
In
addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel,
conceived as a Jewish collective.
Anti-Semitism frequently charges
Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews
for "why things go wrong." It is expressed in speech, writing, in visual
forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character
traits.
Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the
media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking
into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
* Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of
Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion
* Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical
allegations about Jews as such or about the power of Jews as a collective
- including, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a global
Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or
other societal institutions
* Accusing Jews as a people of being
responsible for real or imagined wrongdoings committed by a single Jewish
person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews
* Denying
the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the
genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany
and its supporters during World War II (Holocaust denial)
*
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or
exaggerating the Holocaust
* Accusing Jewish citizens of being
more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than
to the interests of their own nations. Examples of the ways in which
anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel include:
* Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination,
e.g., by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist
endeavor
* Applying double standards by requiring Israel to behave
in a manner not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation
* Using the symbols and images associated with classic
anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to
characterize Israel or Israelis
* Drawing comparisons of
contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
* Holding Jews
collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any
other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.
Anti-Semitic
acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of
the Holocaust or distribution of anti-Semitic materials in some
countries). Criminal acts are anti-Semitic when the targets of attacks,
whether they are people or property - such as buildings, schools, places
of worship and cemeteries - are selected because they are, or are
perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews. Anti-Semitic discrimination
means denying Jews the opportunities or services available to others and
is illegal in many countries.