Given my understanding of the high importance of contested concepts and the origins of political disagreement grounded in human cognitive biology and social behavior, I thought I'd take a stab at either finding a proper definition or coming up with with one of my own. Note, I don't consciously believe that I am an antisemite, seeing Jews as another group of people with a religion they (i) believe in to widely varying extents, and (ii) practice in widely varying ways. That's about the same as most any other religious group, like Christians, Hindus and Muslims. I'm not sure about where or how the Buddhists fit in, but that's OT.
My searching indicates that the most widely adopted formal definition of antisemitism is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition, approved in May 2016 [1]. Its definition is this:
Another definition is the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. It defines antisemitism more concisely:
Footnote:
10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. (This is bitterly contested. Comparisons by commentator and experts, including some Jews, have been made. Critics of comparisons argue that fundamental differences in scale, intent, and outcome make comparisons historically questionable. I'm not so sure about this one.)
"Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."
That definition is surprisingly vague to me. So vague that in my opinion it's worse than not helpful. It's harmful because it is so easy to abuse the definition by rejecting legitimate criticism of Israel and Israeli policy as antisemitic. What the IHRA came up with is loaded with contested concepts, namely "a certain perception", "may be expressed as hatred", "manifestations of antisemitism" and "directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property" are all baffling to me. What does that all mean?
"Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)."
That definition was specifically developed to better distinguish between hatred of Jews and criticism of Israel. That is a lot less vague. It's harder to abuse.
Antisemitism is "discrimination, prejudice, harassment, exclusion, vilification, intimidation or violence that impedes Jews’ ability to participate as equals in educational, political, religious, cultural, economic or social life. It can manifest in a range of ways including negative, dehumanizing, or stereotypical narratives about Jews. Further, it includes hate speech, epithets, caricatures, stereotypes, tropes, Holocaust denial, and antisemitic symbols. Targeting Jews based on their Jewish identities alone is discriminatory and antisemitic."
That's interesting. But it's somewhat overbroad. For example, hate speech, epithets, caricatures, stereotypes, tropes, Holocaust denial, antisemitic symbols, and dehumanizing, or stereotypical narratives are all protected free speech in the US. Different parts MAGA routinely practices at least some of those bad behaviors, e.g., Holocaust denial, but mostly directs them at Democrats, liberals, the LGBQT community, ethnic minorities, illegal immigrants, etc. The USSC has consistently held that there is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment, meaning that hateful or offensive speech cannot be censored or punished solely because of its content or viewpoint.
The bottom line: This is too complicated for me. A "proper" definition or description is probably impossible. I'll stick with the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism.
Q: Should Jews everywhere and the state Israel be treated differently from other people, groups and nations? In what way(s)?
1. The IHRA set out 11 examples to clarify what antisemitism was in the view of the authors. My comments to each are appended.
1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion. (That seems reasonable, but arguably too limited. My improved version: Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name ofa radical any ideology or an extremist view of religion.)
1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion. (That seems reasonable, but arguably too limited. My improved version: Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of
2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. (That is desirable on its face. But in the US in the name of protected free speech, MAGA routinely makes mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about liberals, Democrats, and/or the LGBQT community, falsely alleging massive damage they have caused such as stealing or rigging elections, massive voter fraud, being criminals, pedophiles, child sex-traffickers, communists and/or enemies of the state or democracy. Viewed in that light, this complaint seems thin-skinned and overly broad.)
3. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews. (Fair enough - limit blame to the blameworthy. That makes sense for Jews and everyone else.)
4. 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 and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust). (That makes sense.)
5. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. (That makes sense.)
6. 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. (True loyalty to Israel or Jewry in general appears to be very rare in the diaspora, so this is OK.)
7. 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. (I don't buy this. Why can't the State of Israel be at least partly a racist endeavor? Why are Jews immune to racism that is exists to varying extents among all races all over the world? The question is, how much racism or at least bigotry is there in the overall enterprise?)
8. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. (That's pure nonsense. Politics is loaded with double standards. Get over it.)
9. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism, e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel, to characterize Israel or Israelis. (That seems reasonable, but as we all know and despicable (DEPLORABLE!) as it is, free speech in America includes antisemitism, along with racism, bigotry and dehumanization.)
10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. (This is bitterly contested. Comparisons by commentator and experts, including some Jews, have been made. Critics of comparisons argue that fundamental differences in scale, intent, and outcome make comparisons historically questionable. I'm not so sure about this one.)
11. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. (Can one reasonably hold citizens in a democracy collectively responsible for actions of the state? Why not? Does one have to refer to Israeli citizens being responsible instead of Israeli Jews being responsible? That sounds like political correctness maybe running amok. But OK, let's hold Israeli citizens responsible, not Israeli Jews. No need to unduly agitate anyone.)
