[News] International campaign is criminalizing criticism of Israel as 'antisemitism'

Anti-Imperialist News news at freedomarchives.org
Thu May 18 17:39:42 EDT 2017


  International campaign is criminalizing criticism of Israel as

contact at ifamericansknew.org - May 17, 2017


Delegates at the 2009 Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating 
Antisemitism convention in London. The organization issued a declaration 
calling on governments to use an Israel-centric definition of 
antisemitism and to outlaw and prosecute such “antisemitism.”

/For two decades, some Israeli officials and Israel partisans have 
worked to embed a new, Israel-focused definition of antisemitism in 
institutions around the world, from international bodies and national 
governments to small college campuses in heartland America. This effort 
is now snowballing rapidly. As a result, advocacy for Palestinian rights 
is well on the way to being curtailed and even criminalized as “hate.” /

*Click here for the timeline at the end of this article. 

By *Alison Weir*

As the world has witnessed the oppression and ethnic cleansing of 
Palestinians, many people have risen in protest. In response, the 
Israeli government and certain of its advocates have conducted a 
campaign to crack down on this activism, running roughshod over civil 
liberties (and the English language) in the process.

The mechanism of this crackdown is the redefinition of 
to include criticism of Israel, and the insertion of this definition 
into the bodies of law of various countries.

Where most people would consider “antisemitism” to mean bigotry against 
Jewish people (and rightly consider it abhorrent), for two decades a 
campaign has been underway to replace that definition with an 
Israel-centric definition. That definition can then be used to block 
speech and activism in support of Palestinian human rights as “hate.” 
Various groups are applying this definition in law enforcement 
evaluations of possible crimes.

Proponents of this Israel-centric definition have promoted it step by 
step in various arenas, from the U.S. State Department and European 
governments to local governments around the U.S. and universities.

While this effort has taken place over the last two decades, it is 
snowballing rapidly at this time. The definition is increasingly being 
used to curtail free speech and academic freedom, as well as political 

Furthermore, such politicizing of an important word may reduce its 
effectiveness when real antisemitism occurs, doing a disservice to 
victims of true bigotry.

As of this writing, the U.S. Congress has endorsed the distorted 
definition, the governments of the UK and Austria have officially 
adopted it (in December and April, respectively), various U.S. State 
legislatures are considering it, and numerous universities are using it 
to delineate permissible discourse. Many representatives and heads of 
other states around the world have embraced the new meaning, even if 
they have yet to officially implement it.

This article will examine the often interconnected, incremental actions 
that got us where we are, the current state of affairs, and the public 
relations and lobbying efforts that are promoting this twisting of the 
definition of “antisemitism” — often under cover of misleadingly named 
“anti-racism” movements.

          *Claims of “Antisemitism” Used to Silence Support for

For many years, numerous respected organizations have documented Israeli 
violations of Palestinian human rights, including killing of Palestinian 
civilians, abuse of Palestinian children, torture of Palestinian 
prisoners, confiscation of Palestinian land, and other cases of 
systematic violence and oppression. Detailed reports have been compiled 
by Defense for Children International 
the International Red Cross 
Amnesty International 
Foreign Service Journal <http://ifamericaknew.org/cur_sit/torture.html>, 
Physicians for Human rights 
Christian Aid 
Human Rights Watch 
the National Lawyers Guild 
Israel’s Public Committee Against Torture 
Israel’s B’Tselem 
and others.

Israel long claimed that its 1948 creation was on “a land without a 
people for a people without a land,” and many people may still believe 
this founding myth. The fact is, however, that the land was originally 
inhabited by an indigenous population that was approximately 80 percent 
Muslim, 15 percent Christian, and a little under 5 percent Jewish. The 
Jewish State of Israel was created through the ejection of approximately 
three-quarters of a million people.

Over the decades since Israel’s founding in 1948, accusations of 
antisemitism have been leveled against many people who criticized 
Israeli actions. Indeed, the accusation was used effectively to silence 
very prominent critics.^[2] 

However, for most of that time, the meaning of the term itself was not 
in question. The standard definition 
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Semitism> was 
<http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anti-semitism>, in Google 
terms, “hostility to or prejudice against Jews.”^[3] 
Around the turn of this century, though, certain advocates began 
promoting official and even legal definitions of antisemitism that 
included various kinds of criticism of Israel.

          *Conflating Criticism of Israel with Antisemitism*

Unsurprisingly, the new definitions appear to have originated from 
within the Israeli government, or at least with an Israeli government 

The definitions adhere to a pattern set by a man named Natan Sharansky, 
who was Israel’sMinister for Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs 
<http://davidmweinberg.com/2013/05/27/on-combating-anti-semitism/> and 
chair of the Jewish Agency for Israel. Sharansky founded a Global Forum 
against Anti-Semitism in 2003, stating 
<http://davidmweinberg.com/2013/05/27/on-combating-anti-semitism/>: “The 
State of Israel has decided to take the gloves off and implement a 
coordinated counteroffensive against anti-Semitism.”

But Sharansky apparently didn’t mean a counteroffensive against just 
anti-Jewish bigotry, but an offensive against criticism of Israel. The 
following year he wrote a position paper 
<http://jcpa.org/phas/phas-sharansky-f04.htm> that declared: “Whereas 
classical anti-Semitism is aimed at the Jewish people or the Jewish 
religion, ‘new anti-Semitism’ is aimed at the Jewish state.”

Sharansky’s paper laid out what he called the “3-D Test of Anti-Semitism 
<https://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-sharansky-f04.htm>.” Sharansky applied 
the term “antisemitic” to criticism of Israel in three cases. First, he 
argued that statements that “demonize” Israel are antisemitic — by 
being, in his mind, unfairly harsh. (Some of those allegedly guilty of 
Israel are Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, Alice Walker, Human Rights Watch, 
Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, French President François Mitterrand, 
and others.)

Second, Sharansky declared that it’s antisemitic to apply a “double 
standard” to Israel — in other words, to criticize Israel for actions 
that other states may also take. However, if one could never criticize, 
protest or boycott abuses without calling out every single other similar 
abuse, no one would ever be able to exercise political dissent at all.

