05.06.25
Editorial Note
Last month, German media published an article titled „Wir unterstützen die Linke im Antisemitismus-Streit“ (“We support die Linke in the anti-Semitism dispute”) about a petition by a group of scholars supporting the German political party die Linke (the Left) in its adoption of the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism.
The petition is signed by 55 academics, among them Israelis. The academics stated, “We support the adoption by the die Linke Party of the Jerusalem Declaration as a guideline in the fight against antisemitism.” They explained, “As concerned scholars, we support the decision of the die Linke at its recent party congress to adopt the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA). This step underscores the die Linke’s firm commitment to combating antisemitism while protecting fundamental freedoms. The JDA was developed by renowned academics from relevant academic disciplines who are as deeply concerned about the rise of antisemitism as they are about the erosion of free speech and other democratic freedoms.”
According to the German report, the JDA is supported by some 375 scholars, most of them Jewish and/or Israelis, who specialize in antisemitism, Jewish history, racism, Middle Eastern history, and other relevant fields. For the petitioners, “the JDA enjoys the authority of true expert opinion.”
Admittingly, “The JDA is a direct response to the shortcomings of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. There is broad academic consensus worldwide that the IHRA definition lacks clarity and is used more as a political tool than as an educational tool and a precise definition of antisemitism. The adoption of the IHRA definition by governments is largely the result of political campaigns by actors aligned with the Israeli government… there is ample evidence that the IHRA definition is being exploited by illiberal forces to undermine civil liberties and human rights. While the IHRA definition conflates criticism of Israel and antisemitism, the JDA fundamentally distinguishes between these phenomena while highlighting where they potentially overlap.”
The petitioners declare, “There is no evidence that antisemitic speech or acts of violence have decreased since then.”
The petitioners argue, “We therefore believe that the JDA provides a better framework for discussing contentious issues. It strikes a careful balance between combating antisemitism on the one hand and preserving freedom of speech and other democratic freedoms on the other. This balance is essential for a credible and effective fight against antisemitism. We don’t believe that definitions should serve as regulatory and disciplinary tools—that role should be reserved exclusively for law and order. Rather, the purpose of definitions is to provide guidance and serve as an educational tool, since reality is always far more complex than definitions can possibly be.”
Among the list of signatories are some Israeli names, including radical anti-Israel activists that IAM covered before: Gadi Algazi, Omer Bartov, Louise Bethlehem, Daniel Boyarin, Avraham Burg, Naomi Chazan, David Enoch, Shai Ginsburg, Amos Goldberg, Neve Gordon, Elad Lapidot, Nitzan Lebovic, Itamar Mann, Anat Matar, Atalia Omer, Orna Ophir, Miri Rubin, Raz Segal, David Shulman, Tamir Sorek, Yael Zerubavel, Moshe Zimmermann.
Worth noting that the JDA was created by a group of political activist-academics at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute in 2020 with the aim to reject the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, which came out in 2016.
IAM discussed the JDA in 2021, noting that this document unveiled its political agenda. It declared its support for “the Palestinian demand for justice and the full grant of their political, national, civil and human rights, as encapsulated in international law.” Similarly, the JDA wishes 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.”
IAM argued that the JDA fails to mention that in Palestinian parlance, the “demand for justice and the full grant of their political, national, civil and human rights” is a euphemism for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian state on its ruins. Similarly, the Palestinian demand for a “binational state” or a “unitary democratic state” has been used by the PLO since the late 1960s as a code for the transformation of Israel into an Arab state in which Jews are reduced to a permanent minority living on the sufferance of the Muslim majority, a status known in Islamic history as Dhimmis. As for dismantling the “occupation,” this was effectively ended in January 1996 when Israel relinquished control of 95% of the West Bank’s Palestinian population in line with the Oslo Accords.
IAM noted that the key problem with the JDA is its claim that “Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism” is not antisemitic.
The JDA rejected the IHRA Definition because the IHRA argues that antisemitic “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.”
As IAM reported, the Van Leer JDA group explained the motives behind their Jerusalem Declaration. In a workshop explaining the Declaration, they stated, “The working definition adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016 was endorsed widely but quickly became a site of controversy. In recent months this controversy has become more intense. In November 2020, 122 Palestinian and Arab academics, journalists, and intellectuals issued a statement that declared their opposition to antisemitism and to the IHRA’s working definition thereof, which purportedly promotes the suppression of Palestinian rights.”
