86-535: Jerusalem Declaration may refer to: The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism , a 2021 guide on antisemitism particularly with regard to Israel and Palestine The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism , a statement issued by Palestinian Christian churches rejecting Christian Zionism The Jerusalem Declaration of the Global Anglican Future Conference Topics referred to by
172-422: A 16-word definition of antisemitism which reads: "Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)." It also includes 15 guidelines, divided into three sections, that seek to aid in the identification of antisemitism and give examples of speech and conduct with regard to Israel and Palestine that are and are not antisemitic. The declaration
258-637: A Sub-Report for the Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism that the definition had "largely has fallen out of favour" due to criticisms received. According to Ken Marcus, the United States Commission on Civil Rights , after investigating campus antisemitism, adopted the definition, to help universities identify the lines between hateful and non-hateful incidents. According to the AJC, in 2007
344-454: A decisive step was taken by the presidency, on the demand by some member states. Namely, the original draft text was cut into two, and only the first two-sentence part was to be the working-definition to be adopted, while the other part, the examples, remained what they were: examples to serve as illustrations, to guide the IHRA in its work. From then on, the plenary was able to move quickly on, and
430-515: A definition perceived as more permissive would send a very bad message to students and teachers at British universities". Working Definition of Antisemitism The working definition of antisemitism , also called the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism or IHRA definition , is a non-legally binding statement on what antisemitism is, that reads: "Antisemitism
516-676: A human rights lawyer, was critical of the EUMC's original definition, as it was confusing about when attacks on Jews related to the Israel/Palestine conflict could be considered antisemitic, and required investigators to know the intentions of attackers. Meanwhile, the EUMC asked "selected Jewish NGOs and academics to provide a simple working definition that would encompass antisemitic demonization of Israel, and which could also be used by their own RAXEN network of national focal points and by law enforcement agencies". During 2003–04, involving
602-599: A motion passed at the UK National Union of Students annual conference endorsing the definition, the FRA stated that the working definition "is not an official EU definition and has not been adopted by FRA". On 26 May 2016, IHRA adopted a non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism. The IHRA adoption took place following the efforts of Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, at
688-426: A number of government and political institutions. By 2018, according to Lerman, the IHRA definition had been formally adopted by 6 of the 31 governments whose countries are members of IHRA, though he notes that it is unclear whether those countries adopted the attached examples. The countries adopting the IHRA definition also appointed a national coordinator for the fight against antisemitism. In late 2016, adoption of
774-921: A result of the COVID-19 pandemic . The declaration's 15 guidelines are divided into three sections. Section A deals with general manifestations of antisemitism and provides examples like Holocaust denial and the Rothschild conspiracy theory . Section B gives examples of speech and conduct relating to Israel and Palestine that are inherently antisemitic according to the authors, including holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel's actions or requiring Jews to disavow Israel or Zionism. Section C gives examples of speech and conduct with regard to Israel and Palestine that are not necessarily antisemitic according to its authors, including supporting Palestinians, double standards against Israel and anti-Zionism . The declaration does not take explicit stances for or against
860-428: A second report on perceptions of antisemitism based on interviews with European Jews. The antisemitism report was based on data collected by the 15 contact points of EUMC's monitoring network, RAXEN, then the robustness of the data evaluated by an independent researcher, Alexander Pollak . The report included a section on definitions, which concluded by proposing this definition: Any acts or attitudes that are based on
946-461: 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." It was first published by European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) in 2005 and then by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. Accompanying
SECTION 10
#17327662969731032-764: Is also in bold type, and enclosed in a box containing the longer part of a prefatory sentence that begins outside the box. According to Middle East Monitor , citing an email, on 12 September 2017 the IHRA Permanent Office in Berlin confirmed: "The Plenary of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted the working definition of antisemitism under the Romanian Chairmanship on 26 May 2016. The working definition, like all IHRA decision,
