The new definition of antisemitism: Excusing Israel not protecting Jews

What antisemitism is, and what it is not

Printable version

The UK Government has adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism of antisemitism: a seriously deficient definition

Since early in 2016, debate about rights for Palestinians has been under severe threat because criticism of Israel and of its founding ideology, Zionism, has been misrepresented as antisemitic.

Antisemitism is hatred of Jews simply because they are Jews.  It must be vigorously combatted, along with all forms of bigotry. Confusing it with opposition to the state of Israel or Zionism is to obscure the real meaning of the term antisemitism and make fighting against it more difficult.

We say that behaviour is antisemitic if:
  • it inflicts or incites violence against Jews because they are Jews
  • it expresses hatred of Jews because they are Jews
  • it stereotypes Jews on the basis of alleged negative personal characteristics such as being mean, sly and avaricious
  • it links Jews to conspiracy theories about world domination of media, financial or governmental institutions
  • it accuses all Jews of embracing a single ideology, whether communism, capitalism, Zionism or any other
  • it holds all Jews responsible for the actions of the Israeli state
  • it suggests Jews were responsible for, or fabricated, the Holocaust.

Zionism is the political ideology which underpins the Israeli state: it is not Judaism

A recent survey of Jewish opinion (City University/Yachad 2015) found over 40 percent of British Jews did not identify as Zionist. Zionism is not an essential part of Jewish identity. It is a political ideology which can be debated like any other. Opposing it is not antisemitic.

However in December 2016, a so-called “new definition” of antisemitism was adopted by the Conservative government. It is being widely promoted by “We Believe in Israel” and similar propagandist groups, to local government, universities and other institutions. It threatens to convert legitimate political debate into a taboo.

The document being circulated begins with an innocuous-seeming definition which contributes nothing useful to the understanding of antisemitism. It says: “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.”

This is followed by 11 examples of behaviours that it calls antisemitic, seven of them referring not to Jews, but to the state of Israel. We examine some of them below.

A House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report in October 2016, while winning praise from pro-Israel lobbyists for promoting the definition previously adopted by a non-government body, the IHRA, nonetheless made sure to issue caveats about using these examples. The Committee stated (Defining Antisemitism, paragraph 24) that it was not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, or to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, “without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.”

Such reservations are absent from the version adopted by the UK government and circulated to local councils by pro-Israel propagandists early in 2017. A motion voted through by the London Assembly in February stated bluntly that the examples given were “manifestations of anti-Semitism”.

Here we discuss some of the more problematic examples.

  1. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

There is no clear link between the two parts of this sentence.

  • Rights attach to human beings, not states. Asserting the right to self-determination does not give any group a right to suppress others in its name. Palestinians also have rights, including the same right to self-determination and the right to protest at the injustices inflicted upon them in the name of Jewish self-determination. It is not antisemitic for them to do so, nor for anyone else to support them.
  • Jewish people exercise their right to self-determination in many different ways, in a multitude of countries, generally with little restraint. Most Jews in the world already have one homeland and don’t see the need for another. Is it antisemitic if you don’t tie Jewish self-determination to Israel? Are the over forty percent of British Jews who don’t see themselves as Zionist antisemites?
  • You don’t have to believe that those who founded Israel were inspired by racism to recognise that racism has been an indisputable outcome of its creation, given the expulsion of around 750,000 Palestinians who were not allowed to return, and much institutionalised discrimination against those who remain.
  • It’s not antisemitic to recognise that international law sees Israel as in “belligerent occupation” of all Palestinian territory occupied in 1967 including all of East Jerusalem, sees all settlements as illegal, and all Palestinians under occupation as severely discriminated against.

Useful link: The UK government’s new ‘anti-semitism’ definition conflates racism with valid criticism of Israel

  1. Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • The unstated assumption in this statement is that Israel is a normal democracy, just like any other. Is it antisemitic to question this? Especially when there is extensive evidence of discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel who are notionally full and equal citizens? And of course there are around four millions Palestinians whose fate is determined by Israeli control and occupation who have no vote at all – hardly normal in a democracy.
  • In practice, Israel’s defenders complain of Israel being expected to abide by internationally accepted norms. Israel is in fact exceptionally favoured on the international scene by being granted unprecedented impunity for breaches of international law and human rights conventions without sanction. It is not antisemitic to call Israel to account for those breaches.
  1. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  • Comparison with the Nazis can be particularly hurtful and should not be bandied about; even though right-wing Israeli politicians regularly deploy it to abuse opponents  The system of industrialised production-line murder that Nazism instituted in its extermination camps has had no parallels elsewhere.
  • However, you cannot a priori rule out the possibility that there are valid comparisons to be made between some aspects of what happened under the Nazi regime and some events that take place in Israel (or any other country).
  • The study of history and politics requires us to make comparisons between different societies in different times. Nazi Germany has become the benchmark for a particularly horrifying form of racist totalitarianism. Sometimes people, including Jewish Israelis, appalled at Israel’s behaviour towards Palestinians, reach for the worst comparison they can muster and draw Nazi parallels. It can be hurtful and frequently short-circuits necessary critical reflection. But it is generally not made with antisemitic intent.