The JDA was created by radical activist academics to fit a Palestinian agenda and to block the widely accepted IHRA Definition. It failed to stop the increased popularity of the latter. As of mid-2024, 40 countries have formally endorsed the IHRA, along with numerous regional governments, municipalities, universities, and organizations. More importantly, the JDA has lost credibility by trying to separate antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
Since the October 7 war, the level of antisemitic incidents has surged dramatically. In its latest and most dangerous form, Jews are being targeted and even murdered simply for being perceived as Zionists—a trend tragically illustrated by recent incidents in Washington, D.C., and Colorado.
More consequentially, the fact that the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem—widely regarded as a prestigious academic institution both in Israel and internationally—serves as the birthplace of the JDA lends the Declaration a veneer of legitimacy. This has been particularly significant in the international arena, where pro-Palestinian activists are eager to showcase Jewish, and especially Israeli, support for their cause.
Over the last two decades, IAM has demonstrated that Van Leer housed some of the most radical Israeli academic activists.
The stakes today are far higher because—regardless of the fanciful theories advanced by the JDA—Jews are being attacked and even killed around the world simply for being identified as an extension of Israel, the Jewish state.
Germany, which adopted the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism in 2017, should take note.
REFERENCES:
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism
Definition
Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).
Guidelines
A. General
1. It is racist to essentialize (treat a character trait as inherent) or to make sweeping negative generalizations about a given population. What is true of racism in general is true of antisemitism in particular.
2. What is particular in classic antisemitism is the idea that Jews are linked to the forces of evil. This stands at the core of many anti-Jewish fantasies, such as the idea of a Jewish conspiracy in which “the Jews” possess hidden power that they use to promote their own collective agenda at the expense of other people. This linkage between Jews and evil continues in the present: in the fantasy that “the Jews” control governments with a “hidden hand,” that they own the banks, control the media, act as “a state within a state,” and are responsible for spreading disease (such as Covid-19). All these features can be instrumentalized by different (and even antagonistic) political causes.
3. Antisemitism can be manifested in words, visual images, and deeds. Examples of antisemitic words include utterances that all Jews are wealthy, inherently stingy, or unpatriotic. In antisemitic caricatures, Jews are often depicted as grotesque, with big noses and associated with wealth. Examples of antisemitic deeds are: assaulting someone because she or he is Jewish, attacking a synagogue, daubing swastikas on Jewish graves, or refusing to hire or promote people because they are Jewish.
4. Antisemitism can be direct or indirect, explicit or coded. For example, “The Rothschilds control the world” is a coded statement about the alleged power of “the Jews” over banks and international finance. Similarly, portraying Israel as the ultimate evil or grossly exaggerating its actual influence can be a coded way of racializing and stigmatizing Jews. In many cases, identifying coded speech is a matter of context and judgement, taking account of these guidelines.
5. Denying or minimizing the Holocaust by claiming that the deliberate Nazi genocide of the Jews did not take place, or that there were no extermination camps or gas chambers, or that the number of victims was a fraction of the actual total, is antisemitic.
B. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are antisemitic
6. Applying the symbols, images and negative stereotypes of classical antisemitism (see guidelines 2 and 3) to the State of Israel.
7. Holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s conduct or treating Jews, simply because they are Jewish, as agents of Israel.
8. Requiring people, because they are Jewish, publicly to condemn Israel or Zionism (for example, at a political meeting).
9. Assuming that non-Israeli Jews, simply because they are Jews, are necessarily more loyal to Israel than to their own countries.
10. Denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality.
C. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are not antisemitic
· (whether or not one approves of the view or action)
11. Supporting the Palestinian demand for justice and the full grant of their political, national, civil and human rights, as encapsulated in international law.
12. Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. 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.
13. Evidence-based criticism of Israel as a state. This includes its institutions and founding principles. It also includes its policies and practices, domestic and abroad, such as the conduct of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza, the role Israel plays in the region, or any other way in which, as a state, it influences events in the world. It is not antisemitic to point out systematic racial discrimination. In general, the same norms of debate that apply to other states and to other conflicts over national self-determination apply in the case of Israel and Palestine. Thus, even if contentious, it is not antisemitic, in and of itself, to compare Israel with other historical cases, including settler-colonialism or apartheid.
14. Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic.