1118-722: Is antisemitic: Antisemitism is hatred toward Jews because they are Jews and is directed toward the Jewish religion and Jews individually or collectively. More recently, antisemitism has been manifested in the demonization of the State of Israel. Antisemitism 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, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits. (It may also be manifested on people mistaken as Jews, or on non-Jews seen as sympathetic to Jews.) This
1204-432: Is different from Wikidata All article disambiguation pages All disambiguation pages Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism ( JDA ) is a document meant to outline the bounds of antisemitic speech and conduct, particularly with regard to Zionism , Israel and Palestine . Its creation was motivated by a desire to confront antisemitism and by objections to
1290-535: Is flawed because it "asks institutions to affirm that BDS ... singling out Israel as uniquely colonial or apartheid, and saying that Israel has no right to exist, are not, 'in and of themselves', antisemitic", when, according to Hirsh, those things "are at the heart of contemporary left antisemitism". In a July 2021 essay in Mosaic , Joshua Muravchik , a professor at the Institute of World Politics , criticized
1376-421: Is non-legally binding. The working definition is the text in the box", and that when their reporter sought explicit confirmation from IHRA was advised to "just include a link to the IHRA website". Lerman states that this confirmed that the definition and the examples were separate things. He said "The discussions, as I remember them, were quite intense and lengthy, both in the couloirs and in the plenary hall, until
1462-472: Is that by seeking to rebut the IHRA definition, the JDA undermines consensus and sets back the fight against antisemitism. The declaration has also been criticized for sidelining the issue of antisemitism by seeking to engulf it in the fight against all other forms of racism and discrimination . Its reputability has been questioned, given that a number of its signers have been accused of antisemitism. According to
1548-671: Is used by the Justice Ministers of Austria and Germany in training prosecutors and judges. It was also adopted formally by other governmental and non-governmental organizations in some countries. In 2006, the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism recommended that the UK adopt the definition and that it be promoted by the Government and law enforcement agencies. The Government Response
1634-861: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and James Zogby of the Arab American Institute . On 1 May 2024, amidst the ongoing 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses , the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which mandates the use of the IHRA definition by the Department of Education, was passed in the House by a margin of 320 to 91. The bill was introduced by Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) and led by co-sponsors Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio). A dissenting opinion
1720-547: The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement or the one-state solution, but rules they are not antisemitic "on the face of it". In April 2021, several Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives led by Representative Jan Schakowsky wrote a letter to the United States Secretary of State , Antony Blinken , urging him to make use of tools against antisemitism beyond the IHRA definition, including
1806-460: The Bucharest plenary meeting of the IHRA on 30 May 2016, where its 31 member countries voted to adopt it. Weitzman later told a workshop that the definition was copied from the EUMC version as there was "not enough time to invent a new one". The decision to adopt the text was based on consensus among IHRA's 31 member countries. The document included two sections, a two-sentence definition plus
SECTION 20
#17327662969731892-580: The Centre for Research on Antisemitism (ZfA) analyzed a pre-release version of the EUMC report. The ZfA report was leaked to the press and poorly received. According to civil rights lawyer Kenneth L. Marcus , in the report the primary cause of rising antisemitism in Europe was assigned to young Muslim males, while in a press release for the subsequent final publication the EUMC assigned the rise in antisemitism to "young, disaffected white Europeans". Marcus writes,
1978-816: The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism , which critics have said stifles legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and curbs free speech . The drafting of the declaration was initiated in June 2020 under the auspices of the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem by eight coordinators, most of whom were university professors. Upon its completion the declaration was signed by about 200 scholars in various fields and released in March 2021. The declaration includes
2064-485: The IHRA definition . The Jerusalem Declaration was coordinated and authored by an eight-member group that included seven academics and a journalist/filmmaker. The group consisted of two Britons, three Germans, two Israelis and an American. The declaration's coordinators began drafting the document online in June 2020, and the declaration was publicly released on March 25, 2021, nine months later. Following its completion,
