Young people generally supporting Democrats have a problem. The president is supporting a war that they vehemently oppose, and nothing they say is being heard. Republicans see an opportunity. They don’t need those young people and are happy for the opposition. If those young people stay home and those who support the war vote Republican, they will win.
In 1968.
The analogy is imperfect but still helpful. Young people oppose U.S. unconditional support for Israel’s Gaza strategy, not because they are antisemitic, but because then and now, they have a sense that something is very wrong and that an American president—not for the first time—is doing little or nothing about it.
Republicans are giddy. Let the Democrats try to have an earnest and open discussion about the values implicated in the war. It will devolve into political chaos. We Republicans won’t waver. When asked about the limits of Israel’s war, we can say there is no limit to Palestinian civilians killed (Senator Lindsey Graham) or asked about how many Palestinians should be killed, we can say “all of them” (Florida legislator Michelle Salzman).
The Democratic National Convention will be held in Chicago in August 2024. The Gaza war and its horrific aftermath will still be ongoing. Some, maybe many, young people will be moved to show up to protest. Instead of being labelled radicals and communists, they will be labelled antisemitic. Maybe they won’t show up at the convention, and instead just won’t vote in November, or will vote for a third-party presidential candidate.
Mark Twain said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes”. That rhyme is loud and clear.
We are experiencing the most public and powerful discussion of antisemitism in generations. Claims that particular speech and actions are antisemitic are having substantial consequences—including the loss of opportunities, business and jobs.
What exactly is antisemitism? Yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives weighed in. And like everything else in the current environment, the result was divisive and controversial.
Fourteen House lawmakers voted against a GOP-led resolution Tuesday “denouncing the drastic rise of antisemitism” in the U.S. and around the world after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, with many of the detractors accusing the legislation of conflating criticisms of the Israeli government with antisemitism.
The resolution stated that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.
The chamber cleared the resolution in a 311-14-92 vote, with 13 Democrats and one Republican voting “no.”
Ninety-two Democrats voted “present” after three prominent Jewish Democrats urged members of the conference to do so. They called the legislation “the latest unserious attempt by Republicans to weaponize Jewish pain and the serious problem of antisemitism to score cheap political points.”
The resolution, which spans four pages, “strongly condemns” all forms of antisemitism; reaffirms the House’s strong support for the Jewish community in the U.S. and around the globe; calls on elected officials and world leaders to condemn and fight all forms of antisemitism; rejects all forms of terror, hate, discrimination and harassment against individuals in the Jewish community; and “clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.”
Little reported is that Republicans sponsoring the resolution relied upon and included the definition provided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). In the absence of a consensus working definition, in 2016 IHRA drafted a definition, including examples:
“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.”
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
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.
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.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Members of Jewish communities, including leading rabbis and scholars, found this definition too broad, particularly in absolutely equating criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism.
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism is a tool to identify, confront and raise awareness about antisemitism as it manifests in countries around the world today. It includes a preamble, definition, and a set of 15 guidelines that provide detailed guidance for those seeking to recognize antisemitism in order to craft responses. It was developed by a group of scholars in the fields of Holocaust history, Jewish studies, and Middle East studies to meet what has become a growing challenge: providing clear guidance to identify and fight antisemitism while protecting free expression. Initially signed by 210 scholars, it has now around 350 signatories.
Preamble
We, the undersigned, present the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, the product of an initiative that originated in Jerusalem. We include in our number international scholars working in Antisemitism Studies and related fields, including Jewish, Holocaust, Israel, Palestine, and Middle East Studies. The text of the Declaration has benefited from consultation with legal scholars and members of civil society.
Inspired by the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the 1969 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, the 2000 Declaration of the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust, and the 2005 United Nations Resolution on Holocaust Remembrance, we hold that while antisemitism has certain distinctive features, the fight against it is inseparable from the overall fight against all forms of racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, and gender discrimination.
Conscious of the historical persecution of Jews throughout history and of the universal lessons of the Holocaust, and viewing with alarm the reassertion of antisemitism by groups that mobilize hatred and violence in politics, society, and on the internet, we seek to provide a usable, concise, and historically-informed core definition of antisemitism with a set of guidelines.
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism responds to “the IHRA Definition,” the document that was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. Because the IHRA Definition is unclear in key respects and widely open to different interpretations, it has caused confusion and generated controversy, hence weakening the fight against antisemitism. Noting that it calls itself “a working definition,” we have sought to improve on it by offering (a) a clearer core definition and (b) a coherent set of guidelines. We hope this will be helpful for monitoring and combating antisemitism, as well as for educational purposes. We propose our non-legally binding Declaration as an alternative to the IHRA Definition. Institutions that have already adopted the IHRA Definition can use our text as a tool for interpreting it.
