Antisemitism and the Left | Antisemitism researcher: The IHRA definition is contradictory

At its party conference, The Left Party voted by a narrow majority to adopt the definition of antisemitism contained in the "Jerusalem Declaration" (JDA), which you co-developed. How does this differ from the definition of the " International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance " (IHRA), which is also endorsed by the Central Council of Jews?

First of all, there is much agreement between the two definitions. However, they symbolically represent two camps. The JDA attempts to overcome the formal weaknesses of the IHRA definition: its inconsistency and lack of clarity. And it provides assistance in contextualizing Israel-related antisemitism. In my opinion, the IHRA can be quite easily instrumentalized against legitimate criticism of Israel.

That means that both have different assessments of whether anti-Zionist criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic per se?

Both distinguish between antisemitic and non-antisemitic criticism of Israel. But the IHRA's examples are confusing. It lists many things that may or may not be antisemitic depending on the context. Many users then take these as criteria for antisemitism. Here, the JDA introduces a very important distinction: things that are antisemitic per se (such as holding all Jews responsible for Israel's actions) and things that are not antisemitic per se, but can certainly be depending on the circumstances – such as strongly negative attitudes towards the State of Israel. One can reject Israel because one is antisemitic and believes Jews cannot build a productive state. But one can also do so from certain ultra-Orthodox Jewish perspectives, or because of left-wing, anti-nationalist criticism, or simply because, as a Palestinian, one has had terrible experiences with the occupation. Incidentally, the question of whether this criticism is appropriate or correct in terms of content must be addressed independently of this.

As an anti-Semitism researcher, you contributed to the Jerusalem Declaration. Why?

Because it was no longer acceptable for a contradictory definition, one that was open to political abuse, to spread everywhere and gain quasi-legal status. We simply wanted to present something better, something that made sense. And something that wasn't a Middle East-policy, pro-Israel position in the form of a definition of antisemitism. We also wanted to facilitate debate again.

Vice President of the Bundestag Bodo Ramelow believes the Left Party should have left the decision to scientists.

I'm torn. Given the anti-democratic tendencies of authoritarian anti-Semitism, I naturally think the party conference's resolution is a good one. However, given the irreconcilable positions, such a vote victory is of limited value. This is evident in the sometimes completely uninformed social media ranting of IHRA fans, who only smell anti-Semitism. This motion would have required a long, and above all, broad, and controversial discussion process. However, it wasn't just about the definition, but also about distancing itself from the misuse of the IHRA and taking a stance against the authoritarian measures of anti-Semitism, which are particularly propagated by the AfD and CDU.

The Central Council of Jews has sharply criticized the Left Party's resolution. At the same time, there are many anti-Zionists in the Jewish diaspora who would like to see much more criticism of Israel. How should the Left Party position itself?

Listening to both and then acting in a strictly universalistic manner: interested in a good life for all people. Unfortunately, this hasn't always been a given in the history of the left. And it will remain an often painful act of contradiction. Here, too, the following applies: continuing the debate is more important than declaring positions.

How can it be explained that so many right-wing extremist parties maintain good relations with Israel despite their anti-Semitism?

First, the anti-Muslim racism of the global right is very pronounced. Second, the right hopes to wash its hands of its own antisemitism by supporting Israel. And third, the accusation of Israel-related antisemitism can be used very effectively as a weapon against left-wing, woke, or post-colonial Use enemies.