2150-423: The "JDA ... being interpreted almost solely as a tool for denying things are antisemitic". He said as a result the JDA has been embraced by those whose main concern about antisemitism is that "we hear too much about it" and whose own conduct could be labeled antisemitic by the declaration. Schraub gave the examples of Richard Falk, a 9/11 truther and signer of the declaration, and Yvonne Ridley, who endorsed
2236-519: The "efforts of a large number of institutes and individual experts", and coordinated by Stern, together with Dina Porat, Holocaust scholars Yehuda Bauer , Michael Berenbaum and Roni Stauber , the Community Security Trust 's Michael Whine, human rights expert Felice D. Gaer , and others, a proposed definition and set of examples was drafted. The draft working definition identified that some criticism of Israel and of Zionism
2322-763: The AJC, and Beate Winkler, director of the EUMC. According to Michael Whine of the Community Security Trust, "the Director of the ODIHR Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Division and the Advisor on Antisemitism played an active role in formulating the Working Definition." On 28 January 2005, the EUMC published on its website a working definition of antisemitism which shared many features of Stern's earlier draft. Winkler published
2408-633: The Administration continues to encourage other countries as well as international bodies to do the same". The State Department did not directly address the Jerusalem Declaration in its response. In an April 2021 opinion article in Al Jazeera , Mark Muhannad Ayyash, an associate professor at Mount Royal University criticized the Jerusalem Declaration, saying it was "an orientalist text that fails to produce true opposition to
2494-649: The Canadian Government on November 7–9, 2010, issued the Ottawa Protocol , including a commitment to "reaffirm the EUMC – now Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) – working definition". Canadian Members of Parliament adopted a resolution to combat antisemitism in 2007 that cited the EUMC definition, and the Australian Online Hate Prevention Institute . According to Andrew Baker of the AJC, the definition
2580-556: The EUMC definition was adopted as "an initial guide" by the Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism within the U.S. Department of State, stating that it "should not be construed ... as United States policy". In 2008, the State Department again endorsed the Working Definition in their Contemporary Global Antisemitism report to Congress, noting that "a widely accepted definition of antisemitism can be useful in setting
2666-481: The EUMC definition, According to Marcus, while it was in effect the State Department definition was more important in determining U.S. government foreign policy than the EUMC definition since it represented an official policy position. In 2011, the AJC's Ken Stern and Cary Nelson , President of the American Association of University Professors , published a letter stating that "It is a perversion of
Jerusalem Declaration - Misplaced Pages Continue
2752-682: The EUMC report, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)'s Berlin Declaration recognised that post WW2 antisemitism had changed and was now at times directed against Jews as a collective and Israel as an embodiment of the Jew. The Berlin Declaration also tasked the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) to work with the EUMC to develop better ways to monitor antisemitic incidents in OSCE countries. At
2838-619: The EUMC's successor body, the FRA, did recommend it for adoption, an undertaking it repeated the following year in its progress report on implementing the Inquiry's recommendations, noting this had been delayed by the process of transforming into the FRA delayed this. In 2009, the leaders of the Labour and Conservative parties signed the London Declaration endorsing the definition. The National Union of Students formally adopted
2924-532: The European Forum on Antisemitism commissioned translations of the Working Definition into each of the 33 languages used by the OSCE states. In 2010, Stern wrote that "In the last five years, the definition has been increasingly used, because it provides a workable, non-ideological approach to task of identifying antisemitism." The definition was used by monitoring agencies and law enforcement officials in some European countries. According to Stern, by 2010,
3010-614: The European Parliament and other national and international bodies and employed for internal use by a number of governmental and political institutions, although not all have explicitly included the illustrative examples. Pro-Israeli organizations have been advocates for the worldwide legal adoption of the IHRA definition. The definition has been heavily criticised by academics, including legal scholars, who say that it stifles free speech relating to criticism of Israeli actions and policies. High-profile controversies took place in
3096-479: The FRA told him around 2011 that: "Since its development we are not aware of any public authority in the EU that applies it [and the] FRA has no plans for any further development." He noted that an August 2010 FRA publication on antisemitism did not mention the working definition. Following on from the EUMC's 2004 report, the FRA's 2012 report on antisemitism equates " new antisemitism " with anti-Zionism . FRA also used
