NEXUS and IHRA: The Anti-Semitism Debate Where IHRA politicizes anti Semitism, NEXUS portrays the subject with careful nuance

Despite its acceptance by numerous US states and European parliaments, the IHRA “definition” of anti-Semitism rightfully elicits widespread opposition by political leaders, human rights NGOs, scholars of anti-Semitism, twelve US Jewish groups, and even the co-author, Kenneth Stern.  There are numerous problems with it, which I outline here.  But primary among them is the very conception of anti-Semitism which it offers. Of its 11 examples defining the term, the majority deal with Israel:

• 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.
• 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 of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (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.

This leads to conflating a very real threat to Jews with Israel.  The underlying assumption of IHRA is that they are one and the same.  This in itself is a reductionist view.  Not to mention that it’s characteristic of the Jew-hatred of white supremacists.  In other words, the definition itself is anti-Semitic. Though this may seem shocking to some.  But if you consider that many Jews have been swept up in the anti-Semitism witch hunt, then it isn’t so far-fetched.

Nor is the battle of IHRA a theoretical one.  It has very damaging real-world consequences for those accused of anti-Semitism under this rubric.  The European Legal Support Center just released a report which documents 53 examples of individuals who lost jobs and endured death threats and harassment, and mental health issues:

[They] suffer[ed] a range of unjust and harmful consequences, including loss of employment and reputational damage. [These also included] censorship, defamation, dismissals, and event cancellations…

One of the most recent examples is the orchestrated attacks on CUNY law school graduation speaker, Fatima Mohammed. She was chosen by the student body to give an address in which she criticized global forces of repression.  They included Israel and Zionism.  Afterward, the pro-Israel media, New York Mayor Eric Adams and the University itself denounced her speech and smeared her as anti-Semitic.  Even the self-described progressive Nation Magazine piled on in a vicious attack on Mohammed.  Several NGOs have rallied to her defense including CUNY’s Jewish student association, Palestine Legal and Jewish Voice for Peace.

Roger Waters’ concerts feature a pig-shaped balloon with symbols of world religions (a cross, crescent and Star of David) which are meant to highlight the suffering caused by religion over the past millennium.  The Star of David is not meant to symbolize or single out Israel. Rather it is meant solely as one among several religious symbols. Given that Israel has become a theocratic state which has embraced a virulent religious messianic nationalism, such criticism seems justified.  The Israel Lobby and politicians from the UK to US pandering to pro-Israel constituencies have falsely denounced Waters as an anti-Semite.  A number of Jewish groups have come to his defense. A petition opposing cancellation of his concerts was organized by Katie Halper, It has nearly 40,000 signatures.

IHRA encourages such attacks against legitimate speech.  It normalizes such harassment and forces advocates for Palestine, along with critics of Israel to pay a steep price for their activism.  IHRA’s real purpose is not to define a complex term relating to attitudes toward Jews.  Rather, it is a political cudgel intended to police speech overly critical (defined by the anti-Semitism police) of Israel.

In fact, this blog would be considered anti-Semitic under IHRA as the following paragraphs show.  I do believe that Jews, especially our Jewish leaders have a moral responsibility to oppose Israel’s racism and apartheid.  I regularly decry their inaction.  That, according to IHRA could be construed as anti-Semitic.  I do call Israel “racist.”  Though I’m not really sure what a “racist endeavor” is. Myriad sources and Israeli human rights NGOs themselves have amply proved Israeli racism.

It is ridiculous to assume that pointing out Israel’s racist, even genocidal acts toward Palestinians constitute a “double standard.”  There is one moral standard.  And Israel fails it miserably in almost all contexts.  Not to mention, associating Israel with “other democratic nations” is a misnomer, as Israel is not a democratic nation.   It has never been so for its 2-million Palestinian citizens.   But the new fascist government threatens to destroy what few vestiges remain for its Jewish citizens.