Finally, Sharansky said it’s antisemitic to “delegitimize” Israel, or 
dispute its “right to exist” (a standard Israeli talking point for many 
years). In fact, insisting Israel has the “right” to exist amounts to 
saying it had the right to expel Muslim and Christian Palestinians in 
order to found a religiously exclusive state. (See “What ‘Israel’s right 
to exist’ means to Palestinians,” by John Whitbeck, published in the 
Christian Science Monitor 

Sharansky’s outline provided the pattern for a European agency to create 
a new definition of antisemitism the next year, 2005 — a definition that 
would then be adopted by a succession of organizations and governments, 
including the U.S. State Department.

*There is a back story to how this all came about.*

This European agency itself was founded and run by a man with important 
connections to Israel. It was called “The European Monitoring Centre on 
Racism and Xenophobia 
under the Council of the European Union. A Frenchman named Jean Kahn had 
European heads of state to create it in 1997.

Kahn had been a President 
of the European Jewish Congress, elected in a plenary session in Israel, 
and said the Congress “would demonstrate its solidarity with Israel” and 
that he hoped European countries would “coordinate their legislation 
outlawing racism, anti-Semitism or any form of exclusion.”

was chairman of the Monitoring Centre’s management board and called the 
of the agency. Within three years, the Centre issued a position paper 
calling for the definition of anti-Semitic offenses to be “improved.”

A few years later, Israeli professor Dina Porat 
took up the effort to create a new definition. Working with her were 
Kenneth Stern <http://jkrfoundation.org/about/kenneth-s-stern/> and 
Rabbi Andrew “Andy” Baker 
of the American Jewish Committee. Stern reports 
that when the Monitoring Centre’s then head, Beate Winkler, had failed 
to deliver the desired definition, Andy Baker “smartly developed a 
working relationship with her.” Stern and others^[5] 
then created a draft for the Monitoring Centre to use.

In 2005 the agency issued its “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism 
largely based on that draft. It included an array of negative statements 
about Israel as examples of antisemitic offenses. While standard 
dictionary definitions of antisemitism didn’t even mention Israel, fully 
half of the newly devised Monitoring Centre definition referred to Israel.

Once the Monitoring Centre had created its expanded definition, certain 
Israel partisans used it to promote similar definitions elsewhere. And 
while the Monitoring Centre itself continued to term it only a “working” 
definition and its replacement organization eventually withdrew the 
definition, in other countries and agencies the expanded definition 
became official.

In addition, quite frighteningly, proponents pushed successfully to 
begin applying the Israel-centric definition to law enforcement.

          *In the United States*

The same year Sharansky created his “3-D” antisemitism test — a year 
after he founded the Global Forum against Anti-Semitism — the U.S. 
Congress passed a law 
establishing exceptional government monitoring of antisemitism. The law 
created a special State Department envoy and office for this monitoring, 
over objections of the State Department itself.

The law, called the “Global Anti-Semitism Review Act 
included a line that subverted its meaning by enshrining a new 
definition of antisemitism aligned with Sharansky’s: “Anti-Semitism has 
at times taken the form of vilification of Zionism, the Jewish national 
movement, and incitement against Israel.”

The bill was introduced in April 2004. That June, a Congressional 
was conducted about how to combat antisemitism. A major witness was 
Israeli minister Sharansky. In his testimony Sharansky proposed 
<https://knxup2.hsdl.org/?view&did=233878> his “3-D” Israel-connected 
definition for anti-Semitism.^[6] 

State Department officials objected to the proposed legislation, saying 
the new office was unnecessary and would be a “bureaucratic nuisance” 
that would actually hinder the Department’s ongoing work. A State 
Department press release 
opposing the new office described the many actions that State was 
already taking against antisemitism.

Despite this opposition, the Senate bill acquired24 cosponsors 
representing both parties, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Diane 
Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Sam Brownback, Saxby Chambliss and Ted 
Stevens. Similar bills (here 
were introduced in the House of Representatives, acquiring35 cosponsors 
again including both Republican and Democratic leaders. The legislation 
passed easily and quickly became law 

The first Special Envoy, Gregg Rickman, endorsed the European Monitoring 
Centre’s Working Definition in 2008 
Rickman’s report 
<https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/102301.pdf> called 
it a “useful framework” for identifying and understanding antisemitism. 
After Rickman left the State Department, he went to work 
for the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC 
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregg-rickman-6619165/>), the major Israel 
advocacy organization that lobbies Congress.

The next Special Envoy, Hannah Rosenthal, took this campaign a major 
step forward: In 2010 
the office officially adopted the European Monitoring Centre’s 

Rosenthal was extremely proud of having achieved this “breakthrough” 
definition. She began making use of it quickly, establishing a 90-minute 
course on the new antisemitism at the Foreign Service Institute, the 
training school for diplomats.

“We have now a definition we can train people on,” she told the 
of Israel/ 
“and we’ve been very aggressive in training foreign service officers.”

Rosenthal announced that with the new definition including criticism of 
Israel, their reporting on antisemitism improved “300 percent,” even 
though, she said, that didn’t mean that antisemitism had actually 
increased in all the countries monitored.

The gloves were off. Now fully half of the official U.S. State 
Department definition of antisemitism had gone beyond the normal meaning 
of the world to focus on Israel.

          *Applying the New Definition to U.S. Citizens*

The State Department uses the new definition to monitor activities 
overseas. But once the State Department definition was in place, efforts 
began to use it to crack down on political and academic discourse and 
activism within the U.S.

This past December (2016 
the U.S. Senate passed a law 
<https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/10> to apply 
the State Department’s definition (i.e. the Sharansky-Stern-Rosenthal 
definition) of antisemitism to the Education Department, for use in 
investigating reports of religiously motivated campus crimes.

A companion bill for the House 
<https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/6421> is 
supported by AIPAC, the ADL, the Jewish Federations of North America and 
the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

South Carolina 
House of Representatives recently passed legislation under which the 
State Department’s definition “would be used in probes of possible 
anti-Semitism at state colleges and universities.” The state senate 
will consider this in 2018. If passed, it will mean that the state will 
now probe criticism of Israel on state campuses.

Similar bills are being considered in Virginia and Tennessee 

Such efforts are also ongoing in California 
In December Democrat Brad Sherman called on the California Secretary of 
Education to “expand its definition to include certain forms of 
anti-Israel behavior.” Pro-Israel organizations such as the Amcha 
have also been pushing the state legislature for several years to 
officially adopt the State Department definition. So far these have been 
but continue to be promoted.

