Wednesday

29th Mar 2023

Opinion

Call by scholars: Stop instrumentalising antisemitism

  • Jerusalem is a city where antisemitism has been instrumentalised more than one time in the past. (Photo: Hadar)
Listen to article

We issue this call as scholars working in antisemitism studies and related fields.

On 13-14 October 2021, the leaders of the European Union and the United Nations and heads of state and government from many countries will meet at the Malmö International Forum on Holocaust Remembrance and Combating Antisemitism.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

Swedish prime minister Stefan Löfven convenes this forum 21 years after the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust, which resulted in the Stockholm Declaration, the founding document of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

We welcome and support the declared purpose of the Malmö Forum "to jointly take concrete steps forward in the work on Holocaust remembrance and the fight against antisemitism".

Antisemitism and all other forms of racism and bigotry pose a growing threat that must be fought most forcefully. We commend governments' resolve and efforts in this regard.

At the same time, we issue a stark warning against the political instrumentalisation of the fight against antisemitism. In the interest of the integrity, credibility and effectiveness of that fight, we urge the leaders at the Malmö Forum to reject and counter this instrumentalisation.

A particular concern in this context is the "working definition of antisemitism" that the IHRA adopted in May 2016, in the aftermath of the 2015 Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism organised by the Israeli government.

Eleven "contemporary examples of antisemitism" have been attached to this IHRA definition, seven of which relate to Israel. These examples are being weaponised against human rights organisations and solidarity activists who denounce Israel's occupation and human-rights violations.

They legitimise wrongful accusations of antisemitism, which serve as a warning for anyone voicing criticism of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. This has a chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom and compromises the fight against antisemitism.

Regrettably, this clear abuse of the IHRA definition and of the examples has so far not been acknowledged by governments and parliaments that have adopted it. More concerning, the European Union is working hard to implement the IHRA definition across multiple policy areas and to entrench it society-wide.

In January 2021, the European Commission published a "Handbook" for that purpose, which was harshly criticised by civil society stakeholders. Among other initiatives, the handbook promotes giving legal effect to the IHRA definition and cultivates it as a criterion to allocate or deny funding to civil society organisations. We fear this is a prelude to discriminatory and repressive policies.

On 5 October 2021, the European Commission presented the EU's long-awaited "Strategy on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life".

Like the aforementioned handbook, this strategy ignores the growing concerns about the shortcomings and instrumentalisation of the IHRA definition, as also raised by various stakeholders in the context of a public consultation launched by the Commission; including this academic expert submission, with an annex illustrating the instrumentalisation of the IHRA definition and a joint letter by 10 European NGOs and networks. In fact, the EU's new strategy feeds these concerns.

With concern, we note that the political instrumentalisation of the fight against antisemitism and of the IHRA definition is being facilitated by coordinators and commissioners appointed by the European Commission and national governments.

In particular in Germany, this has created a toxic and intimidating atmosphere. We notice coordination with and reliance on lobby organisations shielding the Israeli government.

This political entanglement has a divisive and polarising effect, which undermines broad support for the fight against antisemitism and distracts attention from acute sources of antisemitism. It also contradicts the universalist spirit of the Stockholm Declaration, which is missing from the IHRA definition.

By contrast, an alternative definition of antisemitism launched earlier this year does carry this spirit: the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA).

The JDA was crafted by a group of scholars from the United States, Israel, Europe, and the UK, who have vast experience with the IHRA definition.

After more than one year of deliberations, the JDA was launched in March 2021. It has been endorsed by more than 300 scholars of antisemitism and related fields, including many heads of institutes in Europe and the US.

We encourage the leaders at the Malmö Forum to add the JDA to their policy toolbox and rely on it for guidance. Rooted in universal principles, the JDA is clearer and more coherent than the IHRA definition. Without any underlying political agenda, it offers guidance concerning political speech where the IHRA definition has created muddle and controversy.

