Defining Antisemitism Isn’t So Easy
Jonathan Jacoby (“Why I Helped Write an Alternative Definition of Antisemitism,” June 15) would exclude much anti-Zionist agitation from any adopted definition of antisemitism. He derides the International Holocaust Memorial Alliance definition as a “simple explanation for a complex situation.” It could misread serious criticism of Israel as an “existential threat” to Israel and Jews. He would more narrowly focus on the “dominant force fueling increasing antisemitism in America today: white supremacy.”
Antisemitism being so complex, the IHRA “working” definition doesn’t provide highly specific criteria but useful parameters, for assessing what is, or isn’t, antisemitic. It explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled at any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” However, most “criticism” now aimed at Israel far more fits Anatoly Sharansky’s “3 D’s definition: Demonization, Delegitimization and Double Standards.”
Anti-Zionism, the main mask that antisemitism now wears, is today’s greatest threat to Jews. Weakening the fight against it by muddying up the widely accepted IHRA definition would be catastrophic. The Nexus Document and the Jerusalem Declaration, et al., would overlay yet another mask over antisemites to hide slyly behind as they assiduously spread their sequential slanders against the Jewish state and people.
We dare not let that happen.
Richard D. Wilkins, Cherry Hill, New Jersey
Defining Antisemitism Isn’t So Easy, Part 2
I agree with many of the points Todd L. Pittinsky made in his editorial “Why I Don’t Love ‘Jew Hate’ as a Substitute for ‘Antisemitism’” in the June 22 edition.
However, I would like to add that while antisemitism is all too familiar and comes with derived terms like antisemitic, if we started calling antisemitism as “Jew hatred” and antisemites as “Jew haters,” then what term would we use to describe antisemitic books?
Daniel E. Loeb, Wynnewood