          *U.S. Campuses*

A parallel effort has been occurring on U.S. campuses. In 2003 Sharansky 
that college campuses were “one of the most important battlefields” for 

In 2015 University of California President Janet Napolitano 
<http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2015/05/21/janet-napolitano-anti-semitism-definition> (head 
of 10 campuses) publicly supported adopting the state department 
definition, after 57 rabbis sent a letter to her and the University 
Board of Regents promoting the definition.

Student councils or other groups at various universities have passed 
resolutions adopting the State Department definition, which can then be 
used to block campus events about Palestine.

An ongoing campaign to ensure Israel partisans become influential in 
student government has supported these efforts. This campaign was 
announced <https://youtu.be/to6lQWr-Eos> by an AIPAC leader in 2010: 
“We’re going to make certain that pro-Israel students take over the 
student government,” he said. “That is how AIPAC operates in our 
nation’s capitol. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s 
campuses.” (Video here <https://youtu.be/to6lQWr-Eos>.)

Resolutions referencing the Israel-centric definitions have now been 
passed by student governments at UC Santa Barbara 
East Carolina University 
Indiana University 
Ohio’s Capital University 
Ohio’s Kent State 
Orange County’s Chapman University 
San Diego State University 
and other campuses 
<http://www.amchainitiative.org/antisemitism-resolutions/> around the 

An example of these resolutions is the 2015 bill at Indiana University. 
The resolution denounced 
anti-Semitism “as defined by the United States State Department” and 
stated that the student government would not fund antisemitic activities 
or activities that “undermine the right of the Jewish people to 
self-determination.” It also said that IUSA executives and Congress 
members would undergo diversity training on anti-Semitism.

According to the student newspaper 
the bill was written by Rebekah Molasky, a fellow with the international 
pro-Israel organization Stand With Us 
<https://www.standwithus.com/aboutus/>. After the resolution was passed, 
“the bill’s sponsors and outside supporters hugged and high-fived before 
gathering in the hallway to take a picture to commemorate the moment.”

As evidenced above, such resolutions can now be used to censor student 
events. The UC San Diego resolution 
<https://as.sdsu.edu/govt/resources/legislation_resolution.php?legis=139> largely replicated 
the Indiana format, announcing that the student government will not 
support activities that “promote anti-Semitism” under the new 
definition, including “denying Israel the right to exist.” Stand With Us 
applauded the resolution.

In 2012, an organization called the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human 
Rights Under the Law 
was founded and immediately began promoting the new definition. Within a 
year it launched an initiative 
to establish student chapters at law schools throughout the U.S. to 
advance “the organization’s mandate to combat campus anti-Semitism 
through legal means.” The Center helped push the South Carolina 
legislation. It is one of numerous organizations promoting the new 

(Incidentally, former Supreme Court Justice Brandeis was a leader in the 
world Zionist movement and worked in public and covert ways to promote 
it — see here <http://www.againstourbetterjudgment.com/excerpt/>.)

          *“Thought Policing”*

A number of analysts have pointed out some of the many significant flaws 
with such legislation.

Anthony L. Fisher atReason.com 
writes of Congress’s December law applying the State Department 
definition to the Education Department: “It gives the federal government 
the authority to investigate ideas, thoughts, and political positions as 
violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Fisher continues: “By specifically using the broad language of a 2010 
State Department memo 
<https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/fs/2010/122352.htm> attempting to 
define anti-Semitism, the Senate bill wades into thought policing.”

Attorney Liz Jackson wrote in an opinion piece 
in the /Los Angeles Times/: “Anyone who values the constitutional right 
to express political dissent should worry about this development.”

On the other side of the debate is /New York Times/ columnist Bret 
Stephens, formerly /Wall Street Journal/ deputy editorial page editor 
and before that editor of an Israeli newspaper. Stephens, extremely 
hawkish on Israel, writes and speaks fervently against the movement to 
boycott Israel (BDS) and what he says is antisemitism onUS campuses 
and elsewhere. In a /Wall Street Journal/ editorial, heclaimed 
that “anti-Semitism is the disease of the Arab world.”

In 2014 Stephensspoke 
at theTikvah Fund <http://tikvahfund.org/about/>, a philanthropic 
foundation committed to supporting the “Jewish people and the Jewish 
State,” opining <https://youtu.be/aRFsATqLjws?t=1h15m40s> that it would 
be a scandal if Jewish people failed “to do all we can to assure the 
survival of the Jewish State.”

          *U.S. and European Lawmakers Pressure Governments to Ban
          Criticism of Israel*

During all this time, parallel efforts to promote the new definition 
continued in Europe.

In 2009 an organization called the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for 
Combating Antisemitism <http://www.antisem.org/home/> (ICCA) took up the 
effort to spread the expanded definition. The group says it brings 
together parliamentarians from “around the world” to fight antisemitism 
and lists a steering committee of six European and U.S. legislators.

The group held a conference in London in 2009 at which it issued a 
“London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism,” 
which was signed by then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown 
and other 
heads of state and legislators. This declaration called on governments 
to use the European Monitoring Centre’s definition and to outlaw and 
prosecute such “antisemitism.”

It was couched in “anti-racism” terms, but when we look at the 
declaration’s recommendations combined with its definition of 
antisemitism, one thing becomes clear: In the declaration, numerous 
lawmakers of the Western world called on world governments to restrict 
political dissent.

Specifically, they called on governments to outlaw certain forms of 
criticism of Israel, including calls to boycott Israel; to regulate 
criticism of Israel in the media; to monitor criticism of Israel online 
and elsewhere; and to prosecute critics of Israel under “hate crimes” 

Among numerous other demands, the lawmakers declared that governments:

  * “must expand the use of the EUMC [Monitoring Centre] ‘Working
    Definition of antisemitism’” including “as a basis for training
    material for use by Criminal Justice Agencies;”
  * should “isolate political actors” who “target the State of Israel;”
  * “should legislate ‘incitement to hatred’ offences and empower law
    enforcement agencies to convict;”
  * “should … establish inquiry scrutiny panels;”
  * “should utilise the EUMC [Monitoring Centre] ‘Working Definition of
    antisemitism’ to inform media standards;”
  * “should take appropriate and necessary action to prevent the
    broadcast of antisemitic programmes on satellite television
    channels, and to apply pressure on the host broadcast nation to take
    action to prevent the transmission of antisemitic programmes”
    (keeping in mind here that the declaration’s definition of
    “antisemitic” includes various criticism of Israel);
  * “should use domestic ‘hate crime’, ‘incitement to hatred’ and other
    legislation … to prosecute ‘Hate on the Internet’ where racist and
    antisemitic content is hosted, published and written” (again keeping
    in mind what is defined as “antisemitic”);
  * and that “education authorities should … protect students and staff
    from illegal antisemitic discourse and a hostile environment in
    whatever form it takes including calls for boycotts.”

