You're welcome to read for free, but you can chip in for the cost of the newsletter by clicking here and filling in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account; the link lets you use a credit card. If you have trouble, let me know. Or you can Venmo @Steven-Sheffey (if it asks, last four phone digits are 9479).

Friends,

I hope that if you celebrated you enjoyed your seder(s). As we count the Omer (and count the days to Sunday night when we can have real pizza), I thought I'd share some mid-week food for thought about antisemitism, as there will be no newsletter this Sunday because it is the last day of Pesach (and happy Easter to those who celebrate).

My friend, if I asked you to define "antisemitism," I doubt that you would say that "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." But that, in its entirety, is the IHRA definition of antisemitism. This meaningless definition is followed by a set of examples, some uncontroversial, others disputed.

The IHRA definition is a working definition that was drafted to help European data collectors identify possible instances of antisemitism. It should not be used by the government to guide policy decisions or enforce anti-discrimination laws.

The Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, the Progressive Israel Network, Americans for Peace Now, and Ken Stern--the lead drafter of the definition--oppose government use of the IHRA definition of antisemitism. American Jewish Congress, ADL, Central Conference of American Rabbis, HIAS, National Council of Jewish Women, Rabbinical Assembly, Union for Reform Judaism, and World Jewish Congress have warned that using the IHRA definition to trigger federal or state anti-discrimination laws “could be abused to punish Constitutionally protected, if objectionable, speech.”

But these concerns have not stopped some segments of our community from supporting the IHRA definition, in part because they see its bugs as features. And sincere opponents of antisemitism ask a legitimate question: If the IHRA definition is flawed, what do you suggest instead?

Well, how about this: "Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)." That's from the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA), which was released on March 25 and developed to provide clear guidance to identify and fight antisemitism while protecting free expression.

The JDA notes that "because the IHRA Definition is unclear in key respects and widely open to different interpretations, it has caused confusion and generated controversy, hence weakening the fight against antisemitism. Noting that it calls itself 'a working definition,' we have sought to improve on it by offering (a) a clearer core definition and (b) a coherent set of guidelines. We hope this will be helpful for monitoring and combating antisemitism, as well as for educational purposes. We propose our non-legally binding Declaration as an alternative to the IHRA Definition. Institutions that have already adopted the IHRA Definition can use our text as a tool for interpreting it."

The JDA definition and its examples provide a better understanding of when criticism of Israel veers into antisemitism and, unlike the IHRA definition, explicitly includes more recent manifestations of antisemitism in its Q&A, including "conspiracy theories about 'the Jews' being behind the Covid-19 pandemic, or George Soros funding BLM and Antifa protests to promote a 'hidden Jewish agenda'.” The JDA definition was developed "to distinguish between a political debate [about Israel and Palestine], harsh and contentious as it may be, and antisemitic speech and action."

A week before the JDA definition was released, the Nexus Task Force defined antisemitism as "anti-Jewish beliefs, attitudes, actions or systemic conditions. It includes negative beliefs and feelings about Jews, hostile behavior directed against Jews (because they are Jews), and conditions that discriminate against Jews and significantly impede their ability to participate as equals in political, religious, cultural, economic, or social life. As an embodiment of collective Jewish organization and action, Israel can be a target of antisemitism and antisemitic behavior. Thus, it is important for Jews and their allies to understand what is and what is not antisemitic in relation to Israel."

The Nexus document addresses deficiencies in the IHRA definition and is, in the words of Nexus's Jonathan Jacoby, intended to be the gemara to the IHRA's mishna (whereas the JDA definition "is a scalpel, compared to the hatchet that is the IHRA definition.")

As David Schraub, an author of the Nexus document, writes, "we now have two new antisemitism frameworks standing as potential complements (or alternatives)" to the IHRA definition. His comparison of the now three definitions of antisemitism is useful, albeit biased toward the Nexus definition.

The main problem with the IHRA definition, aside from the meaninglessness of its definition of antisemitism, is that the examples it uses to illustrate what might be antisemitic lend themselves too easily to classifying criticism of Israel that may be inaccurate, unfair, or offensive as antisemitic. We weaken our credibility to fight antisemitism in all its forms if the net we cast includes speech that is not antisemitic, even if we don't like it.

