CEO Op-ed in the Algemeiner: Why the IHRA Handbook on Anti-Semitism — Not Just Its Definition — Is Needed
The year 2020 will be marked as, among other distinctions, a time of unbridled global antisemitism. The phenomenon is growing from three sources — the radical Left, the extreme Right, and Islamists — but while that doesn’t tell the full story, it does provide a spectrum that indicates how widely this particular virus has spread.
This unbridled antisemitism demonstrates why a new handbook of definitions is so important. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), in conjunction with the European Commission and with the support of the recent German presidency of the EU, has published this new guide.
Based on extensive research conducted by RIAS, the German Federal Association of Departments for Research and Information on antisemitism, the handbook is a first-of-its-kind best-practices guide for use in such fields as law enforcement, the judiciary, education, international bodies, funding institutions, and civil society.
The handbook connects the IHRA document to real life examples — which helps to make it a real “working” definition.
Making the battle against antisemitism relevant to individual branches of government, or to educators, will help to monitor, identify, respond to, and counteract antisemitism in the open or in dark corners of society across the European continent and beyond.
In 2016, the IHRA, a consortium of countries committed to Holocaust education and remembrance, adopted a working definition of antisemitism. It was not intended to be a detailed, deep dive into the causes and manifestations of this millennia-old hatred. It was meant, rather, to speak to categories of Jew-hatred, both classic and contemporary.
Its recognition of how the existence of Israel has worked its way into the repertoire of antisemites has been vitally important in helping those fighting antisemitism to pull the veil off “legitimate criticism of Israel” from those who advocate the elimination of the Jewish state.
In this regard, the working definition states, for example, that antisemitism includes “accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.” Antisemitism is also “accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations.” Or, as we see almost every day somewhere in the world, “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
To date, 28 countries have adopted the IHRA working definition, and the number continues to grow. Provincial, state, and local governments are doing the same, as are organizations as diverse as the Argentine Football Federation and the Global Imams Council.
More countries, state and local governments, agencies, and non-governmental organizations need to add their support and buy in.
But equally important is how the definition will be applied, and by whom. That is where the handbook comes in.
Expressions of antisemitism know no borders. The hierarchy of leadership in Iran regularly spews antisemitism, often using Nazi imagery; Israel is frequently referred to as a “cancer” that needs to be excised. Genocidal calls for Israel’s destruction are daily features in Iranian media. And Tehran is known for its “leadership” in the Holocaust denial arena.
Over the past 12 months in Europe, we witnessed a concerted campaign by the neo-Fascist Nordic Resistance Movement to intimidate Jews in their places of worship and in communal spaces. A kosher restaurant in France, the scene of countless acts of antisemitism, was vandalized with tags of “Hitler was right,” “Jews get out,” and “Free Palestine.”
In Greece, multiple cemeteries were vandalized; rabbis were attacked on the street in Berlin and Vienna; and in Germany, on the holiday of Sukkot, a synagogue was attacked in Hamburg, just days before the one-year commemoration of the Yom Kippur attack on a synagogue in Halle.
And already this year, the European Court of Justice ruled that individual European Union member states can legislate against kosher ritual slaughter, or shechita. Already some countries place restrictions tantamount to a ban on the practice, including Sweden, Denmark, Finland, regions of Belgium, and non-EU member Switzerland. Efforts to ban circumcision, or brit milah, have been similarly underway in Europe for some time — though without much success at this point.
Denying Jews the right to these essential acts of religious freedom, especially on European soil, where the greatest crimes against the Jewish people were perpetrated, is not just “discriminatory.” All of this places Jews in an “other” or outcast category, which is unacceptable, and can only be read as antisemitic.
And, lest some think antisemites cannot bring back classic blood libel charges against Jews from the Middle Ages, the Kantor Center at Tel Aviv University reported last summer that there were widespread assertions that Israel or Jews as a whole were responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. In the early stages of the pandemic, websites charged Israel with creating the virus in order to manufacture vaccines for it, from which it would profit.