We recommend the JDA also in view of prime minister Löfven's statement, issued in anticipation of the Malmö Forum: "We must address Holocaust denial and antisemitism by protecting and promoting democratic values and respect for human rights". The JDA reflects and respects democratic values and human rights.

For the sake of a concrete outcome of the Malmö Forum, the Swedish government has invited all participating delegations to present "pledges".

We call on the leaders at the Malmö Forum to jointly pledge to reject and counter the escalating political instrumentalisation of the fight against antisemitism, which undermines democratic values and human rights and is causing grave harm to this fight.

Author bio

54 scholars working on antisemitism and related fields sign this open letter.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

A new antisemitism definition to ease IHRA confusion

The EU's good intention behind endorsing the IHRA definition has been to introduce one clear and uniform standard for data about antisemitic incidents. In practice, however, the IHRA definition has turned into a source of confusion and contention.

Left flirting with antisemitism in EU parliament

It is outrageous that Leila Khaled, a member of a group listed by the EU as a terrorist organisation, was given a platform in the EU parliament, a body representing democracy and peaceful cooperation.

Berlin hosts antisemitism talks

A conference on anti-semitism in Berlin has called for renewed and sustained efforts to fight the problem.

Column

What does China really want? Perhaps we could try asking

Perhaps even more surprising to the West was the fact that the Iran-Saudi Arabia deal was not brokered by the United States, or the European Union, but by the People's Republic of China. Since when was China mediating peace agreements?

Dear EU, the science is clear: burning wood for energy is bad

The EU and the bioenergy industry claim trees cut for energy will regrow, eventually removing extra CO2 from the atmosphere. But regrowth is not certain, and takes time, decades or longer. In the meantime, burning wood makes climate change worse.

Biden's 'democracy summit' poses questions for EU identity

From the perspective of international relations, the EU is a rare bird indeed. Theoretically speaking it cannot even exist. The charter of the United Nations, which underlies the current system of global governance, distinguishes between states and organisations of states.

Column

What does China really want? Perhaps we could try asking

Perhaps even more surprising to the West was the fact that the Iran-Saudi Arabia deal was not brokered by the United States, or the European Union, but by the People's Republic of China. Since when was China mediating peace agreements?

Biden's 'democracy summit' poses questions for EU identity

From the perspective of international relations, the EU is a rare bird indeed. Theoretically speaking it cannot even exist. The charter of the United Nations, which underlies the current system of global governance, distinguishes between states and organisations of states.

Latest News

  1. EU approves 2035 phaseout of polluting cars and vans
  2. New measures to shield the EU against money laundering
  3. What does China really want? Perhaps we could try asking
  4. Dear EU, the science is clear: burning wood for energy is bad
  5. Biden's 'democracy summit' poses questions for EU identity
  6. Finnish elections and Hungary's Nato vote in focus This WEEK
  7. EU's new critical raw materials act could be a recipe for conflict
  8. Okay, alright, AI might be useful after all

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. EFBWWEFBWW and FIEC do not agree to any exemptions to mandatory prior notifications in construction
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic and Baltic ways to prevent gender-based violence
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersCSW67: Economic gender equality now! Nordic ways to close the pension gap
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersCSW67: Pushing back the push-back - Nordic solutions to online gender-based violence
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersCSW67: The Nordics are ready to push for gender equality
  6. Promote UkraineInvitation to the National Demonstration in solidarity with Ukraine on 25.02.2023

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Azerbaijan Embassy9th Southern Gas Corridor Advisory Council Ministerial Meeting and 1st Green Energy Advisory Council Ministerial Meeting
  2. EFBWWEU Social Dialogue review – publication of the European Commission package and joint statement of ETUFs
  3. Oxfam InternationalPan Africa Program Progress Report 2022 - Post Covid and Beyond
  4. WWFWWF Living Planet Report
  5. Europan Patent OfficeHydrogen patents for a clean energy future: A global trend analysis of innovation along hydrogen value chains

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us