Dear Mr. Stern:
As commendable as your speaking out about the IHRA definition of antisemitism being used to silence speech is, I am mystified by your part in promulgating the definition in the first place. You have claimed that the definition was intended to study and track antisemitism, not to restrict speech. But the following examples serve no discernible purpose other than restriction of free speech and defense of Israel from criticism:
"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."
Amnesty International, Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, the author Peter Beinart, and many other individuals, groups, and institutions have described Israel's system of government as apartheid. That is, a racist form of government. A state in which Jews have superior rights to all other groups is obviously a racist endeavor. It is not antisemitic to state this.
"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."
Free speech guarantees the freedom to criticize any country, without the requirement that every other country which exhibits similar behavior must be included in the criticism. This example is simply absurd. It is, however, an AIPAC talking point, embraced by defenders of Israel.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
Does the description of Palestinians as "human animals" resemble Nazi propaganda films that equated swarming rats with Jews? What about computing the number of calories the people of Gaza need to survive, but no more? What about blocking all food, water, and electricity? What about killing more than 60,000 Palestinians (with no end in sight) because 800 Jewish civilians died on October 7, 2023?
Amnesty International, Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, the author Peter Beinart, and many other individuals, groups, and institutions have described Israel's system of government as apartheid. That is, a racist form of government. A state in which Jews have superior rights to all other groups is obviously a racist endeavor. It is not antisemitic to state this.
"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."
Free speech guarantees the freedom to criticize any country, without the requirement that every other country which exhibits similar behavior must be included in the criticism. This example is simply absurd. It is, however, an AIPAC talking point, embraced by defenders of Israel.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
Does the description of Palestinians as "human animals" resemble Nazi propaganda films that equated swarming rats with Jews? What about computing the number of calories the people of Gaza need to survive, but no more? What about blocking all food, water, and electricity? What about killing more than 60,000 Palestinians (with no end in sight) because 800 Jewish civilians died on October 7, 2023?
These are important questions that demand answers. You defend the definition you wrote, but imply it's being wrongly applied. When will you look at the actual examples chosen, and admit their only purpose is to defend the state of Israel, not protect Jews from antisemitism? And when will you work to have them removed?
As a Jewish woman who was raised with a strong awareness of the Jewish religion, the holocaust, and my grandparent's Yiddish Socialist background, I condemn the state of Israel for its human rights violations and the genocide it is conducting. Zionism, the political ideology you embrace, has ever and always been about Jewish supremacy. The IHRA definition, by including the above examples, as well as others, does not address antisemitism. It instead seeks to shield the state of Israel from criticism. When will you address these basic faults?
Sincerely,
Marcy