With reports indicating a continuing rise in antisemitic incidents on college campuses, an arsonist set fire to the University of Delaware’s Chabad Center just as the school year opened in the fall. Earlier this month, among those demonstrators storming the US Capitol were those wearing clothing adorned with Nazi imagery, including a “Camp Auschwitz” hoodie.
Much antisemitism from the far-left focuses on Israel and Zionism, with comparisons to apartheid South Africa and condemnations of “the occupation.” From the extreme right, classic charges of control of the media and banks are rolled out in new 21st century wrappers, but their message of hate remains the same. And notwithstanding the much-welcomed rapprochement between Israel and some of its Arab neighbors, many in the Arab and Islamist media — particularly, but not limited to, the Palestinian media — spin webs of antisemitic rhetoric on a daily basis. The common denominator to all of this is hatred of Jews.
In our community, there are many whose innate antennae can identify antisemitism from the proverbial 36,000 feet. But others are less likely to recognize the nuances of it when it appears. The IHRA handbook will be a vital resource for them.
The working definition and the new IHRA handbook are not a cure for history’s oldest social virus. Much more needs to be done. Holocaust denial continues to grow, as the dwindling number of survivors reach the end of their lives. Recent studies reveal an astonishing lack of knowledge about the Holocaust among millennials and Generation Z’ers, which obligates us to grow Holocaust education programs in our schools and universities.
And then there is the Internet, which has had a multiplier effect, as antisemitic conspiracy theories and outright rants run rampant on our laptops and tablets. The major social media platforms must confront the role they are playing as enablers of such combustible language.
In the 21st century, combating antisemitism requires new tools and means to join the battle. The IHRA handbook is a welcome addition to the resources we need to get the job done. If it sits on the shelf, it will have been a noble, but wasted effort. We need to encourage its wide distribution, and especially advocate for its recommendations and practices to be put to good use.
Read CEO Mariaschin's expert analysis in the Algemeiner.
Daniel S. Mariaschin is CEO of B'nai B'rith International.
As we all power through the pandemic and adapt to new ways of living and working, one thing has become clear: the digital space is indispensable – much more so than we had previously understood. Coupled with this, the pervasiveness of hate and anti-Semitism online has become increasingly hard to ignore. Indeed, COVID-19 has both accelerated anti-Semitic conspiracy ideologies and put a spotlight on already existing issues affecting the sense of security and dignity of Jewish citizens across the world.
If we are to find a silver lining, it’s that the urgency of the matter has finally elevated online hate to policy-makers' desks in a serious manner and has forced platforms to take some modest steps to address the issue – see for instance Facebook’s new policy around removing Holocaust denial content. It’s not the first time the digital space has received scrutiny - legislative and otherwise - but the current tone of the debate presents a clear shift:
Transatlantic Trends in Digital Governance
When, in 2000, the E-Commerce Directive was born to govern and harmonize the EU’s digital space, a great deal of attention was given to accommodating major online platforms and creating a liability shield for them as intermediaries. 20 years later, when confronted with the growing challenges of disinformation, conspiracy ideologies and hate speech, the EU’s discourse has rightly changed. In its recently concluded consultation for the upcoming Digital Services Act – legislation that will likely constitute the EU’s digital legal framework for at least the next decade – the focus has finally turned towards platform responsibility and user safety.
This mirrors the approach in the United States. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 essentially provided immunity from liability for intermediary platforms and users. It is what allowed major platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to grow in the first place and capture the public space to the extent that they have. Yet currently, there is bipartisan agreement over the need to reform legislation to meet new challenges. What’s more, the platforms themselves seem to welcome official guidelines, given the immense pressure they’ve been under with regard to content moderation.
In the EU, the largest IT companies – Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, Google, and more recently Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok – have taken significant steps to tackle illegal hate speech by signing onto a voluntary Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online. While in 2016 this was a milestone achievement, today, as the opportunity for reform is in front of us, we must move beyond illegal content and pay dedicated attention to tackling the overflowing amount of legal but harmful content online. More importantly, we cannot rely on voluntary compliance by platforms – however positive the results have, thus far, been – but must ensure efforts are coordinated and harmonized within upcoming legislation, and commitments are made into legally binding agreements.
