The Scoop on IHRA vs JDA: Dissecting Antisemitism Definitions
"The potential risk lies in granting impunity to certain individuals from the political left"
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) are two significant frameworks for grasping antisemitism. The IHRA definition is globally recognized, whereas the JDA is a more recent, less widespread interpretation.
IHRA Definition
The IHRA definition, released in 2016, features a two-sentence core definition and 11 illuminating examples. IHRA views antisemitism as "a specific perception of Jews" that may manifest itself as hostility toward Jews. Penetrating examples include singling out Israel as a Jewish collective, but the definition asserts that criticizing Israel on a level comparable to criticizing other nations is not antisemitic[1][5].
Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA)
Adopted in 2020, the JDA strives to present a more refined interpretation of antisemitism. It underscores that not all criticism of Israel qualifies as antisemitic, instead centering on intentional discrimination against Jews. The JDA emphasizes context and intent to evaluate antisemitism[2].
Key Distinctions Between IHRA and JDA
- Antisemitic Scope: IHRA offers a broader understanding, incorporating Israel-related antisemitism, such as questioning Israel's right to exist. The JDA narrows the scope by focusing on intentional discrimination against Jews and contends that context plays a vital role in identifying antisemitism[1][2].
- Criticism of Israel: Both definitions acknowledge that Israel criticism isn't inherently antisemitic. The IHRA offers more concrete examples of when such criticism could be deemed antisemitic, whereas the JDA concentrates on the intent behind the criticism[1][2].
- Political Impact: The IHRA definition is widely employed by governments and institutions, potentially shaping political discourse and policy. The JDA, with fewer adopters, is seen as a more delicately nuanced perspective by some IHRA critics[1][5].
Left Party's Embrace of JDA in Germany
The Left Party in Germany may adopt the JDA because of its context-focused approach to distinguish between legitimate political criticism and antisemitism. Some see the JDA as more adaptable, allowing for productive dialogue about Israel's policies while maintaining a nuanced view of antisemitism. Despite reservations from antisemitism experts who contend the JDA is less comprehensive or effective than the IHRA definition, the Left Party may favor its approach for its emphasis on context and intent[3].
The decision to endorse the JDA could stem from the party's desire to balance antisemitism concerns with fears of stifling free speech or legitimate Israel criticism. Critics of the IHRA definition argue that it preserves political discourse around Israel's policies. As such, parties like the Left Party may seek alternative definitions like the JDA that align better with their political stance on free speech and criticism of Israel's policies.
In conclusion, the IHRA and JDA definitions differ in their scope, Israel-related considerations, and political implications. The Left Party's adoption of the JDA likely reflects a preference for a more subtle antisemitism definition that prioritizes context and intent over a broad range of examples.
Interviews* Antisemitism* Israel* Israel-hostility* Gaza Strip* The Left* Party Congress* Chemnitz
- The left-leaning scholar might find that the JDA's focus on intent and context in defining antisemitism aligns more closely with their education-and-self-development in understanding political dynamics, especially concerning Israel and the Middle East.
- While the IHRA definition is commonly used in community policy and general news to address antisemitism, the lack of attention given to the importance of politics in the interpretation of the JDA might be a topic of interest for a politics-focused analytical piece, comparing and contrasting the two definitions.