In 2015 the European Commission created a special position to coordinate 
work on combating antisemitism and appointed 
German national Katharina von Schnurbein to the post. Schnurbein 
proceeded to promote <http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.760175> 
the use of the Israel-centric definition.^[8] 

          *UK and Austria Adopt Definition*

**In December 2016, the UK announced it would formally adopt the 
Israel-centric definition. It was quickly followed by Austria, which 
the definition in April 2017. The Austrian justice minister 
<http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.760175> had previously 
announced that the new definition would be used in the training of new 
judges and prosecutors.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May made the announcement 
during a talk before 800 guests at the Conservative Friends of Israel’s 
annual lunch.

UPI reported 
“The British police are already using this definition^[9] 
which can now also be used by other groups, such as municipal councils 
and universities. The definition is not a law, but provides a formal 
of an illegal act that can serve as a guideline for criminal 
proceedings.” Shortly afterward the UK’s higher education minister sent 
a letter 
informing universities that the government had adopted the IHRA 
definition and directing them to utilize it.

(The London council quickly followed suit with its own adoption of the 
definition, and other cities 
<http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/camden-ihra/> have now done the 
same. In May the Israel-Britain Alliance (IBA) began asking candidates 
for Parliament to sign a pledge 
that they would support the new definition.)

A number of groups objected 
to the definition, arguing that the definition “deliberately equates 
criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews.”

Opponents said it was “vigorously promoted by pro-Israel lobbyists to 
local authorities, universities, Labour movement organisations and other 
public bodies.”

They stated that after its adoption there had been “an increase in 
bannings and restrictions imposed on pro-Palestinian activities, 
especially on campuses.” Some of the cancellations 
the IHRA definition. Oxford Professor Stephen Sedley 
<https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/people/sir-stephen-sedley> wrote 
<https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n09/stephen-sedley/defining-anti-semitism> in 
the /London Review of Books/ that the IHRA definition gives 
“respectability and encouragement to forms of intolerance which are 
themselves contrary to law.”

Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, recipient 
<http://www.lse.ac.uk/management/people/jrosenhead.aspx> of the 
President’s Medal of the British Operational Research Society and Chair 
of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, said 
there were many examples of the definition creating a “chilling effect” 
on institutions’ willingness to permit lawful political activity, “even 
when the definition was not specifically cited.”

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) 
<http://www.osce.org/who-we-are>, which represents all of Europe, 
Eurasia, the U.S., and Canada — a billion people — was also pushed to 
adopt the definition at its December 2016 conference.

The American Jewish Committee, which has offices in Berlin, Brussels, 
Paris, Rome, and Warsaw, reported 
that it had “met with senior European government officials to encourage 
OSCE adoption of the definition.” However, adoption of the definition 
has so far been blocked by one member: Russia.

AJC leader Rabbi Andrew Baker wrote that the AJC would now work “to 
foster its greater use by the individual states of the OSCE and members 
of the European Union.”

          *Inter-Parliamentary Coalition’s American Representatives*

Two American Congressmen are among the six-member steering committee of 
the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism (CCA).

One is Florida Congressman Ted Deutch 
<http://www.antisem.org/steering-committee/ted-deutch/>. Deutch’s 
Congressional website 
highlights his support for Israel as well as his work against antisemitism.

According to the site, Deutch “works closely with his colleagues in the 
House and Senate to… pass resolutions strongly opposing manifestations 
of anti-Semitism at home in South Florida, across the United States, and 
around the world.”

Florida Congressman Ted DeutchThe website reports: “Congressman Ted 
Deutch is a passionate supporter of Israel whose advocacy for a strong 
U.S.-Israel relationship stretches back to his youth. Ted spent his 
summers at Zionist summer camp, worked as a student activist in high 
school and college, and served in leadership roles on several local and 
national Jewish organizations throughout his professional career. Today, 
Ted serves as Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s 
influential Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, where he 
continues to champion Israel’s security during a time of great 
volatility in the Middle East.”

Deutch is also a member of the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and 
Emerging Threats. His ICCA bio 
<http://www.antisem.org/steering-committee/ted-deutch/> announces that 
he plans to use this position “to continue to publicly condemn 

Deutch receives considerablefunding 
from the pro-Israel lobby.

In March Deutch led 
a bipartisan letter to Trump “Urging Forceful Action on Anti-Semitism.” 
It demanded ‘a comprehensive, inter-agency strategy that called for the 
Justice Department to investigate “anti-Semitic crimes” and “ensure the 
perpetrators are brought to justice.”

Deutch was one of two Congresspeople who introduced the December law to 
apply the State Department definition to education.

The other U.S. Congressman on the steering committee of the ICCA is 
Republican Chris Smith 
of New Jersey. Smith is also a senior member on the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee. According to the website Open Secrets, a large 
proportion of his campaign donations are also from pro-Israel sources 

Natan Sharansky twice testified at hearings Smith chaired. In a speech 
at an event honoring Smith for his work against antisemitism, 
Smith remembered that Sharansky had  “proposed what he called a simple 
test to help us distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from 
anti-Semitism. He called it the three Ds: Demonization, double standard, 
and de-legitimization.”

          *Spreading the New Definition Under Cover of “Anti-Racism”

UK universities have seen repression of pro-Palestinian activism on an 
epic scale. In 2007 theUK’s National Union of Students (NUS) 
adopted the new antisemitism definition at its national conference, when 
pro-Israel students introduced a motion entitled “AntiRacism: 
Challenging Racism on Campus and in Our Communities.” Some student 
unions at various UK universities then did the same.

This was a particularly ironic name for a pro-Israel motion, given that 
many people around the world consider Israel’s founding ideology, 
political Zionism, racist 
<http://eaford.org/publications/1/ZIONISM%20&%20RACISM.pdf>. In fact, in 
1975 the UN General Assembly specifically passed a resolution 
that “Zionism is a form of racism.”

