www.theguardian.com Open in urlscan Pro
2a04:4e42:600::367  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

https://www.google.co.uk/search

<form action="https://www.google.co.uk/search" class="dcr-g8v7m4"><label for="src-component-16787" class="dcr-0">
    <div class="dcr-19ilr9m">Search input </div>
  </label><input type="text" id="src-component-16787" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false" aria-describedby="" required="" name="q" placeholder="Search" data-link-name="nav2 : search" tabindex="-1" class="selectableMenuItem dcr-1xcf7cw"><label
    class="dcr-0">
    <div class="dcr-19ilr9m">google-search </div>
    <div class="dcr-190ztmi"><svg width="30" viewBox="-3 -3 30 30" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" aria-hidden="true">
        <path fill-rule="evenodd" clip-rule="evenodd"
          d="M9.273 2c4.023 0 7.25 3.295 7.25 7.273a7.226 7.226 0 0 1-7.25 7.25C5.25 16.523 2 13.296 2 9.273 2 5.295 5.25 2 9.273 2Zm0 1.84A5.403 5.403 0 0 0 3.84 9.274c0 3 2.409 5.454 5.432 5.454 3 0 5.454-2.454 5.454-5.454 0-3.023-2.454-5.432-5.454-5.432Zm7.295 10.887L22 20.16 20.16 22l-5.433-5.432v-.932l.91-.909h.931Z">
        </path>
      </svg><span class="dcr-1p0hins">Search</span></div>
  </label><button type="submit" aria-live="polite" aria-label="Search with Google" data-link-name="nav2 : search : submit" tabindex="-1" class="dcr-a7qyd9">
    <div class="src-button-space"></div><svg width="30" viewBox="-3 -3 30 30" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" aria-hidden="true">
      <path fill-rule="evenodd" clip-rule="evenodd" d="M1 12.956h18.274l-7.167 8.575.932.932L23 12.478v-.956l-9.96-9.985-.932.932 7.166 8.575H1v1.912Z"></path>
    </svg>
  </button><input type="hidden" name="as_sitesearch" value="www.theguardian.com"></form>

Text Content

Skip to main contentSkip to navigation
Print subscriptions
Sign in
Search jobs
Search
US edition
 * US edition
 * UK edition
 * Australia edition
 * International edition

The Guardian - Back to homeThe Guardian


SUPPORT THE GUARDIAN

Fund independent journalism with $5 per month
Support us

Support us
 * News
 * Opinion
 * Sport
 * Culture
 * Lifestyle

ShowMoreShow More
 * News
   * View all News
   * US news
   * World news
   * Environment
   * Soccer
   * US politics
   * Business
   * Tech
   * Science
   * Newsletters
   * Fight for democracy
   
 * Opinion
   * View all Opinion
   * The Guardian view
   * Columnists
   * Letters
   * Opinion videos
   * Cartoons
   
 * Sport
   * View all Sport
   * Soccer
   * NFL
   * Tennis
   * MLB
   * MLS
   * NBA
   * NHL
   * F1
   * Golf
   
 * Culture
   * View all Culture
   * Film
   * Books
   * Music
   * Art & design
   * TV & radio
   * Stage
   * Classical
   * Games
   
 * Lifestyle
   * View all Lifestyle
   * Fashion
   * Food
   * Recipes
   * Love & sex
   * Home & garden
   * Health & fitness
   * Family
   * Travel
   * Money
 * Search input
   google-search
   Search
   
   
    * Support us
    * Print subscriptions

   US edition
   * UK edition
   * Australia edition
   * International edition
   
 * * Search jobs
   * Digital Archive
   * Guardian Puzzles app
   * Guardian Licensing
   * The Guardian app
   * Video
   * Podcasts
   * Pictures
   * Inside the Guardian
   * Guardian Weekly
   * Crosswords
   * Wordiply
   * Corrections
 * * Facebook
   * Twitter
 * * Search jobs
   * Digital Archive
   * Guardian Puzzles app
   * Guardian Licensing

 * US
 * World
 * Environment
 * Soccer
 * US Politics
 * Business
 * Tech
 * Science
 * Newsletters
 * Fight for democracy


‘Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and special adviser, wrote in the New
York Times that the definition ‘makes clear [that] Anti-Zionism is
antisemitism.’ Photograph: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
‘Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and special adviser, wrote in the New
York Times that the definition ‘makes clear [that] Anti-Zionism is
antisemitism.’ Photograph: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
OpinionAntisemitism

This article is more than 3 years old


I DRAFTED THE DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM. RIGHTWING JEWS ARE WEAPONIZING IT

This article is more than 3 years old
Kenneth Stern



The ‘working definition of antisemitism’ was never intended to silence speech,
but that’s what Trump’s executive order accomplished this week

Fri 13 Dec 2019 06.25 ESTLast modified on Tue 1 Nov 2022 04.19 EDT
 * 
 * 
 * 



Fifteen years ago, as the American Jewish Committee’s antisemitism expert, I was
the lead drafter of what was then called the “working definition of
antisemitism”. It was created primarily so that European data collectors could
know what to include and exclude. That way antisemitism could be monitored
better over time and across borders.

It was never intended to be a campus hate speech code, but that’s what Donald
Trump’s executive order accomplished this week. This order is an attack on
academic freedom and free speech, and will harm not only pro-Palestinian
advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the academy itself.


Donald Trump is attacking both Jews and the left with one clean blow
Kate Aronoff
Read more


The problem isn’t that the executive order affords protection to Jewish students
under title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Department of Education made clear
in 2010 that Jews, Sikhs and Muslims (as ethnicities) could complain about
intimidation, harassment and discrimination under this provision. I supported
this clarification and filed a successful complaint for Jewish high school
students when they were bullied, even kicked (there was a “Kick a Jew Day”).

