What’s an Anti-Semite? It Depends on Which Politician You Ask

Dame Margaret Hodge defends her stance on the definition. (Ian Gavan/Getty Images)

You might have thought that for a definition of anti-Semitism you could just turn to a dictionary. Merriam-Webster defines it as “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.” That does the job, doesn’t it?

Not in the modern political context. Things aren’t so simple. Right-wing nationalists querying the loyalty of Jewish fellow citizens: anti-Semitism? Leftist Palestinian sympathizers at loggerheads with Jews over actions of the Israeli government: anti-Semitic?

But it’s a mistake to think that what we need is a better definition of anti-Semitism.

On May 26, 2016, at a plenary meeting in Bucharest, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance adopted a basic definition three times the length of Merriam-Webster’s:

Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

The official IHRA press release has those words in a box but follows them with a number of elaborative statements and illustrative examples intended to “guide IHRA in its work.” It is explained that sometimes “the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity” might be anti-Semitism, though “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.”

It then embarks on an awkwardly phrased suggestion that contemporary examples of anti-Semitism “could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to” the items in an 11-point bulleted list which includes “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”; “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor”; requiring of Israel “behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”; “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”; and “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

The IHRA statement has a leading role in a current dispute involving the Labour Party in Britain. Since the 2015 election of a left-wing, pro-Palestinian, democratic-socialist leader, Jeremy Corbyn, the party has been battling allegations that he and his supporters have espoused anti-Semitic causes and views.

Corbyn ordered an inquiry into anti-Semitism in the Labour Party in April 2016. It reported two months later that the party was “not overrun” by anti-Semitism, despite a certain “toxic atmosphere” and “ignorant attitudes.” It made 20 recommendations for improvement.

The party is now attempting to insert a new policy opposing anti-Semitism into its code of conduct. It cites the IHRA’s definition and adds explanatory notes derived from some but not all of the alliance’s elaborative commentary and illustrative examples. The resultant 16-point policy is about 1,800 words long (The Jewish Chronicle makes it available here). It carefully leaves room for comparing the policies of Israel and the Nazis: Since “metaphors from examples of historic misconduct” are common currency, “it is not anti-Semitism to criticise the conduct or policies of the Israeli state by reference to such examples unless there is evidence of anti-Semitic intent.”

This is highly relevant to recent events: Ken Livingstone, former mayor of London and a prominent Labour member, was suspended for asserting that Hitler, early in his career, had favored Zionism. (Livingstone recently resigned from the party, saying that his case had “become a distraction.”) The weakened definition in the code of conduct could be seen as allowing space for such Hitler/Israel comparisons.

A luta continua. In an angry confrontation just outside the chamber of the House of Commons on July 17, a veteran Labour politician, Dame Margaret Hodge, called Corbyn anti-Semitic and racist for not favoring the incorporation of the full, unmodified IHRA text into Labour’s code of conduct. She stands by what she said and now faces disciplinary action by the party (to the delight of the Conservative government, which of course is thrilled to see its left-wing opposition squabbling over issues that used to be associated with the far right).

The statement that Labour seeks to insert into its code of conduct, about 160 times as long as the Merriam-Webster definition, is referred to as a definition in the newspapers, but it is really a tortured essay attempting to negotiate a way through a minefield of delicate political issues.

Online verbal abuse of Jews must be discouraged: Labour cannot condone the sort of Corbyn supporters who, according to Dame Margaret (a British citizen born in Cairo to stateless Jewish refugee parents in 1944), are sending her “go back to Israel” messages (and worse). Yet political speech must be free enough to allow criticism of foreign governments: Corbynites who object to the actions of the Netanyahu government in Israel have to be able to say so.

This thorny complex of political hot potatoes, sadly, will not be resolved by lexicographical endeavors.