(The resolution was revoked In 1991, but not because the world body had 
changed its mind. In that year President Bush was pushing for the Madrid 
Peace Conference, which he hoped would end the “Arab-Israeli” conflict. 
When Israel said it would only participate in the conference if the UN 
the resolution, the U.S. pressured member states to do just this.)

Through the years numerous entities have affirmed that Zionism is a type 
of racism, including conferences in South Africa and a recent UN 
commission which reported that Israel was practicing apartheid. (This 
report was then removed 
by the UN Director General, after Israeli and U.S. pressure 

The UK student actions exemplify a trend that has pervaded this movement 
since the beginning: Efforts to shut down pro-Palestinian activism, 
curtail free speech and police thought both online and off are 
repeatedly packaged as “anti-racism” and sometimes “anti-fascism.”^[10] 

          *Campaign for New Definition Overcomes Hiccups*

Taken together, these steps towards redefining “antisemitism” to include 
criticism of Israel, and then ban it, are effectively (and increasingly 
rapidly) producing significant results in terms of actual regulation and 
even law enforcement. Nevertheless, there apparently has been some 
resistance to the change.

In 2013, the successor organization to the European Monitoring Centre 
(called the European Fundamental Rights Agency) quietly dropped the 
working definition 
from its website. Without 
any public announcement, the definition was simply no longer on its 
site. When questioned about this, the agency’s director simply said that 
the organization had “no mandate to develop its own definitions.”

Proponents of the definition were outraged. Shimon Samuels of the Simon 
Wiesenthal Center complained that the agency’s “disowning of its own 
definition is astounding” and that “those who fight antisemitism have 
lost an important weapon.” (The Wiesenthal Center 
<http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441471>is a 
global organization that declares it “stands with Israel” with offices 
in Los Angeles, New York, Toronto, Miami, Chicago, Paris, Buenos Aires, 
and Jerusalem.)

However, the fact that the Monitoring Centre had never officially 
adopted the definition, and that its successor organization now had 
apparently discarded it, seems to have been ignored bythose who had 
adopted it <https://antisemitism.uk/definition/>.

The U.S. State Departmentcontinues to use 
<https://www.state.gov/s/rga/resources/267538.htm> the discarded 
version. The only difference is that the PDF 
that gave its Monitoring Centre origins has been removed from State’s 

The following year, the World Jewish Congress, which represents Jewish 
umbrella bodies in 100 countries, called on 
“all countries to adopt a binding definition of anti-Semitic crimes 
based on the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism developed by the former 
European Union Monitoring Commission (EUMC) and used in a number of 
states’ law enforcement agencies.”

          *IHRA Picks Up the Ball*

Other groups stepped into the vacuum and kept the definition alive. In 
2016 The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted 
the definition.

The IHRA consists of 31 Member Countries 
<https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/member-countries>, ten Observer 
Countries <https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/observer-countries>, and 
seven international partner organizations 
<https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/permanent-observers>. Its chair 
announced that the IHRA’s goal was to inspire “other international fora” 
to also adopt “a legally binding working definition.” It’s working: 
Britain and Austria almost immediately followed suit.

The U.S. Brandeis Center applauded 
the move, saying that “because the IHRA has adopted it, the definition 
has now officially been given the international status that it was 
previously lacking.”

The Brandeis Center reported that this was the “culmination of a process 
initiated by Mark Weitzman, Director of Government Affairs at the Simon 
Wiesenthal Center, two years ago, with help from others including Ira 
Forman and Nicholas Dean of the U.S. Department of State.”

Forman <http://jcpaevents.org/ira-forman-u-s-department-of-state/> was 
the State Department Special Anti-Semitism Envoy under Obama, reportedly 
Obama’s reelection campaign in the Jewish community, had worked for Bill 
Clinton, and had served as Political Director and Legislative Liaison 
for AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying organization. Nicholas Dean had been 
the State Department Special Envoy for the Holocaust 

The New York 
reported that Forman and Dean “played a pivotal role in diplomatic 
efforts that led to the recent adoption by the International Holocaust 
Remembrance Alliance of a Working Definition of Anti-Semitism.”

“This is the first-ever formal international definition of 
anti-Semitism, and a potentially crucial tool for forcing governments 
and international agencies to confront and take action against it,” the 
article continued.

          *Pressure On State Department to Continue Extra Monitoring*

Among much budget slashing proposed by President Donald Trump were cuts 
to the State Department that would have ended funding for the 
antisemitism monitoring office and special envoy (though State 
Department monitoring of antisemitism would continue even after the cuts).

Various organizations are lobbying to keep the office and envoy, 
including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a U.S. organization whose 
mission is to “stop the defamation of the Jewish people” but which in 
effect seems to serve as an American extension of the most right-wing 
elements of Israel’s government. It has a long and infamous history of 
attacking critics of Israeli policy as “antisemites” and also uses an 
Israel-centric definition of antisemitism 

The ADL and allies 
pointed to a rash of bomb threats against Jewish institutions to 
strengthen their argument that this exceptional office must be funded. A 
letter with over a hundred 
signatories was sent to Trump demanding that he keep the dedicated State 
Department position, a bipartisan letter 
in support of retaining that special monitor was circulated in Congress, 
and over 100 Holocaust memorial groups 
and scholars urged Trump to keep the office.

As this political fight has raged, the ADL, which has a budget of over 
$56 million, sent out press releases to national and local media around 
the country reporting that antisemitic incidents have soared. The 
release was repeated almost verbatim in numerous national media and in 
individual states (as a random example, a Massachusetts headline 
declared: “Report: Anti-Semitism on the rise in Massachusetts.”)

However, it is impossible to know how many of the antisemitic incidents 
reported by the ADL were actually related to criticism of Israel, 
because the ADL didn’t release the data on which these results were based.

In addition, the ADL’s reported spike includes a spate of threats called 
in to Jewish organizations, schools and community centers that, 
thankfully, were hoaxes. The vast majority of threats (reportedly to 
institutions) apparently were perpetrated by an 18-year-old Jewish 
who reportedly suffers from medical and mental problems. (This alleged 
perpetrator is also accused of trying to extort 
a US Senator, threatening the children of a US official, and a range of 

Another individual, an American in the U.S. 
apparently perpetrated eight hoax bomb threats in a bizarre campaign to 
get his former girlfriend in trouble.

