Please reject the IHRA definition of antisemitism. That definition equates fundamental criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism. People should be free to criticize any aspect of any particular State, even as to whether or not it should exist. That is politics, not racism, and it is necessary to have these discussions in the pursuit of justice and peace.
The IHRA itself is antisemitic, by assuming that to be Jewish is to be supportive of the State of Israel. In fact, until the Holocaust nearly all Jews were anti-Zionist--opposing the creation of a State of Israel, until the arrival of the Messiah. This was a fundamental interpretation of the Torah for most Jews until the 20th century...and still is for many Jews today.
It is antisemitic to believe Jews (or any other ethnic group) feels categorically one way or the other about anything, including any State. People have independent minds and come to independent conclusions.
I feel strongly the the State of Israel as it exists now is and was a historical wrong from it's very beginning in the Nabka--the expulsion of 800,000 native Palestinians. The State of Israel can only be fixed by making it a state for all of its citizens, including Palestinians and Palestinian refugees who lost their homes in the Nabka, and their descendants, on an absolutely equal basis, including the ability to buy and own homes and land.
However, the notion of Israel in the minds of Zionists has become so enmeshed with the idea of being "the Jewish state" that such a state with equality for all--including Palestinians--would "not be Israel" in the minds of most Zionists.
That is why many who originally considered themselves Zionists, in supporting a place where Jews could go and live in peace and equality with Palestinians, now, like me, consider themselves anti-Zionist.
Anti-Zionists include leading organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace and If Not Now, and leading scholars of many races, including Jewish.
Excellent letter, Charles.
ReplyDelete