Nobody wants to be called an antisemite, and most of us think we’re doing enough to not be seen that way. But what if we told you that’s how a Jewish person might see you. Or even probably does see you, and they just don’t say anything about it.
This won’t be our usual sort of editorial. It will probably make you uncomfortable. It may make you angry. But whatever your reaction, please sit with it for a few days, and be open to changing your mind about some things.
We’re writing this because a majority of the Corvallis City Council is poised to make a decision that would redefine our community in the minds of most Jewish people. Maybe not every Jewish person, but the overwhelming majority.
We’ll look at what’s being considered, and what it means. But first, we should look at what antisemitism is, and how most Jewish people view Israel specifically. And from the outset, we need to say, we think it should be Jewish people that decide what antisemitism means, and when they believe they’re seeing and experiencing it.
We also think there are institutions that are widely well regarded by Jewish people, and that they can be helpful. For instance, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, offers what they call a working definition of antisemitism and eleven examples of antisemitism. It’s widely accepted worldwide as definitive.
“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,” says the IHRA definition.
They then add, or incorporate, an illustration, “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.”
They then add or incorporate what they call contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, workplaces, and the religious sphere. They also qualify those examples, saying the full context should be taken into account, and that they may not be all inclusive. Here is their list:
- 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.
Okay, that was the IHRA definition. Later, we’ll show you an alternative definition of antisemitism and why it’s far less adequate. It’ll only take two paragraphs, and it’s important.
For now, notice the IHRA’s incorporated illustration and examples of antisemitism include discussion of Israel. Many definitions do. And it’s important to understand why.
There’s about 15.7 million Jews globally. That’s 0.2% of the world’s population. About half, 46% of the world’s Jews live in Israel. Most years, the country experiences net inward migration. The modern state of Israel was formed shortly after the Holocaust in which about a third of the world’s Jews were killed. The country has since become a safe harbor for Jews fleeing persecution, and worse, in other parts of the world.
But Israel had already been central to many Jewish people before the Holocaust. For thousands of years, the Jewish diaspora desired and prayed for a return to what they view as their homeland. Part of that drive was spiritual or cultural. But it has also been about basic survival as a people, and many Jews believe the Holocaust could not have happened if there had been an Israel to flee to.
And even before the Holocaust, there had been the mass killing of Jews. There were the Crusades, Blood Libels, Spanish Inquisition and Massacres, and Russian and Middle Eastern Pogroms – and the list could go on.
Most scholars view, and many Jews report feeling, antisemitism as ancient and prevalent, and deadly for Jewish people. Many ethnic Jews say they ‘feel’ this history of antisemitism in their bones. As one staffer put it, “At some point in adolescence or your early twenties, it’ll just sneak up on you, you’ll feel your Jewishness and the deaths of your ancestors.”
Several readers recounted similar experiences to us.
Commentators and scholars in the Jewish community have sometimes asserted that this feature of deadly antisemitism has come to define Jewishness, but that equally they wish it didn’t. They point to Jewishness as a celebration of life and that likewise, that is what a vibrant and flourishing Isreal is about.
And American Jews do care about Israel. Pew Research found that 45% of America’s adult Jews have visited Israel. However, very few Americans immigrate there, in 2021 it was only about 4,000. Aliyah, or immigration to Israel, beyond escaping persecution, can also be about seeking a sense of belonging and place. For others that have lived in societies where folks are saying and doing things that are antisemitic, even unknowingly, just being a Jew among Jews can be a relief.
Perspectives, and differing narratives
Okay, so far, we’ve looked at Israel and antisemitism from a Jewish perspective. But it’s important to realize that many Palestinians will have a very different perspective. It also must be acknowledged that any examination of Israeli and Palestinian history, and the intricacies of their present-day positions relative to one another, would be a study of two different narratives. Many scholars point out that these narratives often feature similar facts, but different views of those facts. In short, two conflicting stories that are both true.
We are not picking one over the other, and we don’t believe doing so would bring either people any closer to peace or justice in this instance. Doing so could only stoke tensions here, locally, where we live.
However, the Corvallis City Council appears to believe differently. They are poised to embrace both a narrative and a side in a war, which will in turn deepen divides in our shared community.