A Jewish News Service article 
says the threats by the Israeli teen made up a significant percentage of 
the ADL’s spike and reported: “The Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) 
decision to count an Israeli teenager’s alleged recent bomb hoaxes as 
‘anti-Semitic incidents’ is prompting criticism from some Jewish 
community officials.”

An ADL official admitted that the audit is an approximation, saying “the 
science on it is currently being written.” A regional ADL director said 
that “this is not a poll or a scientific study,” but rather “an effort 
to get a sense of ‘what’s going on in people’s hearts.’”

Regarding hard data, the report said that anti-Semitic assaults across 
the nation had “decreased by about 36 percent.”

The ADL blames various groups for antisemitism, pointing the finger 
at people of color with claims that Hispanic Americans and African 
Americans are “the most anti-Semitic cohorts,” at “white supremacists” 
and at Trump’s election — but not at the Israeli teen responsible for 
2,000+ hoax threats that terrorized Jewish institutions, nor at its own 
distorted, Israel-connected definition.^[11] 

Claims of increased antisemitism are cited repeatedly in calls for the 
U.S. government to maintain funding for the special State Department 

Former Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power and two Democratic 
congressional representatives, Reps. Nita Lowey of New York and Deutch 
of Florida, are among those demanding 
that Trump appoint a new antisemitism monitor and maintain this office 
at full strength, even while he cuts other federal spending.

Power tweeted 
“Anti-semitism is surging in world. Entire Trump admin needs to focus on 
it & envoy position must be kept.”

Lowey demanded: “The president must show he takes the rise of 
anti-Semitism seriously by immediately appointing a special envoy to 
monitor and combat anti-Semitism and fully staffing the Special Envoy’s 

In a May 2017 speech 
World Jewish Congress leader Ronald Lauder said, “Being anti-Israel is 
being anti-Semitic.” He announced that the congress “is creating a new 
communications department, or what you might call Hasborah” to counter 
this new “antisemitism.”

          *Dissenting Views*

Many Jewish writers and activists dispute Lauder’s contention and oppose 
the campaign to conflate antisemitism with criticism of Israel. An 
article <http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.711732> in Israel’s 
/Ha’aretz/ newspaper points out that “were anti-Zionism a cover for the 
abuse of individual Jews, individual Jews would not join anti-Zionist 
groups. Yet many do. Jewish students are well represented in 
anti-Zionist groups like Students for Justice in Palestine.”

Rabbi Ahron Cohen of Naturei Kartei (“Guardians of the Faith”) writes 
<http://www.ihrc.org.uk/060702/papers/ahron_cohen.pdf> that “Judaism and 
Zionism are incompatible and mutually exclusive.” Cohen states that 
antisemitism is “an illogical bigotry. Anti-Zionism, however, is a 
perfectly logical opposition, based on very sound reasoning, to a 
particular idea and aim.”

Cohen argues: “According to the Torah and Jewish faith, the present 
Palestinian Arab claim to rule in Palestine is right and just. The 
Zionist claim is wrong and criminal. Our attitude to Israel is that the 
whole concept is flawed and illegitimate. So anti-Zionism is certainly 
not anti-Semitism.”


Recently Israel’s /Ha’aretz/ newspaper published a column entitled, “An 
Israeli Soldier Shot a Palestinian in Front of Her Kids. Where’s Her 

The article, by Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, begins: “For three 
months, Dia Mansur was certain his mother was dead. He was 15 years old 
when he saw her collapse in the living room of their home, felled by a 
bullet fired by an Israel Defense Forces soldier that sliced into her 
face, tearing it apart. He saw his mother lying on the floor, blood 
oozing from her mouth…”

Levy, citing a report by an Israeli human rights organization, writes 
that from September 2000 to through February 2017, “Israel killed 4,868 
noncombatant Palestinian civilians, more than one-third of them (1,793) 
were children and adolescents below the age of 18.” (More info here 

He continued: “Thousands of others, who were also not involved in 
fighting, have been wounded and permanently incapacitated.” (Photos here 

A few weeks before that report, /Ha’aretz/ 
<http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.780996> published an 
article that described Israel’s month-long imprisonment of a 12-year-old 
Palestinian boy, one of over 200 Palestinian children taken by Israeli 
forces in a little over three months. The boy, accused of throwing 
stones against Israeli soldiers, would have been released from 
incarceration earlier, except that his impoverished family didn’t have 
enough money to pay the fine.

In the article, Israeli journalist Amira Haas reported that the boy’s 
father said that his son “wasn’t how he used to be before he was 
arrested.” “He used to joke,” the father said, “and he stopped doing 
that. He talked a lot, and now he is silent.”

Haas wrote that UNICEF had issued a report four years ago that Israel 
was “extensively and systematically abusing detained Palestinian 
children and youth.” Today, she reported, “The stories of physical 
violence, threats, painful plastic handcuffs and naked body searches 
remain almost identical.”

Sadly, every week there are similar stories.

To the multi-billion dollar network of lobbies advocating for conflating 
criticism of Israel with antisemitism, those who work to get such 
information to the American people – whose government gives Israel $10 
million per day <http://ifamericaknew.org/stat/cost.html> – are antisemitic.

Many others of all faiths and ethnicities have a different view.

Sixteen years ago I wrote <http://ifamericaknew.org/cur_sit/as.html>: 
“Equating the wrongdoing of Israel with Jewishness is the deepest and 
most insidious form of anti-Semitism of all.”

It is ironic that it is the Israel lobby that is today doing this 
equating, and that it has worked to invert the very meaning of 
antisemitism itself. Rather than denoting only abhorrent behavior, as it 
once did, today the term is often officially applied to what many 
consider courageous actions against oppression.

More troubling, still, these lobbying groups are working to outlaw 
conduct that numerous people (including many Israelis and Jewish 
Americans) consider morally obligatory.

It seems imperative for Americans who wish for justice and peace in the 
Middle East, and who oppose Orwellian distortions of language and law, 
to speak out against this campaign – while we can.