15. Political speech does not have to be measured, proportional, tempered, or reasonable to be protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and other human rights instruments. Criticism that some may see as excessive or contentious, or as reflecting a “double standard,” is not, in and of itself, antisemitic. In general, the line between antisemitic and non-antisemitic speech is different from the line between unreasonable and reasonable speech.
===========================================================
IHRA
Working definition of antisemitism
In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.
On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
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. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
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 to:
- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
- Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
- Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
- 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.
- 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.
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.
============================================================
Definition of antisemitism“We support the Left in the anti-Semitism dispute”
Documentation: 55 academics support the Left Party, which has committed itself to the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA).
May 17, 2025
10:15 a.m
Statement by 55 academics: “We support the adoption by the Left Party of the Jerusalem Declaration as a guideline in the fight against antisemitism.”
As concerned scholars, we support the decision of the Left Party at its recent party congress to adopt the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA). This step underscores the Left Party’s firm commitment to combating antisemitism while protecting fundamental freedoms.
The JDA was developed by renowned academics from relevant academic disciplines who are as deeply concerned about the rise of antisemitism as they are about the erosion of free speech and other democratic freedoms. The JDA is now supported by approximately 375 scholars, most of them Jewish and/or Israeli, who specialize in antisemitism, Jewish history, racism, Middle Eastern history, and other relevant fields. Accordingly, the JDA enjoys the authority of true expert opinion.
The JDA is a direct response to the shortcomings of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. There is broad academic consensus worldwide that the IHRA definition lacks clarity and is used more as a political tool than as an educational tool and a precise definition of antisemitism.
The adoption of the IHRA definition by governments is largely the result of political campaigns by actors aligned with the Israeli government. There is no evidence that antisemitic speech or acts of violence have decreased since then. However, there is ample evidence that the IHRA definition is being exploited by illiberal forces to undermine civil liberties and human rights.
While the IHRA definition conflates criticism of Israel and antisemitism, the JDA fundamentally distinguishes between these phenomena while highlighting where they potentially overlap. We therefore believe that the JDA provides a better framework for discussing contentious issues. It strikes a careful balance between combating antisemitism on the one hand and preserving freedom of speech and other democratic freedoms on the other. This balance is essential for a credible and effective fight against antisemitism.
We don’t believe that definitions should serve as regulatory and disciplinary tools—that role should be reserved exclusively for law and order. Rather, the purpose of definitions is to provide guidance and serve as an educational tool, since reality is always far more complex than definitions can possibly be.
Against this background, we fully support the adoption of the JDA by The Left Party, as it provides precisely the guidance that is needed now. We encourage The Left Party to confidently stand by this decision, which should stimulate deeper and broader reflection in Germany on how best to combat antisemitism. We are available for further consultation if necessary.
The signatories can be found after the English text version
Statement by 55 scholars: “We support the endorsement by Die Linke party of the Jerusalem Declaration as a guiding tool in the fight against antisemitism”
As concerned scholars, we support the decision of Die Linke party at its recent congress to endorse the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA). This step reflects Die Linke’s strong commitment to fighting antisemitism while protecting fundamental freedoms.
The JDA was developed by a group of scholars from renowned institutes and universities, who are deeply concerned about the rise of antisemitism as well as about the erosion of free speech and other democratic freedoms. By now, the JDA has been endorsed by some 375 scholars, most of whom are Jewish and many Israeli, who specialize in antisemitism, Jewish history, racism, Middle Eastern history and other relevant fields. Accordingly, the JDA carries the authority of a real expert opinion.
The JDA is a direct response to the flaws of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. Globally, there is broad scholarly consensus that the IHRA definition lacks clarity and that it serves more as a political instrument than as an educational tool and accurate definition of antisemitism.
The political adoption of the IHRA definition by governments is largely the result of political campaigns by actors aligned with the Israeli government. No evidence exists that antisemitic speech or violence have decreased following these adoptions. However, there is ample evidence that the IHRA definition is being instrumentalized by illiberal forces to undermine civil liberties and human rights.
While the IHRA definition conflates criticisms of Israel and antisemitism, the JDA makes a principled distinction between these phenomena, while showing where they can potentially overlap. Therefore, we believe, the JDA offers a better framework for debating contentious issues, striking a careful balance between the fight against antisemitism and the upholding of free speech and other democratic freedoms. Striking this balance is essential for fighting anti-Semitism in a credible and effective manner.