The IHRA Definition includes 11 “examples” of antisemitism, 7 of which focus on the State of Israel. While this puts undue emphasis on one arena, there is a widely-felt need for clarity on the limits of legitimate political speech and action concerning Zionism, Israel, and Palestine. Our aim is twofold: (1) to strengthen the fight against antisemitism by clarifying what it is and how it is manifested, (2) to protect a space for an open debate about the vexed question of the future of Israel/Palestine. We do not all share the same political views and we are not seeking to promote a partisan political agenda. Determining that a controversial view or action is not antisemitic implies neither that we endorse it nor that we do not.
The guidelines that focus on Israel-Palestine (numbers 6 to 15) should be taken together. In general, when applying the guidelines each should be read in the light of the others and always with a view to context. Context can include the intention behind an utterance, or a pattern of speech over time, or even the identity of the speaker, especially when the subject is Israel or Zionism. So, for example, hostility to Israel could be an expression of an antisemitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or it could be the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the State. In short, judgement and sensitivity are needed in applying these guidelines to concrete situations.
Definition
Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).
Guidelines
A. General
It is racist to essentialize (treat a character trait as inherent) or to make sweeping negative generalizations about a given population. What is true of racism in general is true of antisemitism in particular.
What is particular in classic antisemitism is the idea that Jews are linked to the forces of evil. This stands at the core of many anti-Jewish fantasies, such as the idea of a Jewish conspiracy in which “the Jews” possess hidden power that they use to promote their own collective agenda at the expense of other people. This linkage between Jews and evil continues in the present: in the fantasy that “the Jews” control governments with a “hidden hand,” that they own the banks, control the media, act as “a state within a state,” and are responsible for spreading disease (such as Covid-19). All these features can be instrumentalized by different (and even antagonistic) political causes.
Antisemitism can be manifested in words, visual images, and deeds. Examples of antisemitic words include utterances that all Jews are wealthy, inherently stingy, or unpatriotic. In antisemitic caricatures, Jews are often depicted as grotesque, with big noses and associated with wealth. Examples of antisemitic deeds are: assaulting someone because she or he is Jewish, attacking a synagogue, daubing swastikas on Jewish graves, or refusing to hire or promote people because they are Jewish.
Antisemitism can be direct or indirect, explicit or coded. For example, “The Rothschilds control the world” is a coded statement about the alleged power of “the Jews” over banks and international finance. Similarly, portraying Israel as the ultimate evil or grossly exaggerating its actual influence can be a coded way of racializing and stigmatizing Jews. In many cases, identifying coded speech is a matter of context and judgement, taking account of these guidelines.
Denying or minimizing the Holocaust by claiming that the deliberate Nazi genocide of the Jews did not take place, or that there were no extermination camps or gas chambers, or that the number of victims was a fraction of the actual total, is antisemitic.
B. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are antisemitic
Applying the symbols, images and negative stereotypes of classical antisemitism (see guidelines 2 and 3) to the State of Israel.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s conduct or treating Jews, simply because they are Jewish, as agents of Israel.
Requiring people, because they are Jewish, publicly to condemn Israel or Zionism (for example, at a political meeting).
Assuming that non-Israeli Jews, simply because they are Jews, are necessarily more loyal to Israel than to their own countries.
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.
C. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are not antisemitic (whether or not one approves of the view or action)
Supporting the Palestinian demand for justice and the full grant of their political, national, civil and human rights, as encapsulated in international law.
Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants “between the river and the sea,” whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form.
Evidence-based criticism of Israel as a state. This includes its institutions and founding principles. It also includes its policies and practices, domestic and abroad, such as the conduct of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza, the role Israel plays in the region, or any other way in which, as a state, it influences events in the world. It is not antisemitic to point out systematic racial discrimination. In general, the same norms of debate that apply to other states and to other conflicts over national self-determination apply in the case of Israel and Palestine. Thus, even if contentious, it is not antisemitic, in and of itself, to compare Israel with other historical cases, including settler-colonialism or apartheid.
Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic.
Political speech does not have to be measured, proportional, tempered, or reasonable to be protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and other human rights instruments. Criticism that some may see as excessive or contentious, or as reflecting a “double standard,” is not, in and of itself, antisemitic. In general, the line between antisemitic and non-antisemitic speech is different from the line between unreasonable and reasonable speech.
I don’t celebrate Christmas, not theologically. But I have always enjoyed the season culturally, socially and emotionally. It is fun and uplifting. Setting aside whether or not a messiah was born, who wouldn’t like to believe we have an opportunity for a better life and a better world? A new possibility. Besides, this concept is a Jewish one, though today the Jewish views range from it hasn’t happened yet to we aren’t waiting for it and it doesn’t matter anyway.