3182-452: The IHRA definition of antisemitism and appointed Deputy Foreign Minister Georg Georgiev as national co-ordinator for the fight against antisemitism. The European Parliament called for member states to adopt the IHRA definition on 1 June 2017 – although Lerman notes that this is without explicitly quoting the examples. As of 29 March 2019, Lithuania (24 January 2018), Moldova (20 January 2019), and North Macedonia have also adopted
3268-498: The IHRA definition. In November 2019, Greek Prime Minister announced that Greece was set to adopt the IHRA definition. On 5 December 2019, France 's National Assembly called on the government to adopt the IHRA definition. According to Alan Shatter , Ireland has neither adopted nor formally endorsed the definition and on 9 November 2021, the Minister for Children, Equality and Integration, Roderic O'Gorman said that while Ireland
3354-604: The Jerusalem Declaration and Nexus Document. Organizations including Americans for Peace Now and J Street supported the letter while the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and American Jewish Committee (AJC) opposed it. Responding to the letter, Acting Assistant Secretary Naz Durakoğlu said "the Biden Administration embraces and champions the IHRA nonlegally binding working definition of anti-Semitism in its entirety, including its examples, and
3440-401: The Jerusalem Declaration for seeking to contextualize antisemitism within a broader fight against all other forms of discrimination because that framing ignores that Jews are often discriminated against by other minorities. He claimed that "In asserting, as a rebuke to the IHRA definition, that the struggle against anti-Semitism is inseparable from similar struggles, the JDA seems to be addressing
3526-454: The Jerusalem Declaration legitimizes increasing violence against Jews and their institutions by politicizing and attempting to undermine efforts to reach a consensus on antisemitism. The authors criticized the declaration for its extensive use of " weasel words " like "on the face of it" and "in and of itself/themselves", which they said obscures the fact that arguments are often reinterpreted in different contexts and take on meaning beyond that of
Jerusalem Declaration - Misplaced Pages Continue
3612-626: The OSCE used the definition in a 2005 report Education on the Holocaust and Antisemitism: An Overview and Analysis of Educational Approaches . By 2010 it was recommended in the course leaders' Facilitators Guide in the OSCE OHDIR programme to assist law enforcement officials to understand and investigate hate crime , and at the 2010 OSCE High Level Conference on Tolerance and Non-Discrimination in Astana urged participating states to use and promote
3698-678: The United Kingdom in 2011 within the University and College Union , and within the Labour Party in 2018. The definition has been contested for weaknesses that critics say lend themselves to abuse, for obstructing campaigning for the rights of Palestinians , and for being too vague. Kenneth S. Stern , who contributed to the original draft, has opposed the weaponization of the definition on college campuses in ways that might suppress and limit free speech. The controversy over
3784-643: The United Nations Economic and Social Council Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights ... It continues to be referenced more and more because of its clear utility. For example, in Lithuania , it was referred to in a successful criminal case against an editor of a right-wing newspaper in 2005. The definition was used to some extent by some intergovernmental and EU agencies. For example,
3870-581: The Working Definition at its 2007 Conference. Some individual students unions followed suit, although at others motions to do so were defeated. In 2011, the University and College Union passed a resolution opposing the use of the definition, which led to the Jewish Leadership Council and Board of Deputies of British Jews describing the union as "institutionally antisemitic". On 1 January 2015, Professor David Feldman stated in
3956-627: The Working Definition. In February 2009, the first conference of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism , issued the London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism , calling to governments to expand the use of the Working Definition. The second annual conference, held in Ottawa , Canada , in association with the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism and
4042-418: The alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations" and "claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor" (and nine other examples). Antony Lerman notes that the EUMC and IHRA definitions are set out differently. The EUMC 38-word working definition is distinguished from the rest of the text by being set in bold type. The same text in the IHRA definition
4128-427: The concept of collective antisemitism. Several examples relate to animus towards Israel, including both Holocaust inversion and the application of double standards to Israel. The definition states that "However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." The EUMC separated the working definition with eleven examples. This was presented as two separate groups,
