Statement Regarding the Definition of Antisemitism and the Modern Messianic Movement

Comments by Dr. Mitch Glaser
President, Chosen People Ministries

One might ask what position the modern Messianic movement takes on the controversy over the definition of antisemitism, along with its illustrations proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA). The following statement is anecdotal as a proper survey has not yet been done of the beliefs of the Messianic Jewish community on these issues. 

In my opinion, most Messianic groups do not embrace a more academic definition of antisemitism. Rather, most Messianic Jews are informed by their experience as Jewish individuals and by their understanding of Scripture. Most Messianic Jews are pro-Israel and would believe that most, if not all, criticism of the State of Israel (especially because Messianic Jews believe the land belongs to Jewish people) would be deemed antisemitic in some way. 

For Messianic Jews, the land of Israel belonging to Jewish people is generally a biblical given and not subject to political debate. Therefore, there is not a lot of controversy on whether any deviation from that view is motivated by blatant or more subtle antisemitism. 

What is Antisemitism?

There are three major, accepted definitions of antisemitism that are commonly used as canon in determining whether statements and acts are antisemitic. They are the IHRA, the JDA, and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) statements. One of the main differences among the definitions are the suggested guidelines for determining if statements about Israel are antisemitic, for example, “antizionism is antisemitism”.[1] 

The IHRA states the following, which was adopted on May 26, 2016, at a meeting of the committee in Bucharest, Romania.

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.

The IHRA leadership committee is described as follows:

An intergovernmental organization with 35 Member Countries and 9 Observer Countries. Founded in 1998 by former Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson, we address issues related to the Holocaust and genocide of the Roma.[2]

According to the committee,

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective—such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
3. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
4. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
5. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
6. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
7. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
8. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
9. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
11. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property—such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries—are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.[3]

None of the statements are accepted as a legal definition and encoded into US law, but the US State Department does use this definition when investigating claims of antisemitism under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.[4]

The above definition with examples will suffice as the guiding definition of antisemitism for this document. 

There does, however, seem to be a caveat in the IHRA definition and illustrations, which does not define all critical speech regarding Israel as antisemitic. But it does suggest limits which, if crossed, might be deemed antisemitic, having gone beyond any type of normative criticism against a non-Jewish national entity.

The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA)

The JDA is in part a response to the definition and positions of the IHRA. This is further detailed in the question-and-answer portion of their statements:

So, is the JDA intended to be an alternative to the IHRA Working Definition?

Yes, it is. People of goodwill seek guidance about the key question: When does political speech about Israel or Zionism cross the line into antisemitism and when should it be protected? The JDA is intended to provide this guidance, and so should be seen as a substitute for the IHRA Definition. But if an organization has formally adopted the IHRA Definition it can use the JDA as a corrective to overcome the shortcomings of the IHRA Definition.

Then does the JDA suggest that anti-Zionism is never antisemitic?

No. The JDA seeks to clarify when criticism of (or hostility to) Israel or Zionism crosses the line into antisemitism and when it does not. A feature of the JDA in this connection is that (unlike the IHRA Definition) it also specifies what is not, on the face of it, antisemitic.

What, in short, are the advantages of the JDA over the IHRA Definition?

There are several, including the following: The JDA benefits from several years of reflection on, and critical assessment of, the IHRA Definition. As a result, it is clearer, more coherent and more nuanced. The JDA articulates not only what antisemitism is but also, in the context of Israel and Palestine, what, on the face of it, it is not. This is guidance that is widely needed. The JDA invokes universal principles and, unlike the IHRA Definition, clearly links the fight against antisemitism with the fight against other forms of bigotry and discrimination. The JDA helps create a space for frank and respectful discussion of difficult issues, including the vexed question of the political future for all inhabitants of Israel and Palestine. For all these reasons, the JDA is more cogent, and, instead of generating division, it aims at uniting all forces in the broadest possible fight against antisemitism.[5]

The preceding statements by the JDA, though seemingly quite close in emphasis to those of the IHRA, are viewed by the creators of the JDA as something other than what the IHRA represents, especially on the matter of criticism of Israel. 

Conclusion

Messianic Jews tend to be more politically and socially conservative and might even be considered hardline because of their view of Scripture as unchanging. However, there are some pockets of Messianic Jews who would certainly affirm the approach of the JDA, and many of those who do live in Israel itself. Yet the majority of Messianic Jews, especially in the Diaspora, would probably prefer the IHRA approach to the definition of antisemitism. We tend to view anti-Zionism as an expression of antisemitism. Therefore we are often less critical of Israel’s policies regarding the Palestinians and harder on those in Israel or the Diaspora who are more critical of Israel.

[1] In adjudicating cases of antisemitism, particularly in the US and internationally, the IHRA definition is the most widely recognized and referenced. Here is how it and other definitions are applied in legal and policy contexts:

1. IHRA Definition: The IHRA definition is used by multiple national governments (including the US, Canada, Germany, and the UK), the European Union, and many universities and organizations worldwide. The US State Department and the Department of Education use this definition when investigating claims of antisemitism under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in federally funded programs. Although the IHRA definition is non-legally binding, its use in US and international policy gives it significant weight in interpreting and addressing antisemitic incidents.
2. ADL Definition: The Anti-Defamation League’s definition is influential in advocacy but is less frequently cited in formal adjudication. It is often referenced in public awareness campaigns and educational resources, and it is sometimes used by organizations as a guideline. However, it has not been widely adopted in official legal frameworks or formal rulings on antisemitic incidents.
3. Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism and Nexus Document: These definitions were developed in part as responses to concerns about the IHRA definition’s application in contexts involving criticism of Israel. The JDA and Nexus frameworks are gaining traction in academic circles and among free speech advocates, but they are generally not used in official adjudication. Some universities and organizations refer to these definitions to help distinguish between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel, but they are not widely referenced in US legal cases or international courts.

In summary, while the IHRA definition is the most widely adopted for both US and international incidents, particularly by government and legal bodies, the ADL, JDA, and Nexus definitions influence discussions and policies around antisemitism but are less commonly used in formal adjudication. (ChatGPT 11/1/24, 7:00AM)

[2] “About the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance,” International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, accessed November 4, 2024, https://holocaustremembrance.com/who-we-are.

[3] “Working Definition of Antisemitism,” International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, accessed November 4, 2024, https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism.

[4] “Defining Antisemitism,” US Department of State, accessed November 26, 2024, https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/.

[5] “The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism,” Jerusalem Declaration, accessed December 2, 2024, https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/.