Hanukkah coincides on the calendar but has nothing to do with Christmas. This hasn’t stopped it from in some ways becoming Jewish Christmas, whether as a gift-giving holiday or in balancing big Christmas trees with big menorahs. For more on this, see Hanukkah in America: A History (the Kindle edition is on sale for $3.99—a steal!). The topline of the Hanukkah story is also inspirational: a family of Jewish warriors reclaimed their territory from an occupying power and restored and sanctified the Temple. The oil lamp that should have burned for one day lasted for eight. A miracle.
The story of the oil lamp may be legend, but the history of the family is very real. They began the Hasmonean dynasty which ruled Judea for generations. The history of the dynasty is filled with infighting, intrigue and occasional despotism. (The story is not included in the Hebrew Bible. Instead, it is only found in some versions of Christian Bibles, as the Books of Maccabees.)
News of current war in that very region is with us every day—for some of us, every hour or minute. It is important to pay attention and learn. It is also heartbreaking, agonizing and exhausting.
Which brings me back to Christmas.
Most years I think Christmas music appears too early. Most years I don’t watch the Hallmark-style Christmas TV rom-coms until later in December (Hallmark-style because there are now about a dozen channels or streaming services showing these). Why is this year different from other years?
This year I have begun listening to Christmas music already. This year I have begun watching Christmas rom-coms already. I will be doing that for weeks, maybe into the New Year.
It doesn’t mean I won’t be watching the war too—every day, multiple times a day. Speaking only for myself, only as this one Jew, I need a break once in a while. If centuries of Christmas inspired different music, some fun, some silly, some sublime, I’m listening. If people want to find themselves in ridiculous situations at Christmas and end up falling in love, I’m watching.
If a baby was supposedly born who supposedly would enable a kinder and more peaceful world—a still distant but worthwhile dream—there is no reason not to hope.
Ben Zoma wise renegade Among the Talmudists Contemplated the space between Creation’s waters gathered above and below And went crazy. Contemplate the space between The demands of Israel and Gaza You will go crazy too except Long before Ben Zoma On the second day God called that space sky.
Ben Zoma sat at the Temple Mount, lost in thought. His rebbe Yehoshua ben Chananya came by, but Ben Zoma did not notice or rise in respect. R. Yehoshua roused him from his reverie and asked what he was doing. Gazing at the space between the upper and lower waters, he replied. R. Yehoshua explained to his disciples: Ben Zoma is still outside.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS), a department of the Library of Congress, has since 1914 been one of the least-known and most significant government initiatives:
Mission
To serve Congress with the highest quality of research, analysis, information and confidential consultation to support the exercise of its legislative, representational and oversight duties in its role as a coequal branch of government.
Authoritative
All services and products are authoritative. Analysts demonstrate rigorous research methodologies, free of built-in bias. They present, explain and justify any critical assumptions; investigate and recheck data anomalies; use primary resources whenever available; double-check all statements of fact; and document and vet all sources. This assures Members, as they engage in debate, that the analysis they rely on is as accurate as it is current.
Objective and Nonpartisan
We maintain an outstanding reputation for objective and nonpartisan analysis. Our experts are vigilant in evaluating issues without bias. A multi-layered review process also helps ensure that CRS products present issues and analysis in a manner that is fair, considered and reliable.
For those who have been devouring information from many and often divergent sources, this is as close as we may come to the informational middle of the road. This doesn’t mean that we will set aside our values and our opinions in this charged environment. We can’t and we won’t. It is just a reminder that in the so-called fog of war, there remains the possibility of the authoritative, objective and non-partisan.
Note: I was going to include some excerpts that seemed to support some of the points I believe in. But I realize that that defeats the purpose of simply asking people on all sides of the questions to consider one more source. Please do read.
The Hamas massacre in Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza took place just two weeks after last Yom Kippur. I have already put away the High Holy Days liturgy until next year, but I am now revisiting it.
I may detail what I find in coming messages. Maybe not. Here is a general thought.
I listed my sins in the past year and asked for forgiveness—not just of God, but first of those down-to-earth people wronged. We did the same as a community and as a people. The Book of Life had been open for ten days and then closed, supposedly sealing our fate for the coming year. Whether or not there is such a book, whether God or angels are writing in it, we don’t know. We do know that our thoughts and actions lead to consequences. Those consequences are our book.
Now, here, weeks after Yom Kippur, you can still hear the blasts of the shofar. May you write for good in your own book.
Too long have I dwelt with those who hate peace. I am all peace; but when I speak, they are for war.
Psalm 120:6-7
I am not a pacifist.
There are many definitions of pacifist, including:
A person who opposes war or violence as a means of settling disputes. A person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.
Up until now, I hadn’t thought about whether I would classify myself as or be considered a pacifist. The short answer is ‘no”. During the wars I’ve lived through or for those I know from recent or ancient history, I can say that some of the wars and violence pursued were justified. Others were not, or were pursued in ways that were not justified, or for objectives that were not justified, or were pursued without trying other means, or were just stupid or evil.
