(by Ian Donovan for Consistent Democrats)
I want to raise the subject of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of Anti-Semitism as a matter for comrades to think about at this conference. This became a prominent issue in this country in the period when the Labour Party was led by Jeremy Corbyn. It was used as a weapon to undermine him, because of his reputation as a defender of Palestinians. It deliberately re-writes the definition of anti-semitism from racial hatred, to a mixture of what could be called ‘political crimes.’ First of all, in the bare-bones definition it broadens the supposed target of anti-Semitism from just Jews as individuals of a supposed ‘race’, to “Jewish community institutions and religious facilities”
There then follow a series of eleven ‘illustrations’ of what that might mean. Some are largely consistent with racial hostility – such as denying the holocaust, or suggesting it was not intentional, or was exaggerated. Or suggesting that “the Jews killed Jesus”. But most of these ‘illustrations’ refer in some way to Israel. Indeed, of the eleven, only the first four do not refer to Israel. The rest, even ones that refer obliquely to genocide denial, bring Israel into the argument. But at the time that the genocide of Jews took place, Israel did not exist. And it is a fact that at least some Zionists can be validly accused of collaborating with the Nazis. So, what it this document about? It is not about defining racism against Jews as people. It is about organisations. And it’s clear that the organisation it is concerned with protecting most of all, is the Israeli state. After the first four, which are indeed arguably about racism against Jews, all the remaining seven drag in the question of Israel. It’s a form of ‘gaslighting’. Another word for that is an amalgam. Mixing two completely different things up and claiming they are the same thing. A dreadful technique whenever it occurs.
For instance, it says that this is anti-Semitism: “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 a little diversion in this. They say “a state of Israel” and not “the State of Israel”. As if some other state of Israel existed somewhere in a parallel universe that did not expel three quarters of the Palestinian Arab people in 1948. Of course, they mean the real Israel, not a fictional one! Then there is “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” But how can a country that expels the majority of its indigenous population, be called a ‘democratic nation’? Obviously, it cannot! And then there is “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” But what are Nazis known for? Genocide!
So, this says it is ‘anti-Semitic’ to accuse Israel of intending to commit genocide against the Palestinians. That is clearly a pro-genocide scam. This fake ‘definition’ was first published, as a ‘working definition’ in 2005, as the European Union Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)’s definition. That was in the context of growing anti-Zionist sentiment largely because of the very visible role of Zionist neocons in pushing for the attack on Iraq. The EUMC abandoned it in 2016 after a considerable outcry. And so, the IHRA took it up. A bloc of Israel and a whole bunch of its allies. But its purpose has always been to excuse Israel’s genocidal tendencies. They wouldn’t need to smear people who pointed out the similarity of Israel’s behaviour to the Nazis, if Israel didn’t behave like — the Nazis.
In other words, both those who formulated this fake definition, and those who it was aimed at persecuting, knew that Israel had genocidal tendencies. The aim of the gaslighting, of the amalgam that is built into this, was always to suppress criticism of Israel’s genocidal nature, and therefore to prepare the political conditions where Israel could commit genocide of the Palestinians, with impunity. So, this document, the IHRA definition, can be called a ‘warrant for genocide’ of the Palestinians. Just as the Tsarist forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, was a warrant for genocide of the Jews by Hitler. It was used to purge the Labour Party of opponents of such a crime, so that Labour could support the genocide, which Starmer did. Trump is using it to persecute opponents of Israel’s genocide, trying to deport non-citizen students for supposed ‘anti-Semitism’. And in terms of the response of the Western countries, Israel is getting away with the genocide. So far Holland, Spain, Ireland, Iceland, Belgium and Turkey, of Western countries, have accused Israel of genocide. But none of the major countries in West Europe and North America have done so.
The IHRA definition is being used here to persecute opponents of Israel’s genocide, in the NHS, in universities, and anywhere else they can get away with it. There is now considerable pushback against it. The BMA is opposing it. As are some universities. This fake definition, used for this purpose, is a threat to us all. It needs to be consigned to the same pit of infamy as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