4214-584: The core problem of the IHRA definition: the silencing and erasure of Palestine and Palestinians". He also said the declaration presents Palestinians as "hostile, reactionary, and emotional", and that "there is very little substantive difference between [the Jerusalem Declaration's 10th] guideline and the IHRA definition's claim that arguing that Israel is a racist endeavour constitutes antisemitism". In an April 2021 article in The National Interest , Gerald Steinberg and Asaf Romirowsky said that
4300-546: The declaration and once said "the Zionists have tentacles everywhere". In an April 2021 opinion article in The Jewish Chronicle , David Hirsh , a lecturer in sociology at Goldsmiths University of London , criticized the Jerusalem Declaration on the grounds that it "does not help the fight against antisemitism", and has a blind spot for antisemitism that originates on the political left. The JDA, he wrote,
4386-466: The declaration was signed by about 200 scholars in various fields including Jewish studies , Israel studies, Middle Eastern studies , comparative literature , and sociology . The declaration is called the "Jerusalem Declaration" because it was created under the auspices of the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem . The group that drafted its text also intended to do so in Jerusalem but could not as
SECTION 50
#17327662969734472-438: The declaration's preamble is dismissive of the ways that antisemitism has stood apart from other forms of racism historically and how that history has shaped Jewish identity. He also said the declaration makes generalizations about antisemitism that do not apply under many circumstances, like claiming that the hallmark of classic antisemitism is "the idea that Jews are linked to the forces of evil". Nelson also said that many amongst
4558-405: The definition "without formal review by her political overseers". Marcus writes that it was a "working definition" in two senses: a working guide to waidentifying antisemitism in practice, and a work-in-progress as opposed to a final statement to be approved by the EU's political leadership: "for this reason, formal endorsement was neither sought nor obtained". The stated purpose of the definition
4644-409: The definition by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe was blocked by Russia . The United Kingdom was the first country to adopt the definition (12 December 2016), followed by Israel (22 January 2017), Austria (25 April 2017), Scotland (27 April 2017), Romania (25 May 2017), Canada (23 August 2017), and Germany (20 September 2017). In October 2017, Bulgaria adopted
4730-652: The definition had been referenced or relied upon in or by courts (in Lithuanian and Germany), congressional hearings in the United States, online reference tools, newspapers, blogs, scholarly articles, legal articles, radio shows, student groups, museums, national inquiries of parliamentarians (most importantly in the UK), international meetings of parliamentarians, United States Department of State Reports, The United States Commission on Civil Rights, and in submissions to
4816-771: The definition led to the creation of the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism and the Nexus Document , both of which expressly draw distinctions between antisemitism and criticism of Israel. The Commission on Racism and Xenophobia (CRX) (also known as the Kahn Commission) was established in 1994. The CRX was transformed into the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) by Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997 and commenced in June 1998. Its mandate
4902-469: The definition to use it, as some are doing, in an attempt to censor what a professor, student, or speaker can say"; this generated significant controversy within the American Jewish community. On 12 January 2016, Peter Roskam and Tim Scott introduced a bipartisan bill in the House and Senate on combating antisemitism on campus, under the title of The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, to codify
4988-521: The document's preamble, The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism was created in order to clarify the "limits of legitimate political speech and action concerning Zionism, Israel, and Palestine", and to be used by those seeking to identify and oppose antisemitism. It does so through its definition of antisemitism and by providing guidelines intended to characterize distinctions between antisemitic speech and legitimate criticism of Israel. Its creators intended for it to be used as an alternative or supplement to
5074-471: The first six examples were antisemitic tropes and the following five examples were introduced with the sentence: "Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include". The EUMC working definition was prominently referenced by the OSCE Cordoba conference in June that year. According to Lerman, the definition
5160-603: The following year recognised the "useful work being done by the EUMC in identifying antisemitic discourse", noted that the government accepted the definition of racism in the MacPherson Report on institutional racism and that this subsumed the EUMC and went further. It also noted that "from the EUMC's evidence to the Committee", the "definition is in fact a work in progress and has not been recommended to states for adoption". However, it undertook to re-examine this if