/N.B. I deeply hope that no one will exaggerate or misrepresent the 
information this article reveals. The actions above were taken by 
specific individuals and organizations. They alone are responsible for 
them, not an entire religious or ethnic group, most of whom quite likely 
have little idea that this is occurring./


/Alison Weir is executive director of If Americans Knew 
<http://ifamericansknew.org/>, president of the Council for the National 
Interest <http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/home>, and author 
of Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was 
Used to Create Israel 


        *Timeline for creating new Israel-centric definition of

*/Following is a timeline of some of the key events in the creation, 
promotion and adoption of the Israel-focused definition of antisemitism. 
It provides an outline, but does not include every step of the process, 
all the key players, or every action./*

*1991 – *Jean Kahn 
is elected president of the European Jewish Congress at its plenary 
session in Israel. He announces an ambitious agenda, including 
demonstrating solidarity with Israel and European countries coordinating 
legislation to outlaw antisemitism.

*1997 – *Kahn “convinces 15 heads of state” to create 
the The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia to focus on 
“racism, xenophobia and antisemitism.”

*2000* – The Monitoring Centre issues a position paper 
calling for the definition of antisemitic offenses to be “improved.”

*2003* – Israel’s minister for diaspora affairs Natan Sharansky founds 
the Global Forum against Anti-Semitism, stating 
<http://davidmweinberg.com/2013/05/27/on-combating-anti-semitism/>: “The 
State of Israel has decided to take the gloves off and implement a 
coordinated counteroffensive against anti-Semitism.”

*2004* – Sharansky, who is also chair of the Jewish Agency for Israel, 
issues a position paper that lays out the “3-D Test of Anti-Semitism 
<https://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-sharansky-f04.htm>:” statements that 
“demonize” Israel, apply a “double standard” or “delegitimize” Israel 
are “antisemitic.” These will form the blueprint for new definitions 
adopted by lobbying organizations and finally governments.

*2004* – US Congress passes law 
establishing special office and envoy in the State Department to monitor 
antisemitism that includes statements about Israel under this rubric. 
(Sharansky is witness at Congressional hearing.)

*2004* – American Jewish Committee directors Kenneth Stern and Rabbi 
Andrew “ Andy” Baker 
work with Israeli professor Dina Porat 
to draft a new antisemitism definition and push the Monitoring Centre to 
adopt it, according to 
Stern. Their draft drew on Sharansky’s 3 D’s.

*2005* – Monitoring Centre issues a “Working Definition of 
Anti-Semitism” that includes Sharansky’s 3 D’s, based on Stern et al’s 
draft. While standard dictionary definitions of antisemitism didn’t even 
mention Israel, fully half of the newly devised Monitoring Centre 
definition referred to Israel.

*2007* – UK’s National Union of Students (NUS) 
adopts the new antisemitism definition focused on Israel, after 
pro-Israel students introduce a motion misleadingly entitled 
“AntiRacism: Challenging Racism on Campus and in Our Communities.” Some 
student unions at various UK universities then follow suit.

*2008* – The first U.S. State Department Special Envoy on antisemitism, 
Greg Rickman, endorses the Monitoring Centre working definition in State 
Department report 
<https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/102301.pdf> to 
Congress. (Rickman later went to work for AIPAC.)

*2009* – The Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism 
<http://www.antisem.org/home/> (CCA), which brings together 
parliamentarians from around the world, issues the London Declaration 
signed by then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and others. The 
Declaration calls on governments to use the Monitoring Centre definition 
and to outlaw and prosecute such “antisemitism.” US Congressmen Ted 
Deutch and Chris Smith are members of the CCA’s steering committee.

*2010* – Second US State Department Special Envoy on antisemitism Hanna 
Rosenthal officially adopts European Monitoring Centre definition; this 
is subsequently referred to as the State Department definition of 
antisemitism. Rosenthal creates course on antisemitism using this 
definition to train Foreign Service Officers.

*2012* – Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under the Law 
is founded and immediately begins promoting the new definition. Within a 
year it launches an initiative 
to establish student chapters at law schools throughout the U.S.

*2013* – Successor organization to the European Monitoring Centre 
(called the European Fundamental Rights Agency) quietly drops the 
working definition 
from its website. When questioned about this, the agency’s director says 
the organization had “no mandate to develop its own definitions.” 
(Groups using the definition continue to use it.)

*2014* – Mark Weitzman, Director of Government Affairs at the Simon 
Wiesenthal Center, with help from Ira Forman and Nicholas Dean of the 
U.S. Department of State, initiates efforts for another agency to adopt 
and promote the working definition of antisemitism.

*2015* – European Commission creates a special position to coordinate 
work on combating antisemitism, appointing 
German Katharina von Schnurbein to the post. Schnurbein proceeds to 
promote <http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.760175> use of the 
Israel-centric definition.**

*2015* – Indiana University passes resolution denouncing 
“anti-Semitism as defined by the United States State Department and will 
not fund or participate in activities that promote anti-Semitism or that 
‘undermine the right of the Jewish people to self-determination.'” 
University of California Santa Barbara 
and UCLA 
also pass such resolutions.

*2016* – The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), 
consisting of 31 Member Countries, adopts 
the definition; the goal is to inspire others to also adopt “a legally 
binding working definition.” An analyst writes that the IHRA action is 
“a potentially crucial tool for forcing governments and international 
agencies to confront and take action.”

*December 2016* – U.S. Senate passes 
law <https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/10> to 
apply the State Department’s definition of antisemitism to the Education 
Department, for use in investigating reports of religiously motivated 
campus crimes. Now the law defines actions connected to criticism of 
Israel as “religiously motivated.”

*December 2016* – UK announces it will formally adopt the Israel-centric 
definition–the first country to do so besides Israel. UK Prime Minister 
Theresa May made the announcement 
during a talk before 800 guests at the Conservative Friends of Israel’s 
annual lunch.

*December 2016* – Adoption of the definition by the 57-member 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which had 
been heavily lobbied by the American Jewish Committee, is blocked by 
Russia. The AJC then says 
it will push for individual member states to adopt it.

*March 2017 *– South Carolina 
House of Representatives passes legislation under which the State 
Department’s definition “would be used in probes of possible 
anti-Semitism at state colleges and universities.” The Senate 
version will be discussed in 2018. Similar bills are being considered in 
Virginia and Tennessee 

*March – May 2017* – Resolutions adopting the Israel-centric definitions 
are passed by student governments at Ohio’s Capital University 
<https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/03/24/capital-u-student-govt-passes-unanimous-resolution-in-support-of-jewish-people-israel-following-series-of-antisemitic-incidents-on-campus/> and 
Kent State 
<https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/03/12/honored-to-have-made-my-mark-on-kent-state-says-jewish-student-behind-antisemitism-resolution/>, California’s 
San Diego State University 
<http://www.thedailyaztec.com/82651/news/a-s-passes-anti-semitism-resolution/> and 
at other campuses 
<http://www.amchainitiative.org/antisemitism-resolutions/> around the U.S.