A positive development in this sense has been the proposal of the European Commission to categorize illegal hate speech and hate crimes as euro-crimes. This would allow for an EU-wide harmonization of rules and standards for what is clearly a cross-border issue. It is important that EU member states approve this proposal unanimously.
Tackling Anti-Semitism Online
As attention is now turning to users’ safety and dealing with harmful content, tackling anti-Semitism must be a core part of this shift. For one thing, the EU’s vocal efforts to tackle anti-Semitism – ones with real tangible effects and national level echoes – must also permeate the online space. More fundamentally, however, that’s because of the inseparable link between anti-Semitism and the main challenges that are faced in the online space today such as conspiracy ideologies, radicalization, far-right and Islamist extremism and COVID-19 misinformation. Understanding how to tackle anti-Semitism and, indeed, generating the political will to do so will not only help rid the online space of anti-Jewish hatred, but will contribute towards addressing the broader issues that it underscores.
Civil society has an important role to play here in articulating the needs of the community, educating policy-makers, platforms and other relevant stakeholders such as the Inter-Parliamentary Taskforce on Online Anti-Semitism, and proposing innovative solutions. To that end, B’nai B’rith International has contributed to a joint policy position by major Jewish organizations – a 10-point set of recommendations to be implemented as part of the future EU Digital Services Act (You can see more at www.deleteantisemitism.org). If we are to make significant progress in addressing online anti-Semitism, we cannot shy away from putting in place clear legislative measures. We need regular and transparent data collection and analysis to better understand the spread of hate online; platforms must make algorithms transparent, so that scrutiny prevents them from leading users to extremist content; we must disincentivize profit stemming from harmful content and create clear references in community standards about what constitutes anti-Semitic content.
Beyond this, we must acknowledge that content falling short of immediate incitement to violence or clear Holocaust denial – and thus, constituting legal speech – still poses serious threats: it contributes to radicalization, feeds conspiracy ideologies that often have externalities in the physical world and chips away at the fundamental right to a sense of safety of those targeted. Innovative solutions are required to facilitate reporting, early detection and communication with law enforcement in cases that fall outside the scope of illegal speech. In this context, the anonymity granted by the online space is a particularly thorny issue. It’s a central aspect supra-national bodies, governments and platforms must consider through law or self-regulation.
Grappling with Difficult Questions
The conversation around how to best govern the digital space is certainly a difficult one. Questions around freedom of expression, concerns over government overreach and skepticism about censorship at the hand of private platforms are all justified. But spare a thought on the silencing effect that hate speech has on the freedom of expression, of practice and of manifestation in public life of those affected. In the physical space, it goes without question that we put in place regulations to facilitate our interactions and foster good governance. The digital space should be no different.
The trial of the Halle synagogue shooter – lessons to be learned amid resurgent anti-Semitism in Germany
On the 21st of July, the trial of Halle neo-Nazi terrorist Stephan Balliet began in Magdeburg, Germany. He faces life in prison for the murder of 40-year-old Jana L. and 20-year-old Kevin S., as well as 68 cases of attempted murder and incitement to racial hatred following his attack on Halle’s synagogue last year. Amid growing anti-Semitism and right-wing extremism, this was the deadliest anti-Jewish attack in Germany since WWII.
On the 9th of October 2019, Yom Kippur eve, the 28-year-old right-wing extremist drove up to the small-town synagogue, sporting military attire and geared up with explosives and firearms. As just over 50 worshipers gathered in prayer, the attacker started shooting at the building, where a now-memorialized wooden door resisted the shots and helped save the lives of all those inside. Upon failing to enter the synagogue, the attacker started shooting on the street, killing a passer-by and a kebab salesman the shooter assumed to be an immigrant.
