Here we list instances of people being accused of antisemitism, with the likely intention to silence them, where they have in fact been "guilty" only of criticism of Israel.
The difference between antisemitism and criticism of Israel should be clear enough, but can perhaps be best illustrated by articles such as
At times like this, it is more important than ever to distinguish between the hostility to or prejudice against Jews on the one hand and legitimate critiques of Israeli policies and system of injustice on the other.
...
We urge our governments, municipalities, universities and other institutions to reject the IHRA definition [see below] ...
Israel does not represent us and cannot speak for us when committing crimes against Palestinians
The Court has found that the impugned passages in the interview and the sermon say critical and disparaging things about the actions of Israel and in particular the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza and about Zionists, but that the ordinary, reasonable listener would not understand those things to be about Jewish people in general. That person would understand that not all Jews are Zionists and that disparagement of Zionism constitutes disparagement of a philosophy or ideology and not a race or ethnic group. Also, political criticism of Israel, however inflammatory or adversarial, is not by its nature criticism of Jews in general or based on Jewish racial or ethnic identity. The conclusion that it is not antisemitic to criticise Israel is the corollary of the conclusion that to blame Jews for the actions of Israel is antisemitic; the one flows from the other.(see further paragraphs 107 and following in the judgment).
Often, though, people don't get this (or pretend not to). For example, this article, originally headed If you support the Palestinian cause in any form, you’re facilitating Jew-hate, by Melanie Phillips. (For an account of how it has been changed, see here.) So here is a reality check for her: the Israel government is facilitating Israeli-hate, and the more you push the narrative identifying Jew with Israeli, the more you facilitate this being translated to Jew-hate.
Another article by the same author is Don’t fall for bogus claims of ‘Islamophobia’, which contains such gems as 'The concept of “Islamophobia” is thus profoundly anti-Jew'. So why am I linking to these articles, when I think they are completely bonkers? Well, it is to encourage you to not to be fooled by anyone who says commentary or opinions about Israel/Palestine is antisemitic.
Meanwhile you would be excused for assuming this article is satire: Bake sales for Gaza could stoke Jew hatred, EU warns - well, it's not. It goes on
Fundraisers for Gaza make ‘Jews feel uncomfortable’, says Europe’s anti-Semitism tsar.
...
She’s hostile to any sign of solidarity with the Palestinians, calling it ‘ambient anti-Semitism’
Other cases of the same phenomenon:
The Anti-Defamation League has classified the event [a protest organized by Jewish Voice for Peace] - and dozens of other protests led by Jewish groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow — as “anti-Israel,” according to an analysis by The Intercept, and added them to their database documenting rising antisemitism across the U.S.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance provided a so-called Definition of Antisemitism. It has been trenchantly criticised by several leading lawyers:
The anti-Zionism equals antisemitism argument drains the word antisemitism of any useful meaning. For it means that to count as an antisemite, it is sufficient to hold any view ranging from criticism of the policies of the current Israeli government to denial that Israel has the right to exist as a state, without having to subscribe to any of those things which historians have traditionally regarded as making up an antisemitic worldview: hatred of Jews per se, belief in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, belief that Jews generated communism and control capitalism, belief that Jews are racially inferior and so on. Moreover, while theoretically allowing that criticism of Israeli governments is legitimate, in practice it virtually proscribes any such thing.
And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing - the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance.
Let me add to these some briefer comments of my own. Here is the "definition", with my emphases and [my interpolations or comments]
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may [or, presumably, may not] be expressed as hatred toward Jews [and presumably, may or may not be expressed otherwise].So what have we learnt about it so far? Only that it is something to do with attitudes antagonistic to Jews, which is more than what we get from the second sentence, which I won't bother to quote. As Prof Avi Shlaim says "It fails even to meet the most elementary requirement of a definition, which is to define." (quoted here, para 97)
Then follows a section about examples. With a prefatory paragraph
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel [that is what this is really all about] conceived as a Jewish collectivity [I'm not sure what that means].The rest of that paragraph is probably uncontroversial. Then it goes on to more specific examples, introduced by this text
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 toThat is, the 11 examples following may or may not be examples of antisemitism and anything else may or may not be an example of antisemitism. And that's it. Truly!