*April 2017 *–

  * Austria adopts
    the definition. (The Austrian justice minister
    <http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.760175> previously
    announced that the new definition would be used in the training of
    new judges and prosecutors.)
  * The ADL, which uses Israel-centric definition of antisemitism,
    that antisemitism has risen by 86 percent in 2017, but includes
    questionable statistics. News organizations throughout the U.S.
    report the ADL claim.
  * Reports that Trump administration budget cuts might cause special
    antisemitism envoy position to remain vacant provokes outrage among
    Israel lobby groups and others. Samantha Power calls for entire
    Trump administration to focus on antisemitism. Soon, Trump
    administration says
    it will fill post.
  * All 100 US Senators send a letter
    to UN demanding it stop its actions on Israel and connects these to

*May 2017 –*

  * Israel-Britain Alliance begins asking candidates for Parliament to
    sign a pledge
    that they will support the new definition.


        End Notes

I’m using the newer, unhyphenated spelling of this word, which seems to 
be growing in popularity. I feel it is a more appropriate spelling, 
since the hyphenated version suggests that it refers to all Semites, 
which is incorrect. The word was created in 1879 
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/anti-Semitism> specifically to refer 
to anti-Jewish prejudice.

Former Israeli parliament member Shulamit Aloni explained 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BEVLD6YHsc&feature=youtu.be> this in a 
2002 interview with Amy Goodman on /Democracy now/. “It’s a trick. ” she 
said. “We always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing 
Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are 
criticizing Israel, then they are ‘anti-Semitic’.

Aloni noted that the pro-Israel lobby in the United States “is strong, 
and has a lot of money.” She continued: “Ties between Israel and the 
American Jewish establishment are very strong … their attitude is 
‘Israel, my country right or wrong.'”

“It’s very easy,” she said, “to blame people who criticize certain acts 
of the Israeli government as ‘anti-Semitic’ and use that claim to 
justify everything Israel does to the Palestinians.”

Examples abound of critics of Israel silenced in this way. One telling 
story is that of once-famous journalist Dorothy Thompson, who was 
virtually erased from history after writing about the Palestinian cause. 
Read about her here <http://ifamericansknew.org/media/dthompson.html> 
and here <http://thesilencing.org/>.

Dictionaries all agreed on this meaning, with oneexception 
that caused considerable outrage. This was Merriam-Webster’s mammoth 
unabridged dictionary, which included a second meaning: “opposition to 
Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel.”

When some people discovered this extra, Israel-related meaning in 2004 
and raised objections to it, there was a general outcry that the 
additional meaning was inaccurate and should be removed, including 
by New York Times columnist and linguistics arbiter Jeffrey Nunberg, who 
wrote that it “couldn’t be defended.”

Merriam-Webster responded by saying that the extra meaning would 
“probably be dropped when the company published a new unabridged version 
in a decade or so.” The company hasn’t published a new version yet, but 
it seems to have followed through with this decision. Theonline version 
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/unabridged/anti-Semitism> of the 
unabridged dictionary, which says it is updated with the latest words 
and meanings, makes no mention of Israel or Zionism.

An increasingly common Israeli talking point is the claim that it’s 
antisemitic to deny the Jewish people their “right to 
self-determination.” This is disingenuous: Self-determination is the 
right of people on a land to determine their own political status, not 
the right of some people to expel others in order to form an exclusive 
state on confiscated land. In reality, the principle of 
self-determination would have had the Muslim, Christian and Jewish 
residents of historic Palestine forming a government for all of them, 
and today would give Palestinians living under Israeli occupation the 
freedom to determine their own destiny.

Michael Whine 
Jeremy Jones <http://aijac.org.au/about-aijac/management-staff/>, 
Israeli Roni Stauber <https://english.tau.ac.il/profile/stauber>, Felice 
Israeli Yehuda Bauer <http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/yehuda-bauer>, 
Michael Berenbaum 
<http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/michael-berenbaum> and Andy Baker 
and later on, AJC’s Deidre Berger 
previously an NPR reporter.

The other witnesses were representatives of the Orthodox Union of Jewish 
Congregations, American Jewish Committee, U.S. Holocaust Memorial 
Council, Anti-Defamation League, National Conference for Soviet Jewry, 
B’nai B’rith International, World Jewish Congress, Conference of 
Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Simon Wiesenthal 
Center, Shai Franklin, and Jay Lefkowitz 
<http://www.aish.com/ci/be/48955201.html> of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP.

An organization called Students Supporting Israel (SSI) 
<http://www.ssimovement.org/mission-and-history.html> takes credit for 
most of these initiatives. Created in 2012 at the University of 
Minnesota by Israeli Ilan Sinelnikov 
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/ilan-sinelnikov-4931b980/> and his sister, 
Valeria Chazin 
SSI now has chapters <http://www.ssimovement.org/chapters.html> on over 
40 college campuses around the U.S., at least three high schools, and 
some campuses in Canada. In 2015 Israel’s Midwest Consulate chose SSI to 
receive the award for “Outstanding Pro Israel Activism.” Campus Hillels 
are also frequently involved.

The bill at Chapman University 
passed but was vetoed 
Another vote will probably be proposed in in the fall 

For information on additional Israel-centered campaigns, see the works 
of Israeli strategist Yehezkel Dror, 
such as his paper “Foundations of an Israeli Grand Strategy toward the 
European Union <http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-dror-f04.htm>”

The AJC’s Andy Baker reported 
“It is part of police-training materials in the UK.”

An antifa group in France 
for example, reportedly shut down a talk by an anti-Zionist intellectual.

A number of analysts have also suggested that some antisemitism may at 
times be an (inappropriate) response to Israeli violence and oppression 
of Palestinians. Yale Chaplain Bruce Shipman pointed out in a letter 
to the /New York Times/ that an earlier period of reported rising 
antisemitism in Europe paralleled “the carnage in Gaza over the last 
five years, not to mention the perpetually stalled peace talks and the 
continuing occupation of the West Bank.” Israel partisans were outraged 
and Shipman was soon required to resign.

Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 
863.9977 www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20170518/53f1bdca/attachment.html>

More information about the News mailing list