Prior to the attack, Balliet published an online manifesto, which detailed his hatred for Jews and his belief in the Great Replacement theory”– a conspiracy myth that claims Jewish elites promote feminism to deter birth rates in predominantly white European countries to replace white males. He also broadcasted the attack live. It was viewed over 2,000 times and archived to right-wing platforms before being taken down by Twitch, a platform owned by Amazon.
Balliet was imprisoned following a police chase, but he attempted to escape this May, climbing an 11-foot fence during a walk through the courtyard. It was only after this incident that he was transferred to a maximum security prison.
Forty-three coplaintiffs, a majority of whom were in the Halle synagogue during the attack, were present at the trial as the terrorist testified about his desire to "commit a massacre", as per the indictment. He showed no remorse.
The Halle attack came amid a pandemic of right-wing extremist attacks globally – notably the attacks on the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburg and on the Christchurch mosque in New Zealand – which, as the Halle synagogue attacker himself admitted, served as inspiration.
It also came on the backdrop of resurgent far-right terrorism in Germany. In 2019, Germany’s federal government recorded just over 22 000 right-wing extremist attacks over 2,000 explicitly anti-Semitic attacks, both representing the largest numbers in past years. It was in the same year that a neo-Nazi sympathizer fatally shot centrist politician Walter Lübcke, a member of Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union party. In the Germany city of Hanau this February, a right-wing extremist supporting anti-Semitic and racist views killed nine people he believed were foreigners.
Branches of the army and police are currently engulfed in scandals amid uncovered links to extreme right groups. Over 600 soldiers were investigated by Germany’s military counterintelligence. After several far-right incidents were discovered, the KSK, Germany’s elite Special Commando Forces, was disbanded.
Thomas Haldenwang, president of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution who is tasked with protecting Germany from extremists on right and left, drew attention to an “informal network” of right-wing extremists in strategic areas ranging from the domestic intelligence service, as outlined above, to media. Anti-Semitic messaging was, according to Haldenwang, being subtly infiltrated into public discourse.
Facing the reality of resurgent anti-Jewish hatred, given its history, Germany has put in place strong measures to tackle antisemitism.
Federal Commissioner for Jewish Life in Germany and the Fight against Anti-Semitism Felix Klein and a growing list of regional coordinators oversee Germany’s attempts to address the phenomenon. Major Jewish institutions are provided with security; prosecution of hate crimes is well established in the criminal justice system; legislation was recently passed that tightens regulations for online platforms to report and take down illegal hate speech; Holocaust education is well anchored in curricula; numerous exchange programs with Israel exist; and the political establishment has a deeply enshrined culture of speaking out in support of the Jewish community.
Following the attack on the German synagogue, President Steinmeier and Chancellor Merkel both attended vigils, in Halle and Berlin, and recommitted to increase efforts to address anti-Semitism, particularly regarding the lack of security in smaller communities.
In response to the recent resurgence of right-wing extremism, Germany placed the more extreme branch of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party under surveillance, and, in a first, banned a series of clubs belonging to the far-right movement Citizens of the Reich.
It’s a matter of perspective whether all this is re-assuring, or all the more alarming in Germany’s feebleness when confronted with the trends outlined earlier. One thing is clear: More needs to be done.
Lessons for moving forward
The terrorist attack in Halle offers many specific policy points of reflection. The streaming of the attack online feeds into ongoing discussions about platforms’ accountability for users’ content. The attacker’s gamer profile points to the violent inclinations of gaming platforms. His declared world views, a signal that more must be done to address the formation and dissemination of conspiracy myths. The now-flimsy wooden synagogue door is a testament to the need for heightened security, even in smaller communities.
Yet beyond these specific points, a recurring theme emerged from testimonies of those who survived Halle: The trial cannot be about this singular incident. Rather, it must raise awareness about deep-rooted anti-Semitism and extremism in many corners of German society. As Commissioner Klein noted in a recent interview, a welcome outcome would be increased discourse about anti-Semitism in German society, and real understanding among civilians and policy-makers alike about the real scope of the challenges faced.
