Antisemitism proclamation
I recently had the opportunity to attend a Mercer Island City Council meeting and to speak in support of a proposed city council proclamation endorsing the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism.
The IHRA definition has become the preeminent and most widely accepted definition and learning tool used around the world when it comes to understanding manifestations of antisemitism today. No other definition is as widely endorsed and utilized.
Nevertheless, I was astonished by the stream of other speakers, presumably fellow residents, who took issue with this seemingly no-brainer proposal that merely seeks to protect the safety and well being of the Island’s Jewish community.
The opponents of the proposal spoke strongly against it. According to them, somehow a proclamation designed to protect and support Jews from antisemitism here would somehow harm them, make them “less safe,” or “silence them.”
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Worse, without the perspective or lived experience of their Jewish neighbors, they purported to be able to define antisemitism better than the experts, and better than those who are actually impacted by this insidious disease.
Well, I AM Jewish, and this pervasive issue, antisemitism, actually personally affects me, my family and my community.
I grew up on Mercer Island and have lived here most of my life. My wife and I raised our children here. We always felt comfortable and welcome as Jews here. Until October 7th and its aftermath.
After the horrible massacre of October 7, everything changed. Soon after the attacks on Israel, the hate reared its ugly head locally. My synagogue here on Mercer Island, Herzl Ner Tamid, was vandalized with horrible antisemitic and anti-Israel graffiti and vandalism.
Those who spoke against the proposal claim that the IHRA definition of antisemitism would somehow “silence them” and “quash freedom of speech.” That it would prevent them from criticizing Israel.
The fault in that argument is that it’s patently untrue. The IHRA definition specifically states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
As Jews we are entitled to have a voice, if not the voice, as to what actually constitutes discrimination and hatred targeted against us as a community, as a people, as a religion, and a group with common ethnic and national origins.
It would be unconscionable in 2024 for anyone who is not Black, Asian, Native American, or LGBTQ+ to impose their views about the lived experience of those marginalized groups, or to presume to define what it means to discriminate against them. Those groups are uniquely positioned to define their shared experience and what it means to be discriminated against.
Similarly Jews, victims of antisemitism over millennia, are best positioned to represent their experience and define what it means for them to be discriminated against.
This is not controversial among most people, and certainly not among Jews.
I extend my deep appreciation to the Mercer Island City Council for maintaining objectivity and for approving, by a vote of 6-1, the Proclamation recognizing the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
Russell Federman, Mercer Island
–
Mercer Island did the right thing
The Mercer Island City Council did the right thing on July 16 when it took the important step of adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism by a 6-1 vote.
The non-legally binding IHRA definition has been adopted by dozens of nations, 35 states, the District of Columbia, as well as more than 1,100 local and regional governments and institutions across the globe. Among those, Washington counts several: Tacoma, Bellevue, Mill Creek, Bremerton, Snohomish County, the Port of Seattle, and now Mercer Island.
The IHRA Working Definition provides a compact definition of antisemitism, describing it as a “certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” The Definition also provides 11 contemporary examples of antisemitism, for those who are less familiar. A few of them include:
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.
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.
The IHRA Working Definition also offers concrete examples of antisemitism related to Israel, while stating explicitly that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” While the Definition has been criticized as stifling freedom of speech when it comes to Israel, in truth, it clearly does no such thing.
This definition should not be controversial. Yet, a small faction of activists opposed adopting the Working Definition on Mercer Island and tried to put forth an “alternative definition,” as if somehow they knew better than the clear majority of the Jewish community what bias or discrimination against Jews looks and feels like. As a recent letter to Congress in support of the IHRA Working Definition from American Jewish Committee (AJC), the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA), and 15 other American Jewish organizations reads, “to legitimize any of the alternate definitions would break international consensus and undermine anti-discrimination efforts domestically and abroad.”
If the goal is to protect those targeted by antisemitism, one should support the IHRA Working Definition because it is the definition of choice for the vast majority of the Jewish community. In addition to the nations, states, provinces, counties, and cities noted above, the IHRA Working Definition is endorsed by more than 160 Jewish communities and representative organizations hailing from 65 nations – alongside every major U.S. Jewish organization, including AJC, JFNA, the Anti-Defamation League and all three major Jewish religious denominations.
Those who speak out against the IHRA Working Definition send Jews the message they are more interested in protecting their ability to speak and act in ways which Jews recognize as harmful or even hateful rather than have an open and constructive dialogue. If any other minority group was treated this way, we would call it infantilizing and dehumanizing.
This truth is also a glaring example of why the IHRA Working Definition is needed more than ever. AJC’s 2024 Survey of American Jewish Opinion found that 90% of American Jews believe antisemitism is a problem in the U.S., and 87% say it has increased over the last five years. Just as concerning were the findings from AJC’s State of Antisemitism in America 2023 Report that 63% believe the status of Jews in the U.S. is less secure than a year ago, and 46% have altered their behavior or avoided certain places or events out of fear of antisemitism.
Given that, we should be thankful that Mercer Island’s elected leadership has listened to actual, representative Jewish voices. The city now has a clear, detailed, and globally recognized tool at its disposal to address antisemitism. It can also draw from AJC’s Call to Action Against Antisemitism in America, which offers a nonpartisan, society-wide guide to tackle antisemitism, with specific recommendations for local governments. Mercer Island now has an ample anti-hate toolkit and the resounding vote by the Council shows it will not be afraid to use it.
Jackson Pincus, Assistant Director, American Jewish Committee office in Seattle
