Legal Insurrection Foundation doesn’t often compliment the American Bar Association these days. But, we’re tentatively applauding the decision of a group of its sections to propose a resolution condemning antisemitism. Resolution 514, as it’s known, is slated to be presented to the ABA’s House of Delegates for approval, at the HOD’s upcoming February meeting.
The resolution urges federal, state, and local governments to condemn antisemitism. It isn’t worded as clearly as it could be, but it encourages governments to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) working definition of antisemitism. The resolution begins:
Among the manifestations of antisemitism which the IHRA definition condemns is unfairly targeting Israel, as by “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,” or “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”; and targeting Jewish people on the pretext of “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.” The resolution notes that “The United States [– or at least the U.S. State Department –] now uses this working definition and has encouraged other governments and international organizations to use it as well.”RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments in the United States to condemn antisemitism, as referred to in The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, encouraged for use by other governments and international organizations by the U.S. Department of State: “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.”FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments in the United States to support legislation which combats and condemns antisemitism…
The balance of the nineteen-page resolution proposes measures to combat antisemitism.
It is being offered by the ABA’s Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice, Coalition on Racial and Ethnic Justice, Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, International Law Section, and Senior Lawyers Division.
It concludes with this cautionary note from its executive summary:
Summary of any minority views or opposition internal and/or external to the ABA which have been identified.As the Report notes, some 10% of Americans, and 26% of the worldwide population, harbor antisemitic beliefs, and would oppose this resolution. Though this Resolution is not about Israel, the centrist, contextual, consensus IHRA definition of antisemitism might also be opposed by those who maintain either that criticism of Israel is always antisemitic, or that criticism of Israel is never antisemitic. The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies 61 antisemitic organizations (Antisemitism | Southern Poverty Law Center (splcenter.org) which would likely oppose the resolution, as would thousands of open antisemites including Kanye West, Nick Fuentes, David Duke, Mel Gibson, and Jon Minadeo Jr.
All the people identified above as antisemites are politically right-of-center. It perhaps did not occur to the resolution’s authors and sponsors that the most vociferous opposition would likely come from the political left.
On January 18, a group of left-wing, Islamist, and anti-Israel organizations wrote to the co-sponsors condemning Resolution 514’s support for the IHRA definition. The ACLU, Jewish Voice for Peace, Council on American Islamic Relations, et al., offered mealy-mouthed support for fighting antisemitism, but claimed IHRA chills free speech and is anti-Palestinian. Among other things, the letter complained that the IHRA definition was “dangerously chilling fundamental rights of free speech, freedom of assembly and protest, and academic freedom.”
This supposed concern for free speech and academic freedom is rich, coming from a collection of organizations that have hounded pro-Israel voices out of universities. The ACLU, in particular, has given up what used to be its main mission in favor of agitating only for leftist political causes it favors, and keeping mum about suppression of voices it disfavors. For example, it refused to support those who drew or published cartoons of Muhammad, or to condemn Islamist attempts to silence criticism of Islam (so-called “defamation of religion”). Ayaan Hirsi Ali considers both the ACLU and the SPLC as what Lenin called “useful idiots,” which have been or are being infiltrated by Islamists. The once-celebrated ACLU has now become another anti-Israel, so-called “progressive” partisan.
Hopefully, the ABA will present the resolution despite last-minute efforts to derail it. But don’t be surprised if it’s pulled from consideration.
Why do the objecting organizations oppose condemning antisemitism? Why do they particularly oppose adopting IHRA’s definition of antisemitism, which (among other things) condemns obsessively criticizing Israel and delegitimizing its right to exist?
Occam’s Razor says, the simplest solution that answers the question is the best solution. Here’s a possibility – these groups oppose adopting IHRA’s well-vetted definition of antisemitism because they are antisemitic.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY