(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)

Michael T. ironically editorializes, “… we don’t need the … ADL [Anti-Defamation League]. to tell us what antisemitism is…,” in criticizing the National Education Association (“NEA”) for rejecting the ADL’s definition of antisemitism.  If we don’t need it, why is it antisemitic to decline to adopt it?

I decline to adopt it (that is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (“IHRA”) definition, “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,” because it is so vague as to defy interpretation, and thusly permits anyone to call any statement about Israel or Zionism other than unqualified sup-port for their decades of violations of international law “antisemitic.” 

In fact, the vague ADL definition is defined by eleven examples, some of which are fair statements of opinion or fact, and not hateful of Jews. For a few examples:

1. It may be that some if not many “Jewish citizens are more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.” Even if it were not true, positing that fact is certainly not antisemitic; indeed, it could be considered complimentary, suggesting that while they love their country, they are capable of seeing other people as well.
2. The statement, supported by Amnesty International after extensively examining the question, that Israel is an apartheid state, that is, “racist” is also fair game.
3. As is “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” A comparison does not even suggest there is an identity between the two. But even the World Court believes that it is a fair argument that what Israel is effectuating (see details below) is genocidal.

The definition essentially characterizes virtually all of the population of the world, including a large percentage of Jews in the United States, as antisemitic. The chief purpose of the redefinition of antisemitism is to deter, and failing that, punish people, including Jews such as myself, who exercise freedom of speech on three subjects in particular:

(1) the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Israeli government including (a) the killing of more than 56,000 noncombatants effectively because they are Palestinian; (b) the disappearing of unknown numbers of Palestinians; and (c) the deprivation of food and water from the remainder of the two million Palestinians living in Gaza; and (2) the unlawful expropriation of Palestinian land by settlers protected by the Israeli police and military.

By speaking out, I am neither a good or a bad Jew; but under the ADL definition, I am the latter. I find the definition offensive, discriminatory, and applaud its rejection by the NEA. Furthermore, by characterizing most of the world as “anti-Semitic,” the ADL ironically only promotes an exponential spread of antisemitism.

Mark S.

Somerville