Alina Bricman is the Director of EU Affairs at B’nai B’rith International. She formerly served as president of the European Union of Jewish Students (EUJS) from 2017 to 2019 and worked for the Representation of the European Commission in Romania and for the Median Research Centre, a Romanian civil society NGO focused on civil engagement and combating xenophobia. She studied political science at the National School of Political and Administrative Studies in Bucharest and at the Central European University in Budapest.
There’s a popular tweet going around shared by many in my Millennials generation by “The Conscious Kid” which is an organization dedicated to “parenting and education through a critical race lens.” With almost 2 million followers, it is highly influential to this generation’s activists dedicated to anti-racist education — a noble and important effort we must acknowledge if we care about a better future for every American. Anti-racism asks that people not merely be passively against racism but actively work against it.
The tweet going around social media states, “You can’t be anti-racist without also condemning anti-Semitism, which is also rooted in White Supremacy.” Now, there is much truth to this, obviously, and I very much appreciate that “The Conscious Kid” came out with it, in light of the ongoing anti-Semitic comments coming from a wide array of athletes to celebrities — but let’s pause a moment. Anti-Semitism goes so much deeper and if people are now willing to look inward at their biases, and hold others accountable, are Jews allowed to ask that society does the same for them? After the brutal killing of George Floyd, the Jewish community stood side by side with those demanding justice, recognizing the very real problem of racism in this country. We understood that the moment was not about us, and we respected that fully. But alas, as it always does, anti-Semitism reared its ugly head, not once, not twice, but enough that we cannot be silent.
The last few weeks we’ve witnessed an uptick in age-old anti-Semitic rhetoric on social media, mainly inspired by the rabid anti-Semite and homophobe, Louis Farrakhan who is deeply influential to the Black community among many celebrities, musicians and athletes with huge platforms and millions of followers. Many say he represents a minority, but he has a following that shares his anti-Semitic vitriol in musical artists like P. Diddy with 17.1 million social media followers, Ice Cube who has 17.8 million followers, Nick Cannon and Desean Jackson (who have both since apologized for their blatant anti-Semitic comments) with a combined 5.3 million followers. Even superstar Madonna with 15.3 million followers shared a clip of his which has so far garnered over 700,000 views.
If you take the time to read the comments on the apology written by Nick Cannon you will see dozens of his fans tell him not to apologize, stating: “you were right!” Comedian Chelsea Handler, shared a video of Farrakhan from 30 years ago on the topic of racial prejudice with her 3.9 million Instagram followers. Even in the face of intense criticism to remove it she said, “I wasn’t thinking about the anti-Semitic thing…I don’t want to take down the post because I felt the message was powerful and a lot of people did.” Handler, who is Jewish later did remove the video and issued an apology, but her casual apathy for the “anti-Semitic thing” speaks volumes. Tamika Mallory, an influential leader and former chair of The Women’s March has still not apologized for calling Farrakhan the G.O.A.T., Greatest Of All Time. We’ve witnessed the hashtag #Jewishprivilege circulate enough so that A-list Jewish celebrities like Sarah Silverman felt the need to respond to the absurdity of calling Jews privileged. I need not list the anti-Semitic comments, or violent attacks on the streets of Brooklyn; murder sprees in Monsey, New York, Pittsburgh and Jersey City, New Jersey from just the last few years — to convince you that anti-Semitism is alive and well in the United States. The question is, where is this coming from? The answer is a myriad of places, and the hard part for people is acknowledging that.
Anti-Semitism is not rooted in white supremacy – as we know it is the world’s oldest form of hate. Given that activists are currently asking society (calling on their friends, family, jobs, corporations, organizations, even hair accessory brands) to do this “inner work” confronting their racial biases, is it OK now for Jews to ask society to speak up against anti-Semitism and more importantly to learn about from where this vast conspiracy theory stems? It’s one thing for people to apologize and promise to do better. It’s another to learn about why what they said is not just hurtful but hateful and dangerous.
In her brilliant book, “How to Fight Anti-Semitism” former New York Times columnist Bari Weiss points out that anti-Semitism is, in fact, ancient and existed hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. In early Christianity however, Weiss points out the notorious line in book of Matthew, “’His blood is on us and our children,’ the Jews say a line so historically destructive that even the unrepentant anti-Semite Mel Gibson did not translate it in the English subtitles of his film the Passion of the Christ, though it is spoken in Aramaic.’“ She goes on to explain exactly why this is so important:
"My intent here is not to blame thousands of years of Christian doctrine—not at all—or to suggest that because Western civilization grew out of these roots, it is somehow fundamentally doomed. It is simply to point out that the historical and intellectual depth of the anti-Jewish conspiracy. If the Christian Bible is the most important book in Western civilization and Jesus is that civilization’s most important figure, the Jews’ rejection of him and his message means that anti-Semitism is baked into the very foundations of the world we inhabit."
If “anti-Semitism is baked into the very foundations of the world we inhabit” then activists asking society today to take a good hard look in the mirror must do the same for anti-Semitism. How many Americans know the origins of the “blood libel”? How many Christians are familiar with the history of their religion as it relates to Jews? How many Catholics know that it was not until 1965 that the Catholic Church officially denied the collective responsibility of Jews for killing Christ? Yes, 1965. How many pogroms and Jewish children were burned at the stake throughout history because of this idea? An untold number. Jewish history is wrought with one horrific account to the next of such brutality, and I’m not including the Holocaust.
We all know the threat of neo-Nazis and white supremacists and what their ideology states — and I’m not downplaying its seriousness — but when a superstar like P. Diddy with his over 17 million followers propagates anti-Semitism by promoting a message that states the Jews are “Satan,” in a world with only a few Holocaust survivors left to tell their stories, the dangers cannot be understated. This type of language must be clearly and unequivocally denounced, and yet some are even unapologetic. In a climate of cancel culture what does it say about the state of a society when figuresas popular as P. Diddy and Madonna can share that rhetoric and it goes unchallenged by the rest of stardom?
It is not only a Western phenomenon which is what makes anti-Semitism so unique and so dangerous. It is alive and well throughout the Muslim Arab world and has been for hundreds of years. How many people in this country know that? Just last summer on a popular Egyptian talk show, a professor revived the blood libel saying that Jews use human blood for ritualistic reasons but that today it is the work of only “extreme ultra-Orthodox Jews.” How many know that there is an onslaught of anti-Semitic hatred throughout the Muslim world — and from leadership in Turkey to Iran — that blames Jews for having invented the coronavirus? There are countless examples across the modern Muslim world of blatant centuries old anti-Semitism, not just the Arab world, to point to.
This is to say nothing of Israel’s annihilationist enemies or the far-left anti-Semitism we see in the form of anti-Zionism and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. It’s naïve to assume we can solve the problem of world-wide anti-Semitism, today, tomorrow or ever, and it is far too layered to explicate it in this short piece, but those of us who care about making sure we root out racism can and must educate ourselves and society writ-large on what exactly is anti-Semitism. As Weiss profoundly says: “anti-Semitism is baked into the very foundations of the world we inhabit.” Figuring out why that is, learning about the different roots and manifestations of the world’s oldest hate is an endeavor I implore my fellow Americans to attempt.
To learn more about anti-Semitism and the different manifestations it takes, see our new initiative: None Shall Be Afraid. Take our pledge and share with your friends. Anti-Semitism is everyone’s problem and we all have our part to play in combatting the oldest form of hate.
Rebecca Rose is Associate Director of Development & Special Projects at B’nai B’rith International. She holds an M.A. in Political Science in Security and Diplomacy from Tel Aviv University.
Meet Grant Napear. The basketball broadcaster was fired after tweeting “All Lives Matter” following the killing of George Floyd.
Meet James Bennet, the former New York Times editorial page editor. Bennet was forced to resign after publishing an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton calling for military force in response to rioters.
Meet Louis Farrakhan. The head of the Nation of Islam has referred to Jews as “termites” and castigated them for their “Satanic influence.” Chelsea Handler and other celebrities tweeted their praise for his “really powerful” message about racism. Fox Soul TV scheduled a broadcast of his planned July 4 address before deciding instead to air excerpts of speeches by multiple Black leaders. Two Philadelphia Eagles teammates subsequently promoted Farrakhan on their Instagram pages. TV host Nick Cannon has used his YouTube talk show to praise Farrakhan, invoke anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and challenge the authenticity of the Jewish people.
Meet Al Sharpton, an activist who has referred to the Jewish community as “diamond merchants” and “bloodsucking Jews” and in 1991 instigated violence with his anti-Semitic demagoguery during the Crown Heights riots. Sharpton, who has not publicly apologized for his past behavior, hosts a daily program on MSNBC and will lead a march on Washington this summer.
The cases of Napear and Bennet are symptomatic of a cancel culture that exhibits minimal tolerance for an individual who has expressed or shared a controversial opinion. Napear’s “All Lives Matter” comment is considered by some to be a racist response to the Black Lives Matter movement. In Bennet’s situation, dozens of New York Times journalists tweeted their contention that his decision to run the Cotton op-ed endangered the lives of both Blacks and the newspaper’s staffers. The pressure to remove both Napear and Bennet was immediate and decisive.
Farrakhan’s critics, including several public figures, prompted Fox to scrap his TV appearance. And Chelsea Handler, after initially doubling down, ultimately deleted her tweet and apologized for it. But Farrakhan has met personally with at least seven members of Congress and continues to speak before large crowds, often using those occasions to spew anti-Semitic polemics.
Sharpton has faced his own share of detractors, although he maintains his perch at MSNBC and continues to absorb praise from highly prominent public officials who have hailed him as a civil rights champion. His August 28 address in Washington, scheduled to coincide with the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech, is expected to draw about 100,000 participants.
What is notable about Farrakhan and Sharpton is not just that they have survived criticism for their anti-Semitic pronouncements, but that they have never acknowledged or repented for their anti-Semitism. The plaudits they win from public figures and loyal followers not only burnishes the legitimacy they claim; it affirms their sense that they can blunt or simply dismiss any criticism that comes their way. “You only repent when you mean it, and I have done nothing wrong,” Sharpton has said.
A nationwide spike in anti-Semitic hate crimes in the past year has increased the concern of American Jews for their own safety. According to a report by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernadino, Jews were the most highly targeted group in 2019 in the country’s three largest cities: New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. The killing of four people in a Jersey City, New Jersey kosher supermarket on Dec. 11 and an attack on Hasidic Jews at the home of a rabbi in Monsey, New York two weeks later illustrated the stark brutality of the threat facing the Jewish community.
As heightened awareness of the racism and injustice suffered by African-Americans has shortened the national fuse on racial issues and understandably fostered an atmosphere of zero tolerance for racial bigotry, Jews and other opponents of hatred could reasonably ask: Where is the commensurate outrage over anti-Semitism? Why does cancel culture fast-forward past the hatred of Jews?
Racial justice and the sacredness of Black lives deserve the full recognition owed by American society. But as long as the threats to Jewish safety and dignity persist, we have to demand that those perils also be taken seriously. This means that longtime purveyors of anti-Semitism should not be mainstreamed, their offenses deemed negligible or otherwise rationalized and contextualized. Jewish individuals deserve no less.
Eric Fusfield, Esq. has been B’nai B’rith International’s director of legislative affairs since 2003 and deputy director of the B’nai B’rith International Center for Human Rights and Public Policy since 2007. He holds a B.A. from Columbia University in history; an M.St. in modern Jewish studies from Oxford University; and a J.D./M.A. from American University in law and international affairs. Click here to read more from Eric Fusfield.
B'nai B'rith International has widely respected experts in the fields of: