Writing for 972 Magazine’s Hebrew edition, Professor Amos Goldberg praised New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani’s decision to rescind the city’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which his predecessor Eric Adams adopted. Goldberg is hardly alone in bristling at the widely accepted definition. For years, he and other Israeli post-Zionist professors have opposed the definition, arguing that it serves to suppress any criticism of the State of Israel.

Plenty of these academics hold positions of influence and authority in Israel and around the world, treated as token “experts,” seemingly granting antizionists a public relations victory. But many of their charges lack merit. Thankfully, this article has organized the bulk of these charges in a way, easy to address.

Goldberg claims, for example, that the IHRA definition “does not deal with antisemitism at all, but rather serves as a powerful instrument for setting the boundaries of discourse about Israel, silencing critical voices toward it and toward Zionism, and restricting freedom of expression.”

He is not telling the truth. In fact, the IHRA definition emphasizes that criticism of Israel similar to that directed against any other country is not considered antisemitic, and is legitimate. It explains, however, that when the word “Zionist” is used as code for “Jew” in order to evade accusations of violating freedom of speech, this reflects the evolution of antisemitism from its “traditional” religious form to its “modern” political form.

Antizionism is perceived as antisemitic because it denies the Jewish people the right to exist as a nation and rejects recognition of Israel both as a political entity and as an expression of Jewish self-determination, not because Israel ought to be immune to any criticism.

It is also important to note that the IHRA definition is not legally binding, even when adopted by a state, campus, or company. For example, Israel’s Ben-Gurion University, which accepts the IHRA’s definition, continued to employ Dr. Sebastian Ben Daniel after he made antisemitic remarks claiming that IDF soldiers were educated to be child killers. Ben Daniel did wind up being suspended for a few months, but this was a decision made independently by the college.

Goldberg’s claim that the definition “has also caused immeasurable harm to the determined struggle against ‘real’ antisemitism by turning it........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)