• 

On November 16, the new Vancouver City Council in Canada adopted the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of anti-Semitism, despite a massive community pushback. Although the vote followed a day of presentations, most of which were clear in their opposition, the council used their majority to push through the IHRA definition. The mayor and several councillors even posed for an obscene “victory photo” with Zionist lobby representatives after the vote.

However, mainstream media were more cautious in their analysis of what had happened, and several reports labelled the IHRA definition as “controversial”; a pro-"Israel" federal politician was incensed and immediately called for their censure. Those outlets, however, didn’t find it relevant to include a Palestinian point of view in their articles; this marginalization of the Palestinian voice is a trend we see in many IHRA debates. 

The main objective of the IHRA definition is to legitimize "Israel" and to slander all those who expose its illegal and inhumane activities, putting a chill on Palestinian solidarity work and covering up for Israeli war crimes. The Israeli Hasbara 3D’s are at work: distort the nature of the Palestinian struggle; distract from the settler colonialist nature of Zionism, and defame as anti-Semites all those who expose and condemn Israeli atrocities. This has always been the modus operandi of the Israeli establishment; we shouldn’t forget the original Mossad motto “By Way of Deception Thou Shalt Do War”. 

Let’s take a closer look. The short working IHRA definition itself lacks clarity and does not point the finger at the real anti-Semites (the white supremacists). It also states that “rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property” (my emphasis). One can only conclude that this refers to a non-Jewish Zionist (e.g., Christian or Muslim), so if for example, you harass a Saudi journalist that supports "Israel" then you are an anti-Semite. How ridiculous can this get!?

And then we have the infamous IHRA illustrative examples, the preamble to which states: “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." 

This summarizes and highlights the double-talk in this definition; Zionists in general, and those who drafted this document, “conceive” and believe that "Israel" is “a Jewish collectivity”, so one can only conclude that any criticism of "Israel" is anti-Semitic. But then they say, “criticism of 'Israel' similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” What an oxymoron, and who decides what criticism fits into that narrow criteria? 

Seven out of the eleven examples mention "Israel" by name, let's examine those examples one by one: 

• “Accusing the Jews as a people, or "Israel" as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.” 

Of course, holocaust denial is atrocious, but using the Holocaust to further a political agenda is equally unforgivable. During the Holocaust, Zionists made deals with the Nazis to help bolster their settler-colonialist agenda; many detailed books have been written on this subject, notably 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis by Lenni Brenner and most recently Zionism During the Holocaust by Tony Greenstein.

• “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.” 

In fact, it is the Zionist ideology itself that creates this “dual loyalty”, and from its inception, Jewish opposition to Zionism was based on the dangers inherent in pushing this “Jewish nation-state” concept. They knew that this would be an excuse for many countries to deny them their existing respective nationalities. The strongest opposition to the Balfour Declaration within the British Government came from its only Jewish member, Sir Edwin Montagu, who wrote: “Zionism has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom…I assert that there is not a Jewish nation…When the Jews are told that Palestine is their national home, every country will immediately desire to get rid of its Jewish citizens…” (My emphasis)

By equating Zionism with Judaism, by constantly pushing the theme that the “Jewish community” is attached to "Israel", the Zionists are responsible for most of the confusion surrounding the loyalty issue. Whether by design or blunder, this increases anti-Semitism.

• “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.”

This example was referenced by multiple speakers during the Vancouver City Council debate, all of whom pointed out the overwhelming evidence that yes, indeed, "Israel" IS a racist endeavor (and always was). To claim that a state founded on exclusive privilege for one group over another is not a racist endeavor is the ultimate insult to the Palestinian lived experience.

*Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, wrote in his book The Jewish State in 1896: “We should there form a portion of the rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. 
* The ”nation-state” law declared that the Jewish people “have an exclusive right to national self-determination” in "Israel". 
* International human rights organizations Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRW), the Israeli human rights groups B’Tselem and Yesh Din, and all Palestinian human rights organizations have established that "Israel" is guilty of the crime of apartheid (institutional racism).

• “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

True “democratic nations” do not practice apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes; further, "Israel" as a settler-colonialist venture, with the longest military occupation in modern history, is in a class of its own.

Still, this particular point has often been used by the Zionist lobby to attempt to discredit the global BDS movement, even going so far as to falsely compare it to the Nazi Boycott of Jews in Germany. If there are any “double standards”, they are practiced in favor of "Israel". Canada has imposed sanctions against 22 countries, 9 of them in the Middle East, but the worst violators of human rights are not on the list … "Israel" and Saudi Arabia (not to “single out” "Israel"). And the US employs the same duplicitous policy, sanctioning multiple countries but never "Israel", thus allowing impunity for Israeli war crimes. 

• “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize 'Israel' or Israelis.”

This example has been used to smear those saying or reporting that "Israel" is killing Palestinian children; accordingly, if you do so, you are “libelling” the Jews, which once again conflates Jews with "Israel".

• “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

Actually, many Jewish intellectuals, and even former Israeli military officials, have done so. On Dec. 4, 1948, Albert Einstein and other intellectuals wrote a letter to the New York Times describing the Zionist Herut party, the predecessor of Likud, the current ruling party in "Israel", as “a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.” That letter concluded by “…urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism”. It was the Israeli philosopher and professor, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who coined the phrase, Judeo-Nazi. And Avraham Shalom, former head of the Shin Bet, stated in the documentary The Gatekeepers: “On the other hand, it’s a brutal occupation force, similar to the Germans in World War II. Similar, but not identical.”

• “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of 'Israel'."

In essence, this is the only example mentioning "Israel" that is valid. However, it’s a complete flip from the previous six examples, which consistently equated and conflated "Israel" with all Jews, and Jews with "Israel".  By doing so, all the previous six examples promote anti-Semitism, in addition to promoting anti-Palestinian racism.

Zionism always thrived on anti-Semitism. The founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, recognized this fact and described anti-Semitism as the “propelling force” and declared: “Anti-Semitism has grown and continues to grow, and so do I.” He also stated: “The governments of all countries scourged by anti-Semitism will be keenly interested in assisting us to obtain the sovereignty we want.”

One really questions if Zionists know or care that their aggressive tactics with the IHRA definition promote anti-Semitism and create resentment. Not just because they conflate Jews with "Israel", but because they also send the message that one form of racism is more repugnant than all others.

Is "Israel", which was created over the skulls of the indigenous Palestinian people, really the safe haven for the Jews as Zionists claim? History has proven, and will further prove, otherwise.