What the Council is considering, BDS
In short, the Council is considering an Israeli divestment resolution, meaning Corvallis would be participatory in the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, or BDS. A list of disallowed investments for City funds would be developed. The resolution tries to avoid saying BDS directly but singularly refers to Investigate.info as a place the City could find lists of companies to financially divest from. When you navigate to the site, their lists have titles like, Divesting for Palestinian Rights and Companies Profiting from Gaza Genocide. Those lists share many commonalities with BDS lists.
Some will see the draft resolution’s title, A Resolution Prohibiting Investment in Genocide, Apartheid and Illegal Occupation, as misleading. But given how commonly that happens at all levels of government, we’ll just move on to considering the draft, and BDS generally.
The Palestinian BDS National Committee defines their movement as Palestinian led and asserts that Israel is a colonizing apartheid state that is committing genocide. The movement’s organizers, among many other things, urge banks, local councils, churches, pension funds, and universities to withdraw investments from the State of Israel and all Israeli and international companies that sustain what they view as Israeli apartheid.
Is the Council’s draft resolution antisemitic
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism offers an alternative definition of antisemitism, saying that, “Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).” They go on to offer guidelines, one of which states, “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.” But they also offer a guideline defining antisemitism as, “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.”
You can see how these Jerusalem Declaration guidelines conflict with one another. Like, the BDS movement calls for the exclusion of Israelis from FIFA, and even the UN. And yes, those callouts are on the BDS website. So, yeah, we’re pretty much done with the Jerusalem Declaration.
So, we return to the IHRA definition, which the Anti-Defamation League, or ADL applies ably to the consideration of BDS as either antisemitic or not.
And yes, we know some will see the ADL as problematic, even at our own newspaper, but that doesn’t mean they’ve not been salient, writing, “BDS presents a biased and simplistic approach to the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict, positioning this dispute over territorial and nationalist claims as the fault of only one party – Israel – while ignoring other actors and dynamics such as Palestinian shared responsibility for the continuation of the conflict. BDS advocates for self-determination for Palestinians while denying to Jews that same right.”
According to the ADL, the BDS movement often uses the words genocide, apartheid and colonialist so hyperbolically and inaccurately that they’ve reduced the terms to antisemitic epithets. They also see the movement’s requirements for people-to-people interactions and dialogue between Palestinians and Jews as inherently antisemitic.
In many respects, the ADL position is based on the so called Three D’s test, which stands for delegitimization, demonization, and double standards. It’s often used by activists, scholars and governmental officials worldwide to determine if a criticism of Israel has crossed over into antisemitism. Examining the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, you can see the similarities.
Reading the BDS movement’s statements on their own website, they are plainly seeking to delegitimize and demonize Israel, often using terms with specific meanings in international law hyperbolically, and quite inaccurately, and they are absolutely sophisticated enough to know that’s what they’ve done. The BDS application of double-standards is just as the ADL points out, and in practice, where BDS is adopted, generally, even more so. It’s not like the folks adopting BDS are also divesting from companies that profit from China’s treatment of the Uyghurs.
On balance, most Jewish advocacy organizations and think tanks from across the American and worldwide political spectrum view the BDS movement as implicitly antisemitic. Germany straight-up deemed it antisemitic.
But maybe even more centrally, like we said upfront, we believe it should be Jewish people that decide what antisemitism means, and when they believe they’re seeing and experiencing it.
And, when individual American Jews are polled, they are overwhelmingly against BDS, and most view it as antisemitic. The American Jewish Congress found 80% of Jews that know what BDS is see it as antisemitic. While there may be some in the local Jewish community that support BDS, the overwhelming majority almost certainly do not. Nationally, Pew found only 10% of Jews support BDS.
Many Corvallis Jews would see passage of this resolution as antisemitic. We are associating ourselves with that view. If the Council proceeds, they will change how Jewish people look at Corvallis for the foreseeable future. We would encourage the Councilors to reject this resolution fully, and to avoid any that are similar.
Our dream would be for a more compassionate dialogue. Last year, when the Council was considering a peace resolution, it came out that both local Jewish and Muslim people were encountering racism, frequently and right here in our shared community.
Working through that could be healing, and less divisive and punitive, even if doing so would be harder and less certain than what the Council is presently considering. If the Council chooses that direction, we’re here to help.
Do you have a story for The Advocate? Email editor@corvallisadvocate.com