Though I don’t accuse pro-Israel Jews of being more loyal to Israel than the US, in fact their lobbying efforts for military aid and hundreds of millions for settlements and tens of millions spent to defeat progressive Democratic candidates deemed critical of Israel, put Israel’s interests over America’s.  Though they don’t view it this way, since they believe that the interests of the two states are identical, in reality, their primary motivation is to exert political pressure on behalf of Israel.

Further, IHRA’s underlying assumptions bespeak a derogation of the Jewish Diaspora, a subordination to Israel as the natural homeland for all Jews.  And hence, the only suitable address for world Jewry.  Many Jews reject the impoverishment of Diaspora Jewish life which such a concept entails.  Israel and the Diaspora are not joined at the hip.  We are and must be two separate entities with some overlapping interests, but by no means identical ones.

IHRA vs. NEXUS

The Biden Administration recently announced a new “Anti-Semitism Strategy,” which stated that the government “embraced” IHRA.  Though it also found an alternative definition, the The Nexus Document worthy of consideration.  It’s unfortunate that he offered an endorsement of IHRA, while treating the far better NEXUS document as almost an afterthought.

NEXUS is everything IHRA is not.  While the latter purports to define anti-Semitism, its goal is to police speech concerning Israel.  It, in effect, shoehorns Israel by subterfuge into an almost wholly unrelated subject matter.

NEXUS does not camouflage its purpose. It states it clearly: “Understanding Antisemitism At Its Nexus With Israel And Zionism.”  It is clear, carefully articulated, and rigorous.  Not to mention well-organized into two sections: what is anti-Semitism and what is not.  For our purposes, the latter is most relevant and helpful in this debate:

What Is Not Antisemitic?

1. As a general rule, criticism of Zionism and Israel, opposition to Israel’s policies, or nonviolent political action directed at the State of Israel and/or its policies should not…be deemed antisemitic.
2. Even contentious, strident, or harsh criticism of Israel for its policies and actions, including those that led to the creation of Israel, is not per se illegitimate or antisemitic.
3. Opposition to Zionism and/or Israel does not necessarily reflect specific anti-Jewish animus nor purposefully lead to antisemitic behaviors and conditions. (For example…someone’s personal or national experience may have been adversely affected by the creation of the State of Israel. These…attitudes towards Israel and/or Zionism do not necessarily constitute antisemitic behavior.)
4. Paying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries is not…proof of antisemitism. (There are numerous reasons for devoting special attention to Israel and treating Israel differently…).

It’s in some ways ironic that while NEXUS was first developed at USC’s Annenberg School of Journalism, its current academic home is Bard College’s Center for the Study of Hate, founded by none other than Kenneth Stern.  This can be no accident.  Stern sees the damage IHRA has done. Therefore he sees it as his duty to put forward a far more thoughtful and comprehensive counter-definition.  In this, he has succeeded.

Unfortunately, NEXUS is not widely known.  I hadn’t heard of it until I read the Biden report.  There should be a concerted campaign by opponents of IHRA to offer this as a worthy, superior alternative. If we are to fight against this noxious threat to free speech, we must not only attack it, but present something better.

Jerusalem Declaration

There’s yet a third effort to address these issues: the Jerusalem Declaration. It was compiled by “group of scholars in the fields of Holocaust history, Jewish studies, and Middle East studies.”  My reading is that it is quite similar to NEXUS, but with one major difference. It is formulated as a response to IHRA:

The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism responds to “the IHRA Definition…We have sought to improve on it…Institutions that have already adopted the IHRA Definition can use our text as a tool for interpreting it.

While the overall goals of the Declaration are laudable and it’s necessary to propose alternatives, it is a mistake to link any such document to IHRA .  It is so fundamentally flawed that it should be discarded entirely in devising new approaches.  It is unlikely that any institution that has adopted IHRA,” as the passage above suggests, would use it as a “tool for interpreting it.”  This passage indicates an attempt to bridge an unbridgeable gap.