Disagreement over definition of anti-semitism

[Second Summer]

For a while now there's been accusations within / against the UK Labour party of anti-semitism and whether the leadership has been addressing the issue sufficiently. At the heart of the issue appears to be the definition of anti-semitism. Most MPs and Peers now want to use the full IHRA's definition, including all the examples, whereas the Labour leadership is apparently not keen on all the examples:

Labour has adopted the IHRA definition in its new code of conduct but has not directly included four of the organisation's 12 examples of antisemitic behaviour, including comparing Israeli policies to those of the Nazis and suggesting the creation of the Jewish state was a racist endeavour.

More: Labour MPs and peers back internationally recognised definition of antisemitism as party row deepens (23. July 2018)

Would the inclusion of these examples stifle legitimate criticism of Israel or are such examples always an expression of anti-semitism?

 

[Andy_T]

I just read a very similar article yesterday ...

'As Jews, we reject the myth that it's antisemitic to call Israel racist'

 

[Second Summer]

The opinion piece posted by Andy was authored by Richard Kuper, co-founder of the UK-based Jews for Justice for Palestinians, and Rebecca Vilkomerson, director of US-based Jewish Voice for Peace.

A few quotes:

On the contrary, we believe that by dangerously conflating opposition to Israel’s discriminatory policies with anti-Jewish racism, IHRA politicises and harms the fight against antisemitism as well as the struggle for justice for Palestinians.

We take the threat of antisemitism seriously. Indeed, from our own histories we are all too aware of the dangers of increasingly racist governments and political parties. The rise in antisemitic discourse and attacks worldwide is part of that broader trend.

It is profoundly wrong to label the Labour party “antisemitic” for refraining to adopt IHRA guidelines in their entirety. Criticising Israeli policies – or indeed the tenets of Zionism – must be allowed to be part of political debate. That’s why Labour’s national executive committee has found aspects of the IHRA guidelines wanting.

I'm glad to hear there is some opposition to these guidelines also from Jewish organisations.

 

[Second Summer]

From a letter signed by Noam Chomsky, a number of UK academics, Brian Eno and others:

The research examined over 250 articles and broadcast news segments and found over 90 examples of misleading or inaccurate reporting. In relation to the IHRA definition of antisemitism that was at the heart of the dispute, the research found evidence of “overwhelming source imbalance” in which critics of Labour’s code of conduct dominated coverage, with nearly 50% of Guardian reports, for example, failing to include any quotes from those defending the code or critiquing the IHRA definition. Moreover, key contextual facts about the IHRA definition – for example that it has only been formally adopted by eight countries (and only six of the IHRA member states) – were consistently excluded.

Full letter:
Flawed reporting on antisemitism claims against the Labour party | Letter (30. Sept. 2018)