But starting in 2010, rightwing Jewish groups took the “working definition”,
which had some examples about Israel (such as holding Jews collectively
responsible for the actions of Israel, and denying Jews the right to
self-determination), and decided to weaponize it with title VI cases. While some
allegations were about acts, mostly they complained about speakers, assigned
texts and protests they said violated the definition. All these cases lost, so
then these same groups asked the University of California to adopt the
definition and apply it to its campuses. When that failed, they asked Congress,
and when those efforts stalled, the president.

As proponents of the executive order like the Zionist Organization of America
make clear, they see the application of the definition as “cover[ing] many of
the anti-Jewish outrages … frequently led by … Students for Justice in
Palestine, including … calls for ‘intifada’ [and] demonizing Israel”. As much as
I disagree with SJP, it has the right to make “calls”. That’s called free
speech.

If you think this isn’t about suppressing political speech, contemplate a
parallel. There’s no definition of anti-black racism that has the force of law
when evaluating a title VI case. If you were to craft one, would you include
opposition to affirmative action? Opposing removal of Confederate statues?



Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and special adviser, wrote in the New
York Times that the definition “makes clear [that] Anti-Zionism is
antisemitism”. I’m a Zionist. But on a college campus, where the purpose is to
explore ideas, anti-Zionists have a right to free expression. I suspect that if
Kushner or I had been born into a Palestinian family displaced in 1948, we might
have a different view of Zionism, and that need not be because we vilify Jews or
think they conspire to harm humanity. Further, there’s a debate inside the
Jewish community whether being Jewish requires one to be a Zionist. I don’t know
if this question can be resolved, but it should frighten all Jews that the
government is essentially defining the answer for us.

The real purpose of the executive order isn’t to tip the scales in a few title
VI cases, but rather the chilling effect. ZOA and other groups will hunt
political speech with which they disagree, and threaten to bring legal cases.
I’m worried administrators will now have a strong motivation to suppress, or at
least condemn, political speech for fear of litigation. I’m worried that
faculty, who can just as easily teach about Jewish life in 19th-century Poland
or about modern Israel, will probably choose the former as safer. I’m worried
that pro-Israel Jewish students and groups, who rightly complain when an
occasional pro-Israel speaker is heckled, will get the reputation for using
instruments of state to suppress their political opponents.

Antisemitism is a real issue, but too often people, both on the political right
and political left, give it a pass if a person has the “right” view on Israel.
Historically, antisemitism thrives best when leaders stoke the human capacity to
define an “us” and a “them”, and where the integrity of democratic institutions
and norms (such as free speech) are under assault.

Rather than champion the chilling of expressions that pro-Israel Jews find
disturbing, or give the mildest criticism (if any) of a president who repeatedly
uses antisemitic tropes, why weren’t those Jewish officials who were present
when Trump signed the executive order reminding him that last year, when he
demonized immigrants and called them “invaders”, Robert Bowers walked into a
Pittsburgh synagogue because he believed Jews were behind this “invasion” of
brown people as part of a plot to harm white people, and killed 11 of us?

 * Kenneth Stern is the director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, and
   the author of the forthcoming The Conflict Over the Conflict: The
   Israel/Palestine Campus Debate

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you move on, I wondered if you would
consider taking the step of supporting the Guardian’s journalism. 

It’s that time again: all eyes are on the supreme court, as we await the final
decisions of the session. One year after the court overturned Roe v Wade, its
approval ratings are at record lows and its legitimacy in crisis. 

That should come as no surprise: a far-right movement has helped seat justices
who have redefined public life through precedent-shattering decisions that most
Americans do not support. In addition to taking away the right to abortion from
half the country, the supreme court has enabled a deluge of money into politics,
the proliferation of guns in public spaces, the gutting of environmental
protections and more.

As recent revelations have made clear, some supreme court justices do not follow
basic ethical standards, and an absence of limits on their power means they can
operate, in many ways, above the law. 

That makes the job of journalists all the more important. At the Guardian, our
reporting is produced to serve the public interest; we have no billionaire owner
or shareholders to consider. And our unique, reader-supported model means that
readers around the world can access the Guardian’s paywall-free journalism
– whether they can afford to pay for news, or not.

Help us hold power to account by supporting the Guardian’s journalism today. If
you can, please consider supporting us just once from $1, or better yet, support
us every month with a little more. Thank you.

Betsy Reed

Editor, Guardian US





Contribution frequency
Single
Monthly
Annual

Contribution amount
$5 per month
$7 per month
Other
Continue

Remind me in August
Topics
 * Antisemitism
 * Opinion

 * Trump administration
 * US politics
 * comment

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Reuse this content





MOST VIEWED


MOST VIEWED



 * US
 * World
 * Environment
 * Soccer
 * US Politics
 * Business
 * Tech
 * Science
 * Newsletters
 * Fight for democracy

 * News
 * Opinion
 * Sport
 * Culture
 * Lifestyle

Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning
Sign up for our email

 * About us
 * Help
 * Complaints & corrections
 * SecureDrop
 * Work for us
 * California resident – Do Not Sell
 * Privacy policy
 * Cookie policy
 * Terms & conditions
 * Contact us

 * All topics
 * All writers
 * Digital newspaper archive
 * Facebook
 * YouTube
 * Instagram
 * LinkedIn
 * Twitter
 * Newsletters

 * Advertise with us
 * Guardian Labs
 * Search jobs


Back to top
© 2023 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights
reserved. (modern)