Joshua Shanes and Dov Waxman point out that the IHRA's "vague, conditional wording is open to misinterpretations and misuse. Its conditional phrasing—that criticism 'could, taking into account the overall context' cross the line to anti-Semitism—is too often forgotten, or even purposefully ignored." Some of the IHRA's examples of what could be antisemitic criticism of Israel, such as double standards, are inherently flawed.

In my view, the JDA does the best job correcting the IHRA definition's deficiencies. Aside perhaps from George Soros conspiracy theories (Chicago's right-wing Jewish community leapt to Tribune columnist John Kass's defense when he invoked that antisemitic trope), most classic antisemitism is well-understood and easy to identify. Donald Trump illustrated many of them. But the line between criticism of Israel and antisemitism is harder to draw, and the JDA does better at addressing it head on.

If the controversy about these three definitions teach us anything, it is that their differences outline where reasonable, well-intentioned people can disagree on whether certain expressions are antisemitic. However, all three, collectively, present a good introduction to the issues we should think about when we think about antisemitism. If you are concerned about antisemitism, you should read all three definitions, and think twice before you deem criticism of Israel--especially criticism you disagree with--antisemitic.

The Biden administration reiterated its strong support for Israel. UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said on March 25 that "the United States will continue to steadfastly stand by Israel, especially when it is unfairly singled out by one-sided resolutions and actions in international bodies."

The Iran-China deal is further proof that Trump's Iran strategy backfired. Alon Pinkus writes that thanks to Trump's "maximum pressure" strategy, "Iran now has 12 times the amount of enriched uranium it had in 2015 when the nuclear deal was signed. Iran just signed an extensive strategic agreement with China. Iran has a proxy military presence in the southern Golan Heights, near the Israeli border." Another mess for Biden to clean up. Step one is to get back into the JCPOA, but the clock is ticking.

No newsletter this Sunday. Look for the next newsletter at its usual time, bright and early Sunday morning, April 11.

Last week's newsletter.

ICYMI. Hawkish Iran letter falls flat in the Senate (thanks to Illinois Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth for NOT signing the letter).

Tweet of the Week. Sahil Kapur (because of the replies).

Twitter Thread of the Week. Michael Green.

Video Clip of the Week. Ten plagues as told by ten celebrities.

Best Daily Chicago Newsletter. Charlie Meyerson's Public Square.

I guess this is a good problem to have: This list is now so large that while many people are local, even more live outside the Chicago area and have no interest in local news. If you want to be on a list that will receive infrequent newsletters about local issues and events, reply to this email and I'll add you.

Did someone forward this newsletter to you? Why not subscribe? It's free! Just click here. 

Donations are welcome (because this costs money to send). If you'd like to chip in, click here and fill in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account; the link allows you to use a credit card. If you'd rather send a check, please reply and I'll send you mailing information (please do NOT send checks to the P.O. Box). Venmo to @Steven-Sheffey (last four 9479) is fine too.

You’re reading this. So are other influentials. If you want the right people to know about your candidate, cause, or event, reply to this email to discuss your ad.

The Fine Print: This newsletter usually runs on Sunday mornings. If you receive it as an ICYMI on Wednesday it's because you didn't open the one sent on Sunday. Unless stated otherwise, my views do not necessarily reflect the views of any candidates or organizations that I support or am associated with. I reserve the right to change my mind as I learn more. Intelligent, well-informed people may disagree with me; read opposing views and decide for yourself. A link to an article doesn't mean that I agree with everything its author has ever said or that I even agree with everything in the article; it means that the article supports or elaborates on the point I was making. I take pride in accurately reporting the facts on which I base my opinions. Tell me if you spot any inaccuracies, typos, or other mistakes so that I can correct them in the next newsletter (and give you credit if you want it). Advertisements reflect the views of the advertisers, not necessarily of me, and advertisers are solely responsible for the content of their advertisements. I read, value, and encourage replies to my newsletters, but I don't always have time to acknowledge replies or to engage in one-on-one discussion. Don't expect a reply if your message is uncivil or if it's clear from your message that you haven't read the newsletter or clicked on the relevant links. © 2021 Steve Sheffey. All rights reserved.