In fact as an example of saying nothing, this rather reminds me of the sentence I found once on Wikipedia, "The parasang may have originally been some fraction of the distance an infantryman could march in some predefined period of time."
So what is happening here is that the proponents would counter criticism by saying "it says only could include, not do include", but then, when organisations have adopted, or been pressured to adopt, the IHRA definitions, including all the examples (eg see here) they would treat those examples as antisemitic by virtue of the definition. That is, they ignore the fact that the examples may or may not be examples of antisemitism. So it is pertinent to look at those examples. Strikingly, the majority of them mention Israel, and some of these don't even refer to Jewish people. Which gives an idea of the concerns of the definition's proponents.
The weirdest one, to me, is the 7th example:
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.A "right to self-determination" sounds nice, but give it a moment's thought. Does any similarly identifiable group have such a right? (Or should it?) How about the Sikhs, or the Sinhalese, or the Tamils in Sri Lanka, or all Tamils? And what does having a "right to self-determination" mean anyway? Does it mean
And then, coming to the second half of that example, why is criticising Israel as racist (even if such criticism were knowingly wrong, and thereby suggestive of anti-Israel prejudice) anything to do with a "right to self-determination"? See this article, As Jews, we reject the myth that it's antisemitic to call Israel racist.
The IHRA definition has been defended against criticism, sometimes along the lines of "it has no legal effect", and/or "it doesn't actually define anything to be antisemitic". Unfortunately it has been used as though it does. Here is a long report by the European Legal Support Center and British Society for Middle Eastern Studies, The Adverse Impact of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism in UK Higher Education, where universities were pressured by the UK Government to "adopt" (whatever that means) the "definition".
And here is an article discussing the text of the definition and its usage, Why calling Israel an apartheid state or racist is not anti-Semitic, by Ben White. Likewise, Jewish group opposes adoption of IHRA definition of antisemitism.
Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)accompanied by 15 guidelines.
Antisemitism consists of anti-Jewish beliefs, attitudes, actions or systemic conditions. It includes negative beliefs and feelings about Jews, hostile behavior directed against Jews (because they are Jews), and conditions that discriminate against Jews and significantly impede their ability to participate as equals in political, religious, cultural, economic, or social life.
Specifically, proponents of Zionism wilfully and recklessly perpetuate a basic falsehood: that support for Palestine is antisemitism.
Indeed, the real enemies of Jews are those who debase the memory of Jewish suffering by equating principled opposition to Israel’s illegal and immoral policies with anti-Semitism.(quoted from Why an Economic Boycott of Israel is Justified)
Due to religious belief, we oppose the existence of the State of Israel, its occupation of Palestine, and condemn its ongoing wars and atrocities inside and outside Palestine.
Ever since the establishment of the Zionist entity in Palestine, the indigenous people of Palestine have suffered unprecedented levels of oppression, including occupation, killings, and theft—all of which are clear violations of the laws of the Torah.
“pained by the parallels I observe between my experiences in Germany prior to 1939 and those suffered by Palestinians today”and here
“Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism... it is a political ideology. Criticising Israel’s crimes is not antisemitic; it is our moral duty.”He was accused of "judeophobia". He was interviewed several times by Electronic Intifada
Every day we learn more about how remarkably repulsive and aggressive Israel’s genocide is in Gaza. And it doesn’t matter whether you’re Jewish like I am
Omer Bartov who writes here
My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people.He was involved in an open letter, said to equate Israel’s occupation of the West Bank with apartheid
...
The continued denial of this designation ... is a threat to the very foundations of the moral order on which we all depend.
He seems to have been involved in several open letters:
Complaint lodged against barrister who tweeted ‘Zionism is a kind of racism’. Conveniently the article includes the content of the tweet, as follows:
“Zionism is a kind of racism. It is essentially colonial. It has manifested in an apartheid regime calling itself “the Jewish state” that dominates non-Jews, and particularly Palestinians. You can’t practice anti-racism at the same time as identifying with, or supporting, Zionism.”The article goes on to say
According to the ... IHRA, a contemporary example of antisemitism is ...As I've pointed out in detail above, that is not correct: it may be ...
Apparently the Bar Standards Board rejected the complaint. This article, by the Campaign Against Antisemitism (which had made the complaint),