This is a cross-post from Marc’s Words
Once upon a time there was a ‘working definition of anti-Semitism’ created by a bunch of experts on the subject. It was created under the auspices of European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) and subsequently occupied a space on their website. The working definition was also adopted by the National Union of Students as their own benchmark for measuring what does and what does not constitute anti-Semitism. When the EUMC was replaced by the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) the definition was removed from the website.
And there the story ended. No one noticed. No one cared. Except for Ben White. He noticed and was rather pleased. So pleased he wrote about it. Then he wrote about it again.
After White wrote one of his blog posts about it Dr Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre wrote an open letter to Lady Ashton requesting that the working definition be placed on the website of the FRA. White got such a kick out of this that he wrote his second blog post about it. The headline reads “Pro-Israel groups keen to revive discredited anti-Semitism definition.”
The only thing that White actually gets right in his blog posts is that the working definition is not on the FRA website.
There are a lot of accusations and statements made in White’s post on Electronic Intifada where he gleefully argues that the EUMC working definition was removed from the FRA website because it was “unfit for purpose”. He got that from speaking to Ioannis Dimitrakopoulos the head of the FRA’s Equality and Citizens’ Rights Department, he wrote that;
In 2012, head of the FRA’s Equality and Citizens’ Rights Department Ioannis Dimitrakopoulos told me that during discussions of racism and xenophobia monitors throughout the EU “it became evident that there was no interest by primary data collectors to adopt or use” the working definition. He also confirmed that the Fundamental Rights Agency “will not follow-up [the draft working definition] any further,” adding that the body “has no legal competence to develop itself any such ‘definitions.’”
It doesn’t seem to have occurred to Ben to ask just what or who constituted a ‘primary data collector’ so I asked Ioannis and here is his reply;
“as hate crime victims or witnesses report their experience or complaint to CRIF or CST directly, they are collectors of “primary” data.”
So Ben White is…agreeing with the CST? The CST told the FRA that the EUMC working definition wasn’t something they were going to “adopt” as a standard, one size fits all definition and White views that as some kind of victory? Why? This is the Jewish charity that the site White blogs on, Electronic Intifada, argued;
“Works behind the scenes with an assertively pro-Israel agenda not stated in its charitable remit. There are also serious questions over the CST’s links to the government of Israel and, allegedly, to its intelligence services.”
Unlike Ben White, rather than jump to my own self serving conclusions I actually got in touch with the ‘primary data collector’ and asked them for their take on the fact that the FRA don’t feature the EUMC definition on their site. Suffice it to say, they really didn’t care. No one cared. Except Ben White who thinks it gives him and his friends a green light to make Jews feel like shit about the fact that we overwhelmingly feel connected to Israel.
When speaking of overall data collection Dave Rich, the Deputy Communications Director of the CST, told me why there was no point in having a one size fits all definition of anti-Semitism, speaking of the survey recently undertaken by the FRA into anti-Semitism in Europe Rich said that;
“The survey did not seek to tell Jews what is or is not antisemitic. It relied on Jews to make that decision for themselves and reported their perceptions. This is how FRA approach all hate crime and discrimination. It is also the approach in UK law.”
He should know, he’s a primary data collector.
What is really stupid about this whole affair is that somehow White paints the fact that the working definition isn’t adopted by the FRA as evidence of it being a “discredited definition” of anti-Semitism. What the FRA said to him and to me is that the FRA is not a body that would seek to define for a religious or ethnic group what exactly is or is not a hate crime against them. As Ioannis explained to me;
“When conducting our recently published survey we presented respondents with a number of statements and asked them if they would consider a non-Jewish person to be antisemitic if they said this.”
This makes perfect sense. And really that is what’s so ridiculous in this whole sorry little affair. White wants to wade in and tell Jews what is and what is not an acceptable definition of anti-Semitism. The FRA most explicitly does not. White is happy because he thinks that the EUMC working definition defined anti-Semitism too widely, preventing him and his mates from being able to say the kinds of anti-Semitic things they, for some reason, find to be a necessary part of their anti-Israel campaigning. He is wrong, the FRA had no interest in the working definition because the parameters are too narrow. The FRA has no interest in turning around to Jews and telling them that their experiences of anti-Semitism don’t count or aren’t legitimate because they don’t conform to some exclusive definition that they use.
The working definition of anti-Semitism was put together by people who have dedicated their lives to combating hate crime against Jews to serve not as a legally binding document but as a guide to primary data collectors. As such a (now broken) link to the page remains on the website of the CST. That would be the same primary data collector that White argues didn’t find the EUMC definition (that they helped write) as “fit to task”.
Idiot.
Just to take us even further through the looking glass White tells us the following;
“In addition to these efforts from the likes of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and CAMERA, this week has also seen attempts to exploit the publication of the FRA’s new report, “Discrimination and hate crime against Jews in EU Member States: experiences and perceptions of antisemitism,” for a renewed promotion of the failed working definition. The seminal new survey does not even mention the definition.”
Of course the survey doesn’t mention it, they’re not using it. They aren’t telling Jews what anti-Semitism is they are asking about what they feel is anti-Semitic and the extent to which they feel subject to it in all its forms. Though the definition isn’t mentioned, the word ‘Israel’ is mentioned in the report 43 times. Of course if Ben had wanted to he could have actually examined the report instead of trying to use it as a way of browbeating the Jewish community. He could have asked himself why over 70% of Jews questioned felt that the term “Israelis behave like Nazis towards Palestinians” is an anti-Semitic statement. Then he could have read some more and asked himself why it is that so many of the things that Jews questioned find to be anti-Semitic appear on the Electronic Intifada website.
Then he could ask himself why it is he’s saying them.
Then he could stop.
