hose of you who are not completely subsumed in Israel and Jewish communal politics may not be familiar with the hoohah surrounding the so-called “IHRA Definition” of antisemitism. IHRA stands for “International Holocaust Remembrance Association,” and the “IHRA definition” is a (supposedly) “nonbinding working definition of antisemitism” that includes a number of examples of antisemitic beliefs or behavior, including denying the Holocaust, making stereotypical claims about Jewish power, or blaming all Jews for the actions of individual Jews, or of non-Jews.
So far, so good, but included in the list of examples are these two:
• 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.
The issue here being the inclusion of criticism of Israel, or of its policies, as evidence of “antisemitism.” It certainly can be, but it isn’t necessarily, and Israel deserves criticism. But it can be argued that the IHRA Definition weaponizes accusations of antisemitism in defense of Israel’s indefensible policies against its subject Palestinian population, and that is deeply troubling, as I’ve written about previously.
The concern is that the IHRA definition is yet another step in Israel’s most vocal supporters’ efforts to toxify or even criminalize criticism of Israel, of a piece with the anti-BDS legislation that was a previous arrow in this quiver. There are alternative definitions of antisemitism, such as the Jerusalem Definition of Antisemitism, that don’t have this baggage but the OJC has put its eggs into the IHRA definition basket – because the baggage is the point.
The quote-unquote organized Jewish community (henceforth “OJC”) in Kansas City (and I suppose elsewhere) has focused much of its advocacy efforts over the past couple of years on getting state and local governments to adopt the IHRA definition. The Kansas state legislature passed a resolution in 2022, and several municipal governments in Johnson County have been passing resolutions over the past year or so as well. Of course the idea that there is anything to criticize in the IHRA definition is taken as proof of the problem that it purports to address.
The issue has been re-introduced in the Roeland Park council, which will be considering the matter at its meeting on Monday night. One of the councilors, Michael Rebne, is opposing the resolution and is working with CAIR-KS, the Muslim communal relations organization, to oppose it as well. The KC rabbis (of which I am one) received an email from the Jewish Communal Relations Bureau (JCRB, a primary OJC institution) asking us to engage in support of the resolution, reach out to supportive clergy, attend the meeting, etc.
I’m sympathetic to Rebne’s position. I find the IHRA definition problematic and have signed statements opposing it. As I hope I’ve made clear here, I think it’s more about toxifying criticism of Israel than about addressing actual antisemitism. (The fact that actual antisemitism is more likely to come from people who are demonstrative in their “support for Israel” has apparently escaped the attention of the OJC.) On the other hand, in my humble opinion, and as I tell people who ask me, aside from the morality of it (Mrs. Lincoln) there’s zero reason for a local elected official or even state legislator to put themselves out on a limb on this – on what is, after all, a purely symbolic statement that makes you enemies in the OJC but and has no other practical effect. I mean, if Bibi Netanyahu ignores Joe Biden he’s sure not going to listen to a council member from Roeland Park, KS.
I think what will happen is that the resolution will pass with 1 or maybe 2 no votes, Michael Rebne will bolster his progressive bona fides, and life will go on as before – with the institutions of the OJC having played their chosen role in protecting Israel from criticism and making it harder to address actual antisemitism.