We do not believe in definitions serving as regulatory and disciplinary tools – that role should be exclusively allocated to the law. The purpose of definitions is rather to offer guidance and serve as educational tools, as reality is always more complex than definitions can be.
Against this background, we wholeheartedly support Die Linke’s endorsement of the JDA, which offers the very guidance now needed. We encourage Die Linke to confidently stand by this decision, which should inspire deeper and broader reflection in Germany on how antisemitism can best be countered. From our side, we remain available for further advice, if needed.
Taner Akçam, Professor, Director of Armenian Genocide Research Program at PAI, UCLA
Gadi Algazi, Professor, Department of History and Minerva Institute for German History, Tel Aviv University
Bonnie S. Anderson, Professor Emerita of History, Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York
Seth Anziska, Professor of Jewish-Muslim Relations, Department of Hebrew and Jewish Studies, University College London
Leora Auslander, Arthur and Joann Rasmussen Professor of Western Civilization, Department of History, University of Chicago
Omer Bartov, Dean’s Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Department of History, Brown University
Doris Bergen, Chancellor Rose and Ray Wolfe Professor of Holocaust Studies, University of Toronto
Louise Bethlehem, Associate Professor, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Paul Betts, Professor of Modern European History, St Antony’s College, University of Oxford
Daniel Boyarin, Taubmann Professor Emeritus of Talmudic Culture, UC Berkeley
Renate Bridental, Professor (ret.), Department of History, Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Darcy Buerkle, Professor, Department of History, Smith College
Avraham Burg, former chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel and former speaker of the Israeli parliament Knesset
Naomi Chazan, Professor Emerita of Political Science, Hebrew University of Jerusalem; former Member of Knesset for Meretz
Bryan Cheyette, Professor and Chair in Modern Literature and Culture, University of Reading
Lila Corwin Berman, Paul & Sylvia Steinberg Professor of American Jewish History; Director Goldstein-Goren Center for American Jewish History
Hasia R. Diner, Professor, New York University
Deborah Dwork, Professor, Director Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, City University of New York
David Enoch, Professor, Philosophy Department and Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, University of Oxford
David Feldman, Professor, Director Birkbeck Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, University of London
Anna Foa, Associate Professor (ret.) of Modern History, University of Sapienza, Rome
Shai Ginsburg, Associate Professor, Chair Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Duke University
Amos Goldberg, Professor, The Jonah M. Machover Chair in Holocaust Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Neve Gordon, Professor of international human rights and humanitarian law, School of Law, Queen Mary University of London
Leonard Grob, Dr., Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Fairleigh Dickinson University
Atina Grossmann, Professor of History, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Cooper Union, New York
Wolf Gruner, Professor of History, Shapell-Guerin Chair in Jewish Studies, University of Southern California
Dagmar Herzog, Distinguished Professor of History and Daniel Rose Faculty Scholar, The Graduate Center, City University of New York
Uffa Jensen, Professor Dr., Center for Research on Antisemitism, TU Berlin, Germany
Marion Kaplan, Professor Emerita of Hebrew and Judaic Studies, New York University
Brian Klug, Dr., Honorary Fellow in Social Philosophy, Campion Hall, University of Oxford
Elad Lapidot, Professor of Hebrew Studies, University of Lille
Nitzan Lebovic, Professor of History, Apter Chair of Holocaust Studies, Lehigh University
Mark Levene, Dr., Emeritus Fellow, University of Southampton and Parkes Institute for the Study of Jewish/non-Jewish Relations
Itamar Mann, Associate Professor of Law, University of Haifa; Humboldt Fellow, Humboldt University
Anat Matar, Dr., Senior Lecturer in Philosophy (ret.), Tel Aviv University
David Mednicoff, Associate Professor of Middle Eastern Studies and Public Policy, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Ralf Michaels, Professor Dr., Director Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg
Susan Neiman, Professor, Director Einstein Forum
Mary Nolan, Professor Emerita of History, New York University
Atalia Omer, Professor of Religion, Conflict and Peace Studies, The University of Notre Dame
Orna Ophir, Associate Director, The DeWitt Wallace Institute of Psychiatry: History, Policy and the Arts, Weill-Cornell Medical College, New York
Mark Roseman, Distinguished Professor in History, Pat M. Glazer Chair in Jewish Studies, Indiana University
Michael Rothberg, Professor of English, Comparative Literature, and Holocaust Studies, UCLA
Miri Rubin, Professor of Medieval and Modern History, Queen Mary University of London
Stefanie Schüler-Springorum, Professor Dr., Director of the Center for Research on Antisemitism, TU Berlin
Raz Segal, Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Stockton University
David Shulman, Professor Emeritus, Department of Asian Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tamir Sorek, Liberal Arts Professor of Middle East History and Jewish Studies, Penn State University
Barry Trachtenberg, Rubin Presidential Chair of Jewish History and Professor of History, Wake Forest University
Enzo Traverso, Professor in the Humanities, Department of History, Cornell University
Peter Ullrich, Dr. phil. Dr. rer. med., senior researcher/fellow, Center for the Study of Antisemitism, Technical University of Berlin
Hent de Vries, Professor of Religious Studies (Chair), German, Comparative Literature, and Affiliated Professor of Philosophy, New York University
Yael Zerubavel, Professor Emerita of Jewish Studies and History, Rutgers University
Moshe Zimmermann, Professor Emeritus, The Richard Koebner Minerva Center for German History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
============================================================
Scholars endorse the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism: “Answer to the shortcomings”
May 16, 2025, 5:24 p.m.
