The American lawyer and then anti-Semitism representative of the American Jewish Committee was responsible for formulating the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. It was often misused to disqualify someone as anti-Semitic, he says.
Stern, himself Jewish, lives in the US state of New York. We spoke to each other via Zoom.
It has been almost 20 years since you formulated the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. How did that come about back then?
After the Second Intifada and the collapse of the peace process in 2000, there was an uptick in attacks on Jews, particularly in Western Europe but also elsewhere. We drafted the first version of the working definition in 2004 and 2005 for the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), which was commissioned to prepare a report on racist and anti-Semitic incidents. It was published in 2004 and recorded not only anti-Semitic crimes by right-wing extremists and neo-Nazis, but also by young Muslims, for example in the suburbs of Paris. The report’s authors complained that there was no common definition of what they should report on. In any case, it happened that the director of the EUMC came to the annual meeting of the American Jewish Committee. I took the opportunity to ask her publicly whether she would be open to a definition of anti-Semitism that could serve as a common basis internationally.
And you then drafted it and attached eleven examples of anti-Semitism, which primarily relate to Israel. Why?
Because we saw a connection between what was said about Israel, especially in times of war, and attacks on Jews. Our most important goal, however, was to create a common basis for assessing anti-Semitism. And the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance adopted our definition in 2016. But you must remember that we drafted it a few years after the start of the Second Intifada and shortly after the Durban Conference in 2001, which attempted to equate Zionism with racism. I’m not saying that every form of anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic, but that was the climate at the time.
Advertisement | Scroll to continue reading
Masha Gessen recently said in Berlin that the IHRA definition lends itself to calling any criticism of Israel anti-Semitic. What do you think?
I would not go so far. But the definition has often been used as a blunt instrument to label someone as anti-Semitic for a variety of reasons, including criticism of Israel. I worked in the anti-Semitism department of the American Jewish Committee for 25 years and have always taken the position that the term anti-Semitism should not be devalued by using it in an inflated way. The challenge is that there is a large gray area. But people simply have the desire to break down a complex thing into a simple formula, to classify something somewhere. This doesn’t just apply to anti-Semitism.
Photo: Emily Stern
To person
Kenneth S. Stern is an American lawyer and author, he is the director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate at Bard College. From 1989 to 2014 he was the anti-Semitism expert for the American Jewish Committee, and from 2014 to 2018 he was executive director of the Justus & Karin Rosenberg Foundation.
In his book “The Conflict Over the Conflict: The Israel/Palestine Campus Debate” examines attempts on both sides to censor the other side and analyzes how this damages academia.
What has the IHRA definition been misused for?
Perhaps not so much for disqualifying criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, but rather for pro-Palestinian attitudes. I may not agree with some of these attitudes or statements, but calling them anti-Semitic is wrong, it is even harmful. I know that Germany has a different tradition when it comes to freedom of expression than the USA, but that definitely harms the free discussion that is so important in a democracy. And it is damaging to the fight against anti-Semitism to reduce it to these simple terms, because you then lose the ability to see what really drives anti-Semitism.
Since 2021, the Jerusalem definition of anti-Semitism has existed, which explicitly distinguishes between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel. What do you think of it?
You know, there are a whole range of definitions of anti-Semitism and I present them all in my teaching. I have often been asked which one should be used. And my answer is: you shouldn’t use any to restrict financial support or freedom of expression.
The IHRA definition verbatim
“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which can be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Anti-Semitism is directed in word or deed against Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, as well as against Jewish community institutions or religious institutions.”
The federal government has also adopted the following extension: “In addition, the State of Israel, which is understood as a Jewish collective, can also be the target of such attacks.”
Why not?
Because it is saying that certain ideas are on the right page and others are not. At universities in particular, it’s about encouraging critical thinking and discussions. For example, if a state were to use a definition to classify ideas or attitudes as racist, for example if it were to classify as racist if someone objected to the removal of Confederate statues that honor people who supported slavery, they would People go to the barricades. And the IHRA definition is the same thing. Going down this path is problematic and can have consequences you didn’t intend.
Do you have an example?
In Florida, the Department of Education last year banned the teaching of gender identity and sexuality in all public schools. And that had an impact on Holocaust studies. A professor from the Central European University in Vienna, who deals with the topic of the Holocaust and gender, could not teach in Florida what she teaches in Vienna. This sort of thing worries me.
The Berlin Senator for Culture is now making the IHRA definition the basis of an anti-discrimination clause that everyone who receives funding from their house must sign.
This is McCarthyism. Funding should not depend on a particular political position. During World War I, professors lost their jobs because they spoke out against the war. And in the McCarthy era in the USA it hit socialists or communists. In the United States, some universities, including those in Vermont, Berkeley and Newport, have declared that they do not welcome Zionists, regardless of whether they are committed to combating climate change or sexual abuse. You don’t let them speak, even if it’s about a completely different topic. I think that’s terrible. This is also McCarthyism. You mentioned Masha Gessen. The irony of the Hannah Arendt Prize is that Hannah Arendt herself would probably have problems today because of such government restrictions. Especially in the art world and in the academic world, the following must apply: If you are against a certain attitude or idea, you speak out against it, you discuss it. And I can think of a lot of things that are directed against Israel that I would speak out against. But I would find it more problematic to say that there is a certain line and if you deviate from it you lose your job or your funding. This is much more dangerous for a democracy.
In Germany, the art scene is accused of moral failure and its silence in connection with October 7th. Is that also the case in the USA?
This isn’t all new, these settings existed before October 7th, only now they’re at full speed. But silencing someone with government tools…
Do you consider supporting BDS to be anti-Semitic in any case?
I am against BDS, although I care less about boycotting Golan wine than boycotting Israeli academics. Academics are about attitudes, ideas, thoughts and not about nationality. This also applies to artists. But do I think that supporting BDS makes you an anti-Semite? – No, I don’t think so. Although of course you can be an anti-Semite who supports BDS. We have a scholarship program at our college that a Palestinian student from the West Bank applied for. But we couldn’t accommodate them for various reasons. She said that we probably rejected her because she supported BDS. And I answered her: I don’t care at all. I don’t agree with you, but we can talk about it.
2024-01-22 21:12:15
#Berlin #antidiscrimination #clause #Kenneth #Stern #IHRA #definition #abused #Berlin
