This past January, Legal Insurrection Foundation found itself in the unusual position of agreeing with the American Bar Association (ABA).
We wrote about how the lawyers’ group was considering a draft Resolution 514 against antisemitism that, to its credit, incorporated the widely accepted standard of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) for defining it:
[Click on image to see document.]
While we applauded the ABA’s strong stance against antisemitism in the initial draft, we doubted whether they would hold the line. Opposition from the left was mounting:
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.
Would the ABA cave, we wondered, the way Harvard Dean Elmendorf did?
That is exactly what happened, The Washington Examiner later reported. When it met in February, the ABA adopted a revised version of the resolution that eliminated the well-regarded IHRA definition.
American Jewish advocacy groups responded to the ABA’s backpedaling with a lukewarm “thanks, but no thanks.” As reported by the Jewish News Syndicate (JNS):
The American Jewish Committee stated its appreciation for the ABA condemnation of antisemitism amid “alarming” levels of antisemitism. But it added it is “disappointed the resolution omits the widely-recognized definition of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which provides clear guidance on what is antisemitism and what it is not.”“Some ABA members claimed the IHRA definition inhibits free speech, because it considers all criticism of Israel antisemitic. That is false,” AJC stated. “Even a cursory reading of the definition would disprove that.”…The Jewish Federations of North America tweeted applause for the ABA’s consideration of the resolution condemning antisemitism, but stated it is disappointed the ABA didn’t include the IHRA definition, “a tool we support that outlines modern manifestations of antisemitism.”
Even the ADL tweeted its disappointment:
The opposition picked up steam last week when a group of nearly 30 distinguished law faculty—including two former university presidents and many longtime ABA members—called on the organization to restore the IHRA definition to the resolution:
[W]e regret that Resolution 514 as adopted and revised omits an internationally-agreed upon standard and urge the ABA to reconsider its stance on this matter.The IHRA definition is an invaluable educational tool for understanding how Jews experience antisemitism today. It includes both classical antisemitic tropes and canards and illustrations of contemporary antisemitism that are often directed against the State of Israel—such as calls for Israel’s destruction and comparing it to Nazi Germany.It is unfortunate that the supporters of Resolution 514 were reportedly persuaded to opt out of using the IHRA definition only after a number of organizations mobilized in recent weeks to voice wildly exaggerated concerns that it is ‘dangerously chilling’ speech in support of Palestinian rights….We reject claims that the IHRA definition undermines and chills free expression, suppresses pro-Palestinian advocacy, or prohibits speech critical of Israel. In fact, the definition explicitly states that it is not antisemitic to criticize Israel in ways similar to other countries. But when conspiracy theories and anti-Jewish stereotypes flourish under the guise of calls to eliminate Israel, this needs to be called out and condemned as antisemitism. Left unchecked, this hateful speech justifies the harassment, exclusion, and marginalization of Jews in America and worldwide.
The signatories were brought together by the Academic Engagement Network (AEN), a pro-Israel advocacy group that works with faculty and staff on college campuses.
AEN says that “more than 1,000 global entities, including 850 government bodies such as the U.S. State Department, the European Union, and the United Nations, have adopted the IHRA definition as their official definition of antisemitism. More than half of U.S. states have individually adopted the IHRA definition, as have numerous US cities, universities, NGOs, and corporations.”
The reason the IHRA definition has been so widely adopted is that it suits the times. Today’s antisemitism doesn’t fit into the old molds. It finds expression in campaigns to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel (BDS); accusations of apartheid against Israel; and calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. But as the faculty letter urges, “antisemitism cannot be effectively combated or remedied if it is poorly understood.” And that is why the ABA should adopt the IHRA definition: it conveys the true meaning of antisemitism as experienced in real life by Jews today.
Whether the ABA will honor its commitment to “take a leadership role in opposing antisemitism”—as it exists in the here and now—remains to be seen this summer, at its next annual meeting scheduled in August.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY
