Comments on: ABA Adopts Resolution on Antisemitism—Without the IHRA Working Definition

By: The Boston City Council's New Resolution On Antisemitism | Letters Blogatory

Sun, 12 May 2024 02:08:17 +0000

[…] antisemitism, which Massachusetts endorsed in 2022. I’ve written about it twice before, once just over a year ago in connection with the ABA’s resolution on antisemitism, and once just a few months before […]

By: Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman — Sun, 12 Feb 2023 04:56:14 +0000

In reply to Salem. Thanks for this comment. I agree that if someone is a thoroughgoing opponent of collective or national rights, then that person expressing the view that Israel’s existence is racist may not be antisemitic. I think the IHRA Working Definition leaves room for that—it asks us to look at the context of statements that we’re trying to judge. Part of the context will be: what view does our speaker take of other nation-states?

By: Salem

Salem — Sat, 11 Feb 2023 16:42:36 +0000

Hang on. It’s not like there’s a univerally accepted theory of rights, nations, and so on. For example, maybe you don’t believe in collective rights, just individual ones. Or maybe you believe there should be one world government. Neither of these positions have anything to do with antisemitism, but they’d both lead to denying that any people has the right to self-determination – including, therefore, the Jewish people.

And there are lots of other ways this could shake out – maybe the right to self-determination is suitably qualified, or whatever. I wouldn’t call anyone antisemitic if they hold a neutral theory and apply it fairly across the board, provided they operate in good faith (and not simply retrofitting their theory for its consequences for Israel or the Jewish people).

So I think I agree with the IHRA that denying the right of Israel to exist could be antisemitic, but not with you that it is simpliciter.