Statement by 53 researchers on the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism
As concerned scholars, we support the decision of the Left Party at its recent party conference to adopt the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA). This step underscores the Left Party’s firm commitment to combating antisemitism while protecting fundamental freedoms.
The JDA was developed by renowned scholars from relevant academic disciplines who are as deeply concerned about the rise of antisemitism as they are about the erosion of freedom of speech and other democratic freedoms.
The persons
Taner Akçam (Professor, Director of Armenian Genocide Research Program at PAI, UCLA), Gadi Algazi (Professor, Department of History and Minerva Institute for German History, Tel Aviv University), Bonnie S. Anderson (Professor Emerita of History, Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York), Seth Anziska (Professor of Jewish-Muslim Relations, Department of Hebrew and Jewish Studies, University College London), Leora Auslander (Arthur and Joann Rasmussen Professor of Western Civilization, Department of History, University of Chicago), Omer Bartov (Dean’s Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Department of History, Brown University), Doris Bergen (Chancellor Rose and Ray Wolfe Professor of Holocaust Studies, University of Toronto), Louise Bethlehem (Associate Professor, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Daniel Boyarin (Taubmann Professor Emeritus of Talmudic Culture, UC Berkeley), Renate Bridental (Professor (ret.), Department of History, Brooklyn College, City University of New York), Darcy Buerkle (Professor, Department of History, Smith College), Avraham Burg (former chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel and former speaker of the Israeli parliament Knesset), Naomi Chazan (Professor Emerita of Political Science, Hebrew University of Jerusalem; former Member of Knesset for Meretz), Bryan Cheyette (Professor and Chair in Modern Literature and Culture, University of Reading), Lila Corwin Berman (Paul & Sylvia Steinberg Professor of American Jewish History; Director, Goldstein-Goren Center for American Jewish History), Hasia R. Diner (Professor, New York University), Deborah Dwork (Professor, Director, Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, City University of New York), David Enoch (Professor, Philosophy Department and Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem / University of Oxford), David Feldman (Professor, Director, Birkbeck Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, University of London), Anna Foa (Associate Professor (ret.) of Modern History, University of Sapienza, Rome), Shai Ginsburg (Associate Professor, Chair, Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Duke University), Amos Goldberg (Professor, The Jonah M. Machover Chair in Holocaust Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Neve Gordon (Professor of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, School of Law, Queen Mary University of London), Leonard Grob (Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Fairleigh Dickinson University), Atina Grossmann (Professor of History, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Cooper Union, New York), Wolf Gruner (Professor of History, Shapell-Guerin Chair in Jewish Studies, University of Southern California), Dagmar Herzog (Distinguished Professor of History and Daniel Rose Faculty Scholar, The Graduate Center, City University of New York), Uffa Jensen (Professor Dr., Center for Antisemitism Research, TU Berlin, Germany), Marion Kaplan (Professor Emerita of Hebrew and Judaic Studies, New York University), Brian Klug (Dr., Honorary Fellow in Social Philosophy, Campion Hall, University of Oxford), Elad Lapidot (Professor for Hebraic Studies, University of Lille), Nitzan Lebovic (Professor of History, Apter Chair of Holocaust Studies, Lehigh University), Mark Levene (Dr., Emeritus Fellow, University of Southampton and Parkes Institute for the Study of Jewish/non-Jewish Relations), Itamar Mann (Associate Professor of Law, University of Haifa; Humboldt Fellow, Humboldt University), Anat Matar (Dr., Senior Lecturer in Philosophy (ret.), Tel Aviv University), David Mednicoff (Associate Professor of Middle Eastern Studies and Public Policy, University of Massachusetts-Amherst), Ralf Michaels (Professor Dr., Director, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg), Susan Neiman (Professor, Director, Einstein Forum), Mary Nolan (Professor Emerita of