5246-424: The larger issue was missed that the definition of antisemitism that the EUMC used was based on "seven stereotypical traits: deceptiveness, strange-ness, hostility, greed, corruption, conspiratorial power, and deicidal murderousness". The EUMC report concluded that anti-Israeli and anti-Zionism expression could only be considered antisemitic if it was based on the stereotype of Israel as the collective Jew. Following
SECTION 60
#17327662969735332-450: The list of 11 examples. IHRA's 38-word basic "working definition" of antisemitism reads: 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. The IHRA states that "the Working Definition, including its examples,
5418-441: The measure, arguing that it criminalises legitimate criticism of Israel. The EUMC never granted any official status to the definition. In 2007, the EU replaced the EUMC with the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), with a broader remit than racism and antisemitism. It has continued to deliver annual reports of antisemitic incidents in the EU countries, based on data from its national contact points. Richard Kuper reported that
5504-410: The non-legally binding working definition was unanimously adopted." In 2021 Al-Jazeera reported that "the governing plenary decided to adopt only the two-sentence passage as its definition, excluding the controversial examples. The examples were not endorsed as part of the working definition but as 'illustrations' to 'guide IHRA in its work'." The IHRA definition has been adopted for internal use by
5590-453: The organizers of the declaration should have rejected the signatures of the declaration's antisemitic signatories. He also said he had signed the declaration because he "thought that JDA offered to create a little distance, nothing more, between antisemitism and the Israel/Palestine battles" which he said he knows "often overlap". With regard to calls to repeal the IHRA definition in Great Britain, he said that "rescinding IHRA or replacing it with
5676-405: The parameters of the issue. Such a definition also helps to identify the statistics that are needed and focuses attention on the issues that policy initiatives should address ... The EUMC's working definition provides a useful framework for identifying and understanding the problem and is adopted for the purposes of this report." In June 2010 the State Department adopted a definition based on
5762-422: The perception of a social subject (individual, group, institution, or state) as "the ('deceitful', 'corrupt', 'conspiratorial', etc.) Jew". The report also explored the question of when anti-Zionist or anti-Israel expression might be antisemitic (pp. 13–14) and highlighted the need to develop a common EU definition in order to collect and compare incidents across countries (pp. 25–29). In December 2003,
5848-439: The same term [REDACTED] This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Jerusalem Declaration . If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerusalem_Declaration&oldid=1219564385 " Category : Disambiguation pages Hidden categories: Short description
5934-405: The same time, according to Marcus, the EUMC, largely due to pressure from American Jewish organizations, scrapped its failed definition of antisemitism. Israeli scholar Dina Porat , then head of the Stephen Roth Institute at Tel Aviv University , proposed the idea for a common definition during an NGO conference organized by the American Jewish Committee (AJC). Kenneth S. Stern of the AJC,
6020-545: The signers of the declaration are "fierce and uncompromising anti-Zionists who cross a line into antisemitism", including Sergio Luzzatto, a historian at the University of Connecticut who, according to Nelson, believes the medieval blood libel was true. In an April 2021 op-ed in Haaretz , David Schraub, a law professor at the Lewis & Clark Law School , criticized the Jerusalem Declaration's framing of some forms of speech and conduct as not antisemitic "in and of themselves". According to Schraub this framing has resulted in
6106-446: The suggestion of the AJC, the EUMC director organized a meeting of Jewish representatives to discuss the new definition of antisemitism which had been drafted; the consultation involved representatives of the AJC and European Jewish Congress , the EUMC director and head of research, and the ODIHR Tolerance and Non-Discrimination program director and antisemitism expert. The outcome was negotiated between Andrew Baker, Stern's colleague at
6192-541: The term ' secondary antisemitism ' to define similar accusations against Jews for using the Holocaust to manipulate non-Jews. In 2013, the FRA confirmed that it did not have the authority to "either set or repudiate any definitions" of antisemitism. In November 2013, the FRA removed the definition from its website in "a clear-out of non-official documents"; a spokesperson stated at the time that "We are not aware of any official definition [of antisemitism]". In April 2016, Middle East Monitor reported that, in response to
6278-562: The words used to express them. The authors also claimed the Jerusalem Declaration "marginalizes the core issues of antisemitism" by subordinating it to the fight against all other forms of discrimination. In an April 2021 essay in Fathom Journal , Cary Nelson , former president of the American Association of University Professors , criticized the Jerusalem Declaration on the basis that it seeks to accommodate manifestations of " new antisemitism " rather than challenge them. Nelson said
6364-543: The working definition, but of disputed status, are 11 illustrative examples whose purpose is described as guiding the IHRA in its work, seven of which relate to criticism of Israel . The definition was developed during 2003–04 and first published on 28 January 2005 on the website of the European Union agency, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). The publication
6450-750: The working definition. It would require the US Department of Education to refer to the definition in deciding if educational institutions had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by tolerating antisemitic harassment. It was passed in the Senate, and on 22 December 2016 it was referred to the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice . This hearing
6536-433: The wrong audience; much of the anti-Semitism that plagues Jews arises from non-majority groups." In Fathom articles from April and May 2021, Michael Walzer , an original signer of the Jerusalem Declaration, responded to criticisms registered against him and the declaration, and reaffirmed his support for the IHRA definition. He conceded that like the IHRA definition, the Jerusalem Declaration can be misinterpreted. He said
6622-511: Was "supportive of the definition", it "did not consider the illustrative examples that followed to be an integral part of the definition". Cyprus was the seventeenth country to adopt the IHRA definition (December 2019) as a useful guidance tool in education and training. Italy adopted the IHRA definition in January 2020, and appointed Professor Milena Santerini as national coordinator against antisemitism. Serbia and Argentina adopted
6708-467: Was held on 7 November 2017; it "took a heated turn" as four of the nine witnesses argued that the definition infringes on freedom of speech regarding Israel. On 23 May 2018, the same bills were reintroduced with minor amendments. On 24 July 2018 they were referred again to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. The Bill was criticised as an attack on free speech, including by
6794-552: Was made "without formal review", and remained a working draft, until November 2013 when the EUMC's successor agency, the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), removed it from its website in "a clear-out of non-official documents". The working definition was adopted by the IHRA Plenary (consisting of representatives from 31 countries) in Bucharest , Romania , on 26 May 2016. It was subsequently accepted by
6880-470: Was positively received by a cohort of Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives who urged the U.S. State Department to use it alongside the IHRA definition. In its response to the Representatives, the State Department reaffirmed its support for the IHRA definition and did not take any steps to adopt the JDA. The declaration has been criticized on multiple grounds: A common refrain
6966-480: Was promoted by the AJC, other American Jewish organizations, national Jewish representative bodies, Jewish defence organizations, the Israeli government , pro-Israel advocacy groups, and was approved by the OSCE and other pan-European organizations. According to Lerman, the EUMC working definition was widely criticized and the organization was put under pressure by supporters and critics of the definition. In 2008,
7052-519: Was reviewed and decided upon" by the plenary. In the press release announcing the adoption of the definition, along with the definition itself, were listed the same eleven examples that featured in the EUMC definition, which the IRHA stated would be used to guide it in its work. After the caveat, "taking into account the overall context", the examples of what could constitute antisemitism include "Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to
7138-442: Was shared by Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-San Diego), who is Jewish, who said the bill "fails to effectively address the very real rise of antisemitism, all while defunding colleges and universities across the country and punishing many, if not all, of the non-violent protestors speaking out against the Israeli military’s conduct." The bill must now pass the Senate. More than 1,200 Jewish scholars have petitioned President Biden not to approve
7224-514: Was then followed by a list of illustrative examples, including five examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel. According to both Marcus and Antony Lerman , the novel element in the draft definition was identifying certain forms of criticism of Israel and Zionism as antisemitic, and Marcus also highlights the " praxeological " nature of the definition and its examples, i.e. its focus on pragmatic identification rather than scholarly understanding. At
7310-511: Was to "provide a guide for identifying incidents, collecting data and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism", and the working definition stated: "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." The definition included
7396-452: Was to monitor different forms of racism and xenophobia. In 2002, it published a large-scale monitoring report on Islamophobia since 9/11 , including a total of 75 reports, 15 from each member state and a synthesis report. This was to be followed by a comparable report on antisemitism. A report entitled Manifestations of antisemitism in the EU 2002–2003 was published in May 2004, along with
#972027