But I am for peace. Peace should never be a secondary or tertiary objective once the other objectives have been achieved or not, once all the destructive and deadly means have been tried. Peace should have co-equal status at the top of the list.
During the ongoing war in Gaza, I’ve discovered that all the divergent thinking and rhetoric, from me and so many others, from just plain folks up to world leaders, is having little effect on the course of hostilities. Wars are about action, well-chosen or ill-chosen, and stubborn actors convinced of their rightness can be deaf.
Then I realized that if I am going to be using my words to little practical effect, I might as well use them to promote the possibility of peace.
Which is how I came to find a verse in Psalm 120. The standout Hebrew phrase is “Ani shalom”, literally the words are “I” and “peace”. Lacking a verb, it is variously translated as “I am peace”, “I am all peace”, “I am for peace”.
I have little good to say about Senator Lindsey Graham. He is a model of what a civic leader should not be. For example, after being one of Trump’s harshest critics and opponents, as soon as Trump took power, he became his most ardent and over the top defender.
But his interview with CNN does deserve credit. Almost everyone else publicly avoids the obvious question: As the number of civilian deaths in Gaza rises, with no end in sight, is there a limit when it reaches what I call the “dayenu” moment—Hebrew for “enough”. Twenty thousand civilian deaths, thirty thousand, more?—all plausible numbers, all tending to young people, given Gaza demographics.
Graham says:
“No. If somebody asked us after world war two, ‘Is there a limit what would you do to make sure that Japan and Germany don’t conquer the world? Is there any limit what Israel should do to the people who are trying to slaughter the Jews?’ “The answer is no. There is no limit.”
This is a question widely avoided because it is difficult, because any answer—including Graham’s—is controversial and provocative. In general, leaders prefer to deeply discuss questions about casualties, military or civilian, after the fact. War is not won by the equivocating or the timid, and focus on unfortunate consequences only gets in the way.
Except. War has a price, or actually prices: the price spent on pursuing and the price exacted from those affected. It is the price of achieving the war’s objectives. The price for the security of a people, a nation, the world. The price for a principle such as freedom or democracy.
Israel has described its objectives as eradication of Hamas and return of hostages, along with, as Netanyahu has sometimes said, retaliation. The primary unanswered question is not entitlement to those objectives or their achievability. The question is the price to be spent and exacted.
Maybe the answer for Israel and its supporters, including the U.S., is that there is no price too high, no limit. If the U.S. or Israel did expressly say that, we can assume that the repercussions would be felt across America, Israel, the region and the world. Which is why the question hasn’t been answered at high levels before. And why we have to thank Senator Lindsey Graham for his honesty.
God of Moses God of Jesus God of Mohammed God of infinite names Sitting by the desert sea Pained and grieved. This is madness. These people Every inclination Is only evil All the time.* They take our names In vile vain.** There is the water Let us drive them in And start again Just like days of old Do better next time. But how would they learn? Hard hearts may soften Dissolved in blood and tears. We won’t abandon We don’t approve.
Whether you are living through war directly, living with its aftermath, or just thinking about it at a distance, peace is or should never be far from mind.
Here at a distance, thinking and talking about the Israel/Gaza war has been non-stop and contentious. Peace, however elusive and immediately unlikely, is not far from mind. In fact, having little influence on the course of the conflict, studying peace seems a good occupation. Just in case.
Until last week, I had never heard of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) https://www.usip.org/ , let alone that it was established and funded by Congress.
The United States Institute of Peace is a national, nonpartisan, independent institute, founded by Congress and dedicated to the proposition that a world without violent conflict is possible, practical and essential for U.S. and global security. In conflict zones abroad, the Institute works with local partners to prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflict. To reduce future crises and the need for costly interventions, USIP works with governments and civil societies to build local capacities to manage conflict peacefully. The Institute pursues its mission by linking research, policy, training, analysis and direct action to support those who are working to build a more peaceful, inclusive world….
Congress established the U.S. Institute of Peace in 1984 following years of proposals for the creation of a national “peace academy,” notably from a nationwide grassroots movement and from World War II combat veterans elected to legislative office.
Among its many initiatives, the USIP has developed the Gandhi-King Global Academy, which includes a Global Campus with hours of tuition-free online course about peace and the process of peacemaking.
I hope to take some of these courses, and I hope to encourage others to do the same. I have never served in war, as have others of my family and friends, but even from a distance I’ve learned much about war. Too much. So have so many others.
That’s why Isaiah 2.4:
And they shall grind their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not raise sword against nation nor shall they learn war anymore.
That’s why Down By the Riverside:
I’m gonna lay down my sword and shield down by the riverside ain’t gonna study war no more.
We don’t have the luxury of not studying the war right now. But we do have the opportunity, right now, of studying peace.
Bob Schwartz 