History, New York University), Atalia Omer (Professor of Religion, Conflict and Peace Studies, The University of Notre Dame), Orna Ophir (Associate Director, The DeWitt Wallace Institute of Psychiatry: History, Policy and the Arts, Weill-Cornell Medical College, New York), Mark Roseman (Distinguished Professor in History, Pat M. Glazer Chair in Jewish Studies, Indiana University), Michael Rothberg (Professor of English, Comparative Literature, and Holocaust Studies, UCLA), Miri Rubin (Professor of Medieval and Modern History, Queen Mary University of London), Stefanie Schüler-Springorum (Professor Dr., Director, Zentrum für Antisemitismusforschung, TU Berlin), Raz Segal (Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Stockton University), David Shulman (Professor Emeritus, Department of Asian Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Tamir Sorek (Liberal Arts Professor of Middle East History and Jewish Studies, Penn State University), Barry Trachtenberg (Rubin Presidential Chair of Jewish History and Professor of History, Wake Forest University), Enzo Traverso (Professor in the Humanities, Department of History, Cornell University), Peter Ullrich (Dr. phil. Dr. rer. med., Senior Researcher/Fellow, Center for the Study of Antisemitism, Technische Universität Berlin), Hent de Vries (Professor of Religious Studies (Chair), German, Comparative Literature, and Affiliated Professor of Philosophy, New York University), Moshe Zimmermann (Professor Emeritus, The Richard Koebner Minerva Center for German History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem).
The JDA is now supported by approximately 375 scholars, most of them Jewish and/or Israeli, who specialize in antisemitism, Jewish history, racism, Middle Eastern history, and other relevant fields. Accordingly, the JDA enjoys the authority of true expert opinion.
The JDA is a direct response to the deficiencies of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. There is broad academic consensus worldwide that the IHRA definition lacks clarity and is used more as a political tool than as an educational tool and a precise definition of antisemitism.
The adoption of the IHRA definition by governments is largely the result of political campaigns by actors aligned with the Israeli government. There is no evidence that antisemitic speech or acts of violence have decreased since or as a result of it. However, there is ample evidence that the IHRA definition is being exploited by illiberal forces to undermine civil liberties and human rights.
Definitions are intended to provide guidance
While the IHRA definition conflates criticism of Israel and antisemitism, the JDA fundamentally distinguishes between these phenomena while highlighting where they potentially overlap.
We therefore believe that the JDA provides a better framework for discussing contentious issues. It strikes a careful balance between combating antisemitism on the one hand and preserving freedom of speech and other democratic freedoms on the other. This balance is essential for a credible and effective fight against antisemitism.
We do not believe that definitions should serve as regulatory and disciplinary tools—that role should belong exclusively to law and order. Rather, the purpose of definitions is to provide guidance and serve as an educational tool, since reality is always far more complex than definitions can be.
Against this background, we fully support the adoption of the JDA by The Left Party, as it provides precisely the guidance needed now. We encourage The Left Party to confidently stand by this decision, which should stimulate deeper and broader reflection in Germany on how best to combat antisemitism.
We are available for further consultation if necessary.
https://www.fr.de/kultur/gesellschaft/mehr-als-50-wissenschaftler-bekennen-sich-zur-sogenannten-jerusalemer-erklaerung-zum-antisemitismus-antwort-auf-die-maengel-93736809.htmlWissenschaftler bekennen sich zu Jerusalemer Erklärung zum Antisemitismus: „Antwort auf die Mängel“
Stand: 16.05.2025, 17:24 Uhr
Demonstration in New York, hier nach der Festsetzung des Palästinensers M. Khalil. © Imago Images
Stellungnahme von 53 Forschenden
zur Jerusalemer Erklärung zum Antisemitismus
Als besorgte Wissenschaftler unterstützen wir die Entscheidung der Partei Die Linke auf ihrem jüngsten Parteitag, die Jerusalemer Erklärung zum Antisemitismus (JDA) anzunehmen. Dieser Schritt unterstreicht das feste Engagement der Partei Die Linke, Antisemitismus zu bekämpfen und gleichzeitig die Grundfreiheiten zu schützen.
Die JDA wurde von renommierten Wissenschaftlern der entsprechenden universitären Fachrichtungen entwickelt, die über den Anstieg des Antisemitismus genauso tief besorgt sind wie über die Aushöhlung der Redefreiheit und anderer demokratischer Freiheiten.
Die Person
Taner Akçam (Professor, Director of Armenian Genocide Research Program at PAI, UCLA), Gadi Algazi (Professor, Department of History and Minerva Institute for German History, Tel Aviv University), Bonnie S. Anderson (Professor Emerita of History, Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York), Seth Anziska (Professor of Jewish-Muslim Relations, Department of Hebrew and Jewish Studies, University College London), Leora Auslander (Arthur and Joann Rasmussen Professor of Western Civilization, Department of History, University of Chicago), Omer Bartov (Dean’s Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Department of History, Brown University), Doris Bergen (Chancellor Rose and Ray Wolfe Professor of Holocaust Studies, University of Toronto), Louise Bethlehem (Associate Professor, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Daniel Boyarin (Taubmann Professor Emeritus of Talmudic Culture, UC Berkeley), Renate Bridental (Professor (ret.), Department of History, Brooklyn College, City University of New York), Darcy Buerkle (Professor, Department of History, Smith College), Avraham Burg (former chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel and former speaker of the Israeli parliament Knesset), Naomi Chazan (Professor Emerita of Political Science, Hebrew University of Jerusalem; former Member of Knesset for Meretz), Bryan Cheyette (Professor and Chair in Modern Literature and Culture, University of Reading), Lila Corwin Berman (Paul & Sylvia Steinberg Professor of American Jewish History; Director, Goldstein-Goren Center for American Jewish History), Hasia R. Diner (Professor, New York University), Deborah Dwork (Professor, Director, Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, City University of New York), David Enoch (Professor, Philosophy Department and Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem / University of Oxford), David Feldman (Professor, Director, Birkbeck Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, University of London), Anna Foa (Associate Professor (ret.) of Modern History, University of Sapienza, Rome), Shai Ginsburg (Associate Professor, Chair, Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Duke University), Amos Goldberg (Professor, The Jonah M. Machover Chair in Holocaust Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Neve Gordon (Professor of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, School of Law, Queen Mary University of London), Leonard Grob (Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Fairleigh Dickinson University), Atina Grossmann (Professor of History, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Cooper Union, New York), Wolf Gruner (Professor of History, Shapell-Guerin Chair in Jewish Studies, University of Southern California), Dagmar Herzog (Distinguished Professor of History and Daniel Rose Faculty Scholar, The Graduate Center, City University of New York), Uffa Jensen (Professor Dr., Zentrum für Antisemitismusforschung, TU Berlin, Germany), Marion Kaplan (Professor Emerita of Hebrew and Judaic Studies, New York University), Brian Klug (Dr., Honorary Fellow in Social Philosophy, Campion Hall, University of Oxford), Elad Lapidot (Professor for Hebraic Studies, University of Lille), Nitzan Lebovic (Professor of History, Apter Chair of Holocaust Studies, Lehigh University), Mark Levene (Dr., Emeritus Fellow, University of Southampton and Parkes Institute for the Study of Jewish/non-Jewish Relations), Itamar Mann (Associate Professor of Law, University of Haifa; Humboldt Fellow, Humboldt University), Anat Matar (Dr., Senior Lecturer in Philosophy (ret.), Tel Aviv University), David Mednicoff (Associate Professor of Middle Eastern Studies and Public Policy, University of Massachusetts-Amherst), Ralf Michaels (Professor Dr., Director, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg), Susan Neiman (Professor, Director, Einstein Forum), Mary Nolan (Professor Emerita of History, New York University), Atalia Omer (Professor of Religion, Conflict and Peace Studies, The University of Notre Dame), Orna Ophir (Associate Director, The DeWitt Wallace Institute of Psychiatry: History, Policy and the Arts, Weill-Cornell Medical College, New York), Mark Roseman (Distinguished Professor in History, Pat M. Glazer Chair in Jewish Studies, Indiana University), Michael Rothberg (Professor of English, Comparative Literature, and Holocaust Studies, UCLA), Miri Rubin (Professor of Medieval and Modern History, Queen Mary University of London), Stefanie Schüler-Springorum (Professor Dr., Director, Zentrum für Antisemitismusforschung, TU Berlin), Raz Segal (Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Stockton University), David Shulman (Professor Emeritus, Department of Asian Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Tamir Sorek (Liberal Arts Professor of Middle East History and Jewish Studies, Penn State University), Barry Trachtenberg (Rubin Presidential Chair of Jewish History and Professor of History, Wake Forest University), Enzo Traverso (Professor in the Humanities, Department of History, Cornell University), Peter Ullrich (Dr. phil. Dr. rer. med., Senior Researcher/Fellow, Center for the Study of Antisemitism, Technische Universität Berlin), Hent de Vries (Professor of Religious Studies (Chair), German, Comparative Literature, and Affiliated Professor of Philosophy, New York University), Moshe Zimmermann (Professor Emeritus, The Richard Koebner Minerva Center for German History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem).
Mittlerweile wird die JDA von rund 375 Wissenschaftlern, die meisten davon jüdisch und/oder israelisch, unterstützt, die auf Antisemitismus, jüdische Geschichte, Rassismus, Geschichte des Nahen Ostens und andere relevante Bereiche spezialisiert sind. Dementsprechend verfügt die JDA über die Autorität einer echten Expertenmeinung.
Die JDA ist eine direkte Antwort auf die Mängel der IHRA-Arbeitsdefinition von Antisemitismus. Weltweit besteht breiter wissenschaftlicher Konsens darüber, dass es der IHRA-Definition an Klarheit mangelt und sie eher als politisches Instrument eingesetzt wird, statt als pädagogisches Hilfsmittel und als präzise Definition von Antisemitismus zu dienen.
Meine News
LINKE
Felix Klein übt scharfe Kritik an Antisemitismus-Definition
ANTISEMITISMUS
Antisemitismus-Definitionen: Was die Begriffe aussagen
PARTEITAG
Linke weckt Kritik mit Position zu Antisemitismus
KOMMENTAR
Linken-Parteitag in Chemnitz: Einigkeit wirkt
Dass die IHRA-Definition von Regierungen angenommen wurde, ist weitgehend Ergebnis politischer Kampagnen von Akteuren im Einklang mit der israelischen Regierung. Es gibt keinerlei Beweise dafür, dass antisemitische Äußerungen oder Gewalttaten seither und deshalb zurückgegangen sind. Es gibt jedoch ausreichend Belege dafür, dass die IHRA-Definition von illiberalen Kräften instrumentalisiert wird, um bürgerliche Freiheiten und Menschenrechte zu untergraben.
Definitionen sollen Orientierung bieten
Während die IHRA-Definition Kritik an Israel und Antisemitismus vermischt, unterscheidet die JDA prinzipiell zwischen diesen Phänomenen und zeigt gleichzeitig auf, wo sie sich potenziell überschneiden.
Wir sind daher der Meinung, dass die JDA einen besseren Rahmen bietet, um strittige Fragen zu erörtern. Denn sie stellt ein sorgfältiges Gleichgewicht zwischen dem Kampf gegen Antisemitismus einerseits und der Wahrung der Redefreiheit und anderer demokratischer Freiheiten andererseits her. Dieses Gleichgewicht ist für eine glaubwürdige und wirksame Bekämpfung des Antisemitismus unerlässlich.
Wir sind nicht der Meinung, dass Definitionen als Regulierungs- und Disziplinierungsinstrumente dienen sollten – diese Rolle sollte ausschließlich Recht und Gesetz zukommen. Der Zweck von Definitionen besteht vielmehr darin, Orientierung zu bieten und als pädagogisches Hilfsmittel zu dienen, da die Realität immer viel komplexer ist als Definitionen es sein können.
Vor diesem Hintergrund unterstützen wir die Annahme der JDA durch die Partei Die Linke voll und ganz, da sie genau die Orientierung bietet, die jetzt nötig ist. Wir ermutigen Die Linke, selbstbewusst zu dieser Entscheidung zu stehen, die ein tieferes und breiteres Nachdenken in Deutschland darüber anregen sollte, wie Antisemitismus am besten bekämpft werden kann.
Falls erforderlich, stehen wir für weitere Beratung zur Verfügung.
israel-academia-monitor.com 