Criticism of the Israeli government is not anti-Semitism – where Die Linke is right
Historian Miriam Rürup and lawyer Ralf Michaels assess the resolution by which Die Linke joined the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. A guest article.
The Left Party's attitude toward antisemitism is currently being debated again. The decision taken at the party's conference in Chemnitz on May 9-10 to adopt the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) as a guideline in the fight against antisemitism.
The JDA was drafted by academics in response to the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) working definition of antisemitism. This working definition is supported by the Central Council of Jews in Germany and the federal government. Central Council President Josef Schuster said the Left Party's decision on the JDA proves that the party is driven by "Israel hatred."
In a guest article for the Berliner Zeitung, historian Prof. Dr. Miriam Rürup, Director of the Moses Mendelssohn Center in Potsdam, and lawyer Prof. Dr. Ralf Michaels, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, assess the decision of the Left Party and the reactions to it.
"Fight anti-Semitism and racism together. Against intelligence checks, identity checks, and coercive religious beliefs. Against authoritarian state action, against a climate of fear, against censorship and repression of critical statements supporting Israeli war crimes and Israeli government policies."
This is the content of a resolution passed by The Left Party with a narrow majority at its party conference. Essentially, it contains classic left-wing and not even particularly radical positions. In particular, criticism is not directed against Israel in general, but only against Israeli policies and the use of violence.
Nevertheless, the reactions are outraged. "Anti-Semitism: Scandalous Resolution by the Left," writes the Bild newspaper. The Central Council of Jews in Germany notes "a radical core within the party that—driven by hatred of Israel—contributes to concealing contemporary anti-Semitism." The Values Initiative declares that "cooperation with the Left is now no longer possible." There is also criticism and concern from within the party itself.
The JDA does not deserve the harsh accusationsThe strong reaction is not explained by the substantive position, but rather by the fact that the resolution opposes an element of German raison d'état that has almost become a fetish: the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, which has been adopted by federal and state governments and many organizations. Instead, it supports the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA).
Much falsehood is spread about both documents. In terms of content, they do not differ as fundamentally as is sometimes claimed. Both combine general definitions of antisemitism with typical examples, primarily with reference to Israel, and call for a context-specific, case-by-case analysis. The JDA is admittedly more precise in its definition than the IHRA. Differences can also be observed in the examples: While the IHRA working definition only lists examples that, according to it, constitute antisemitism, the JDA also includes examples that cannot be considered antisemitic per se. It thus enables an adequately differentiated view of the phenomenon of antisemitism, which defies simple definitions precisely because of its dynamic nature and adaptability.
The JDA, in particular, does not deserve the harsh accusations now being repeated against it. As Israeli legal scholar Itamar Mann recently explained in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), it is neither antisemitic nor anti-Zionist, and it has nothing to do with hatred of Israel; it certainly does not conceal Israel-related antisemitism. It is by no means more controversial than the IHRA working definition, especially in academic circles. The JDA is not even left-wing. It was adopted in 2021 with the support of over 100 leading antisemitism and Holocaust researchers who wanted to counter the IHRA working definition based on academic findings. It distinguishes better than the IHRA working definition between antisemitism and criticism of Israeli policy: According to it, for example, criticizing Israel as a Jewish collective is antisemitic per se, but not legitimate criticism of government actions or, under certain circumstances, even boycotts.
Conversely, the IHRA working definition is not right-wing in its content, even if it goes very far in equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Its biggest problem is its instrumentalization. It has been proven many times over that it is systematically used to discredit criticism of Israeli politics and government and to take action against critics. It is not for nothing that authoritarian leaders like Viktor Orbán, Giorgia Meloni, and Donald Trump, who otherwise have little to do with combating antisemitism, have embraced it. And it is not for nothing that even its main author, Kenneth Stern, warns against its use.
That there are different understandings of antisemitism is in keeping with the nature of the subject. The assumption that the IHRA working definition must be the sole authoritative one and that any narrower definition eo ipso legitimizes antisemitism is untenable. The working definition has also always been controversial. And the statement by the Central Council of Jews in Germany that the IHRA working definition is virtually undisputed and "worldwide recognized" in the Jewish community is not empirically substantiated and, given the criticism from numerous Jews, is hardly plausible.
The reason right-wing organizations want to uphold the IHRA working definition is not only due to its content, but primarily to its political utility. It is precisely for this reason that a left-wing party has no choice but to reject the IHRA working definition. The positions it helps suppress include left-wing positions like those mentioned above. One might wish that the definition could be separated from its instrumentalization, but this is futile: Those who support the IHRA working definition also legitimize its use and its users.
It is true that antisemitism cannot be tolerated. This is precisely why it is worthy of reflection on how readily left-wing Jews are targeted in this country, thereby ignoring the political spectrum and plurality of Jewish positions. Israeli NGOs and human rights organizations, left-wing Israelis and Jews in Germany, and even Palestinian victims of violence and discrimination are denounced and canceled with reference to the IHRA working definition. For example, the Central Council recently intervened against Meron Mendel, the recipient of the Buber-Rosenzweig Prize, and the Israeli Embassy intervened against Omri Boehm, a speaker at Buchenwald.
Should these groups really be less important to us than the solidarity of the Values Initiative? Should the stance of the Central Council of Jews in Germany preclude the acceptance of the positions of left-wing Jews, for example, within a left-wing party? And do we really want to stand on the side of Orbán and Meloni in the fight against antisemitism and racism instead of on the side of human rights activists—including Jewish-Israeli ones—and NGOs and actors like the left-wing Israeli party Hashad, which just praised the party congress resolution?
In fact, the debate over definitions is a distraction from the concrete policies enshrined in the resolution. It is urgently necessary to return from the debate over definitions to the essential issues – an end to mass violence and displacement in Gaza and the illegally occupied Palestinian territory, the defense against authoritarian tendencies here, and the genuine fight against antisemitism and racism. Admittedly, these policies can hardly be implemented without rejecting the tool that instrumentalizes the fight against antisemitism to make precisely these human rights-oriented policies impossible. In this respect, the vehement criticism of the IHRA working definition is a necessary step.
Overcoming fixation on the IHRA working definitionOne can believe that the critics are seriously concerned about the Left's decision. The socio-political discourse conveys the false impression that anyone who rejects the IHRA working definition is automatically an anti-Semite. Their mistrust is therefore understandable, and a left-wing party must convince Jews that its policies are not directed against them. Adopting the JDA should, of course, make this even easier: Because it distinguishes between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel more effectively than the IHRA working definition, it makes it easier not to attribute the policies of the Israeli government to Jews in Germany. It also makes it possible to recognize and make visible the diversity of Jewish positions.
The party conference resolution offers hope that the one-sided fixation on the IHRA working definition can be overcome without neglecting the legitimate concerns of Jews about rampant antisemitism. The fact that it is being fought so vigorously is a sign of how important and overdue this step is – and not just among the Left.
Berliner-zeitung
