Anti-Semitism

 It is probably arrogant for me to sit here, in my comfy NJ apartment and make grand pronouncements as if I am an appointed messenger of the Truth to the masses. But arrogance be damned (and I think that by at least one major theological system, it is), I think this needs to be said.

Anti-semitism. Capitalized, hyphenated, italicized, or whatever. People are getting all up in a tizzy about the adopting of the IHRA definition of anti-semitism by anyone in particular but they miss the point. The definition can not impact behavior but can be used as a test after the fact to see if one of the qualities of a particular statement or act is that it could be said to be anti-semitic. I also think that it, as a definition it is pretty bad. I know that they hedge themselves by calling what they have a "working definition" and that's great but I'm still working on it.

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.

To be anti-Semitic there must be one trait that allows any statement or action to transcend mere malice or stupidity: the concept of Judaism must be either the subject ("Jews/Judaism are") or the object ("x the Jew) of negative portrayal or association. If a criminal is identified by his Jewish religion, then ask would he have been identified by his Christianity otherwise? What details does the public need to know to identify him at a distance?

If the bad guy is Jewish, and yes, this happens, to make any point of his Jewish-ness is still suspect. Why say his religion? Is it because you expect "his type" not to be criminals? Are you saying that there is a public expectation that Jews don't do bad things so he is an exception? All that does is play into other stereotypes which are comfortable but dangerous. Why make religion any part of the character? Would his being left-handed matter? Preference for vanilla and the Yankees. When an argument isolates the identity factor of "Jewish" in a person or connects an idea or event to "Jewishness" and then expresses negativity behavior driven by hate for the group then there is a problem.

Hate me because we fight then that's fine

hate me because of what you have heard, that's foolish

hate me because of who I am is a problem

So if one criticizes the state of Israel one has to accept one of two possibilities as it stands today:

1. criticism of the state has NOTHING to do with the state's affiliation with one religion and particularly parallel historical cases would show identical criticism of other states in the same situation.

2. if the criticism invokes Judaism then it is creating an expectation of Jewish identity in every action. Are people willing to praise Judaism specifically when things go right? Can people explain in each case how the government stance reflects Judaism (and why it is supposed to)?

 Consider that England has a state religion but people don't seem to tie the actions of anyone or anything to the Church of England unless the behavior is explicitly tied to religion. Think about some recent article that mentioned "Jewish settlers." Why did it say that and not "Israeli settlers"? If they had been Filipino workers would they have been identified by religion or nationality? What does bringing up religion bring to the table if not expectations.

If you are a sports bettor and you lost a lot of money by betting against Team Israel it is totally OK to say "I hate you Israelis" but to say "I hate you Jews" (that is, to invoke an unrelated protected status and use it as a target for the expression of hate) is not OK. And suffice to say that couching the hate or justifying it by claiming Judaism somehow IS related is also not OK.. If you want to criticize Israel and you do it by applying the same standards of its politicians and political system you would use to judge the government of any other country then go for it. Everyone else does! But if you inject, at all, the Jewish element of Israel's identity and then judge the government by a standard impacted by (your expectations of) Judaism, then your actions are driven by the religion and your feelings about it and that rises to the level of anti-semitism.

So is garden variety criticism of Israel's politics and policies "anti-semitic"? Not if the criticisms are fair, accurate and not driven a connection to Judaism.

Can one criticize a Jewish person? Sure. But if the criticism is about how he mows his lawn and religion is irrelevant, to bring up religion is then problematic.

Can one criticize Judaism? Sure! Subject it to all the logical arguments you want. Find the contradictions. But if you lie, or copy things that don't exist, then expect that part of the assessment of your behavior in any criminal proceedings would include measuring your actions against a standard understanding of "anti-semitism."

So when one hears about all the situations that the IHRA definition (though it really isn't the definition which is a problem...) will cause, consider what the problem really is -- people are afraid that they will have to confront that the things that they accepted and didn't think about, those unconscious expectations and unwritten rules, when they come to the surface, would reveal deep seated biases.

Yes I always worry because civil liberties are lost in the outskirts but I don't think that adopting this definition will have any impact on anyone. I'd love to find the court records in places that have adopted it to see how it has found itself into application and how it has resulted in a freezing of the local free speech.