fbpx
77.7 F
Spokane
Thursday, June 13, 2024
HomeNewsIsrael-Hamas War1,200 Jewish professors urge Senate to reject antisemitism definition

1,200 Jewish professors urge Senate to reject antisemitism definition

Date:

Related stories

Sravasti Abbey’s ‘Explore Buddhism’ retreat helps young adults find peace and confidence

Sravasti Abbey to host young adult retreat this weekend where they will discover new insights, meet like-minded friends and find peace.

Southern Baptists don’t get votes to add ‘only men’ pastors language to constitution

Find out why the proposed change in Southern Baptist Convention constitution to allow women pastors in the did not receive the required two-thirds majority.

How I navigated the rhetoric and realities of climate change through a spiritual lens

Learn about the 20-year scientific foundation of climate change and the author's spiritual understanding on how to raise awareness and take action against this global challenge.

Adventist couple tackles homelessness with compassion in rural Washington town

Learn about the inspiring work of the Bacons' and their Hope Street projects in Colville, WA, addressing homelessness and offering hope.

Is God a freethinker?

Debating the compatibility of free thinking and religious belief. Is it possible to believe in God and still be a free thinker?

Our Sponsors

spot_img
spot_img

1,200 Jewish professors urge Senate to reject antisemitism definition

News Story by Yonat Shimron | Religion News Service

Some 1,200 Jewish university professors have signed a strongly-worded statement rejecting a controversial antisemitism definition that the U.S. Senate is considering codifying in federal law.

The Statement from Concerned Jewish Faculty Against Antisemitism was delivered to key congressional leaders on Tuesday (May 14), including Senate Democrats, members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce as well as Biden’s White House Liaison to the American Jewish community.

The Jewish professors’ statement opposes any effort to enshrine into federal law the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which they say conflates antisemitism with criticism of the state of Israel. Among the signers is Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe, journalist and professor Peter Beinart and Yale law and history professor Samuel Moyn.

The IHRA definition has come under immense criticism for stating that manifestations of antisemitism “might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” It offers several examples, such as: “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.”

The professors’ statement reads: “Criticism of the state of Israel, the Israeli government, policies of the Israeli government, or Zionist ideology is not — in and of itself — antisemitic.”

U.S. House passed Antisemitism Awareness Acts

Earlier this month, in an effort to crack down on antisemitic speech on college campuses, the U.S. House overwhelmingly passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which uses the controversial IHRA definition. Senate leaders in both parties are now weighing whether it has enough backing to come to a vote in their chamber.

Meanwhile, as many as 40 states have either enshrined the controversial definition into state law or adopted it by resolution. Most recently, last week the Republican-dominated North Carolina House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed The Shalom Act using the IHRA definition and sent it to the state Senate. Across the world, 35 countries have adopted it.

The professors say that in an attempt to silence criticism of Israel, the act would violate free speech, trample over academic freedom and undermine Jewish safety.

“Our unifying opposition to this bill helps to surface what might actually be a silent majority of Jewish faculty and students on university campuses who have for the past six months been rather quiet, but are now taking a concerted stand against this bill in particular, but also the broader weaponization of antisemitism,” said Jonathan Feingold, a law professor at Boston University’s School of Law and one of the leaders behind the statement.

Feingold, who has been tracking laws passed by Republican-dominated state governments that make it unlawful to discuss racism, sexual orientation or the full history of the United States, sees the Antisemitism Awareness Act as part of a larger attack on academic freedom, First Amendment rights and diversity and inclusion initiatives.

“The same politicians and right-wing activists who are rhetorically centering antisemitism as a sensible concern are at the same time actively undermining the civil rights infrastructure within our universities,” he said.

Antisemitism laws actually attacks on free speech, professor said

Those attacks on civil society and free speech include the aggressive police crackdown on campus encampments in the past month, the arrests and suspensions of Jewish students and other activists and the cancellation of graduation ceremonies.

“I don’t know of a single instance where it has been used against white supremacists who are making racist claims about Jews,” said Barry Trachtenberg, a professor of Jewish history at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, referring to IHRA laws. “But it’s almost exclusively been used as a means by which to stop Palestinians from speaking about their experience under Israeli rule and for allies of Palestinians to address Israeli human rights abuses.”

Trachtenberg was part of a group of scholars who drafted an alternative definition of antisemitism presented in 2021 called the Jerusalem Declaration. That declaration recognizes that antisemitism and anti-Zionism are “categorically different.”

It further states, “It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants ‘between the river and the sea,’ whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form.”

The 1,200 Jewish professors in their statement explicitly refer to this and another definition, the Nexus Document, as better alternatives.

“By stifling criticism of Israel, the IHRA definition hardens the dangerous notion that Jewish identity is inextricably linked to every decision of Israel’s government,” the professors’ statement says. “Far from combating antisemitism, this dynamic promises to amplify the real threats Jewish Americans already face.”

Religion News Service
Religion News Servicehttps://religionnews.com
Religion News Service (RNS) aims to be the largest single source of news about religion, spirituality and ideas. We strive to inform, illuminate and inspire public discourse on matters relating to belief and convictions.

Our Sponsors

spot_img
spot_img
5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x