Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism

Guidelines

The declaration's 15 guidelines are divided into three sections. Section A outlines general manifestations of racism and antisemitism and provides examples such as Holocaust denialism and the Rothschild conspiracy theories. Section B gives examples of speech and conduct relating to Israel and Palestine which are categorized as inherently antisemitic, including holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel's actions or requiring Jews to publicly disavow Israel or Zionism. Section C gives examples of speech and conduct with regard to Israel and Palestine which are characterized not necessarily antisemitic, such as expressing support for Palestinians, comparison of the State of Israel with settler-colonialism and apartheid, or opposition to Zionism. The declaration does not take and explicit stance for or against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement or the one-state solution, but says these are not antisemitic "in and of themselves".

Reception

US State Department

In April 2021, several Democrats in the US House of Representatives led by Rep. Jan Schakowsky wrote a letter to the Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, urging him to make use of tools against antisemitism beyond the IHRA definition, including 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 of State 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 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.

Criticism

Mark Muhannad Ayyash, an associate professor at Mount Royal University in Canada, and himself a Palestinian, criticized the Jerusalem Declaration as a document "casts itself as a liberal, tolerant and anti-racist" but in reality "is an orientalist text that fails to produce true opposition to the core problem of the IHRA definition: the silencing and erasure of Palestine and Palestinians". He argues that the declaration presents Palestinians as unreasonably "hostile, reactionary, and emotional". Ayyash also challenges the declaration's 10th guideline, which categorizes "Denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality" as inherently antisemetic, arguing that "there is very little substantive difference between this guideline and the IHRA definition's claim that arguing that Israel is a racist endeavour constitutes antisemitism".

Israeli acedemic Gerald Steinberg and American historian Asaf Romirowsky said that 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 the words used to express them. The authors also claimed the declaration "marginalizes the core issues of antisemitism" by subordinating it to the fight against all other forms of discrimination. David Hirsh, a lecturer in sociology at Goldsmiths University of London, criticized the 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, 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".

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 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 it 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". He also said that many amongst the signers of the declaration are "anti-Zionists who cross a line into antisemitism", including a historian at the University of Connecticut who, Nelson alleged, believed that medieval blood libel was true. Joshua Muravchik, a professor at the Institute of World Politics, criticized it 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 said that by claiming "that the struggle against anti-Semitism is inseparable from similar struggles, the JDA seems to be addressing the wrong audience; much of the anti-Semitism that plagues Jews arises from non-majority groups".

Response to criticism

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 could be misinterpreted. He said 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 a definition perceived as more permissive would send a very bad message to students and teachers at British universities".