4.Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel

  • We agree that it is bigoted to hold Jews – or any ethnic or religious group – collectively responsible for anything. To identify all Jews with Israel is stereotyping, and therefore antisemitic. 
  • But ironically, it is the Jewish establishment itself, in Britain and elsewhere, that expends huge amounts of energy claiming that Israel is central to the identity of every Jew. Its leading bodies and publications insist that Jewish communities are monolithic in their support for Israel in its wars on Gaza, for example – despite clear evidence of dissent and disagreement from many tens of thousands of Jews around the world.
  • In this situation, non-Jews can hardly be blamed for gaining the impression that Jews and Israel are indivisible. This confusion may result in unintentional antisemitic statements. Rather than attacking people misled by the rhetoric of Jewish community leaders, those organisations would do better to explain about non-Zionist Jewish traditions and make clear that not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews.

Supporters of a definition of antisemitism which deliberately equates it with opposition to Zionism have already succeeded in chilling political debate, as people move to avoid what they see as a ‘difficult’ topic. Institutions that traditionally host discussions, such as universities, church halls and other public meeting places, are cancelling events because they are frightened that some transgression might take place. It is simply easier not to talk about Palestine. This situation is likely to get worse if the flawed “new definition” is not resisted.

For further information and analyses see

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 thoughts on “The new definition of antisemitism: Excusing Israel not protecting Jews”

  1. I think even your definition of antisemitism is problematical.
    To begin with, how do we define a Semite?
    According to, “from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates and from Mesopotamia down to Arabia, as is known, only one language reigned. The Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews and Arabs were one people. Even the Phoenicians who were Hamites spoke this language, which I might call the Semitic.”
    According to, ‘The term Semitic most commonly refers to the Semitic languages, a name used since the 1770s to refer to the language family currently present in West Asia, North and East Africa, and Malta.’
    Therefore, it can be seen that for someone to be labelled an antisemite it must mean they have an irrational fear or hatred of anyone who speaks one of a number of around 20 languages, including – but not restricted to – Hebrew and Arabic. I don’t think there is one person on Earth like this.
    On this basis, it is clear that what has been mislabelled antisemitism since around the 1870s makes no literal sense and that the only way to describe someone who irrationally fears or hates Jews is to label them as Judeophobic or – in a religious sense – Anti-Judaic.
    The term antisemitism is therefore incorrect and should be replaced by anti-judaism if the critique is of a religious nature or judeophobia if referring to irrational individual responses to Jews.
    Where zionism is concerned, it began its modern existence through the works of Nathan Birnbaum, though he was later to repudiate zionism himself as he grew older. Herzl developed it further through the World Zionist Congress, which first met in Basel in 1897. Since then, the meaning of zionism has fractured into a number of ideologies: General Zionism, Religious Zionism, Labor Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, Green Zionism, etc.
    Even among Jews, therefore, there are differences of opinion about zionism and this is further compounded by non-Jews – such as evangelical Christians mainly in the USA – who extend wholly uncritical support to the zionist movement, in the forlorn hope that their messiah will return back to Earth once all the world’s Jews are located in Palestine. Criticising christian-zionists may be considered anti-religious but it can hardly be defined as being anti-Jewish or “antisemitic”.
    Criticising Israel itself is not anti-Jewish, anti-zionist or being Judeophobic. It simply involves pointing out how poorly the zionist state performs in terms of human rights, especially where their treatment of the native Palestinians is concerned. There is nothing wrong in being critical.
    It is sometimes very easy to equate the present and past conduct of zionists with the Nazis; not so much in terms of the obviously murderous policies of the Nazis but in equating them together in terms of concepts like blood, soil and “living space” which both sets of ideologies have elevated to a high degree. It is instructive to see the map of occupied France in the 1940s at and to observe the creeping way in which the Germans excluded French people from some parts of France and also how they gradually extended their areas of control over the whole of France. It is also of interest to view the English-language version at to see how the zionists could have applied lessons learned from the Nazi administration in France to Palestine.
    All of these observations are completely factual and do not include any kind of irrational fear or hatred of Jews or the ideology of zionism. I choose not to use the term antisemite or antisemitism
    in anything I say or write because the term is largely nonsensical, in my honest opinion.

  2. So by your definition, anyone questioning the holocaust is anti-Semitic.

    Presumably that includes Jew David Cole

    The fact that questioning historical events may be hurtful is irrelevant. No one has a right not to be hurt.

    1. WE don’t say questioning the Holocaust is antisemitic, we say it is antisemitic to ‘suggest Jews were responsible for, or fabricated, the Holocaust.’ Although we don’t explicitly say Holocaust denial is antisemitic, it is hard to think of a situation where it wouldn’t be. Holocaust denial is an attempt to whitewash the crimes of the Nazis which makes their repetition more likely with dire consequences for Jews and everyone else.

      If by questioning you mean critical historical scrutiny to determine the nature and course of the holocaust, this is a normal academic activity unless there is clear evidence it is being done for prejudicial reasons.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Show Buttons
Hide Buttons