An inexplicable blank cheque

Last week, on occasion of the International Women's Day I posted an article about how witch hunts were still alive and well in the twenty first century, whereby opinions that contradicted the general narrative in controversial matters are systematically prosecuted and cleansed, in a display of what we can only label as "cancel culture". One of the cases I mentioned was the forced resignation of a prominent researcher in a German scientific institution. I tagged the situation as plain and simple cowardice by the institution because I understand that the public can be subject (i.e. manipulated) of an outrage, but it should be the task of our decision makers to keep a cool head and resist the uproar of the masses when it is unjustified or plainly illegal. However, the case troubled me so much that I investigated further and the situation is much worse than I anticipated on three different fronts.

The first troubling aspect is that the response of the institution was dressed as compliance, because there is apparently a definition of what constitutes antisemitism and the institution, rather than arguing why the analysis of an anthropologist should be exempt from this kind of considerations, shielded itself behind the definition and force him to resign. There is no worse kind of cowardice than the one that hides behind the structures of power to not only stay out of trouble, but also be able to sleep well at night with the argument that, if the laws are unjust it is the lawmakers that are at fault, and not the good citizens who comply with them. The 18th-century Irish statesman Edmund Burke is notably credited with saying that

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

but this is visibly worse, because it has good people actively working for the evil. Many authoritarian regimes have used this approach to ensure the widespread application of oppressive laws, such as present-day China, the Soviet Union and other instances that shall not be named. It is everyone's duty to fight against unjust laws, and especially for people in charge of research institution, since freedom and justice are almost unavoidable preconditions for good science.

Photo: Ian Corey

The second troubling aspect of this episode is that the definition of antisemitism used as a measuring stick in the case is neither a law nor a regulation issued by any elected body of government. Instead, it is dubbed "a working definition" created by an intergovernmental organization called the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). This organization is supported by different governments but it is not composed of elected officials and this is, from my point of view, problematic for any democrat. How can we be sure that this definition makes sense for our country? Why is the term defined by a panel of technocrats and not by our lawmakers? I understand that they can declared themselves incompetent in some scientific domains (e.g. biology, ecology, psychology), but this definition is purely political, which should be precisely their forte! Furthermore, the adoption of an external definition has the additional disadvantage of being binary: either you adopt it, and then do it as a whole, or you do not. There is no leeway to discuss and negotiate parts of it. And even if some discussions took place before this definition was initially issued, its own architecture prevents it from being amended. In summary, this is the work of some scholars which has been proposed to the lawmakers "as is". Not a very democratic process as you can see.

The third and final troubling aspect, and the most troubling one indeed, is the fact that this definition of antisemitism is intrinsically flawed. In its aim to clarify what is antisemitism, the result is so general that it includes many cases that should not be considered as such. This is not a conclusion of my own, but it was written by a (different) group of scholars which issued in 2020 the Jerusalem Declaration, explicitly pointing at the shortcomings of the IHRA definition (which cannot be changed, remember?). The working definition does a good job at protecting Jews as an ethnic group associated to a nation-state: that Jews or groups of Jews should not be attacked by the fact that they are Jewish, and that Jews should not be held accountable for the actions of the State of Israel. The first observation is applicable to any ethnicity or human group (racism, islamophobia, homophobia, etc.); the second one is also understandable for any nationality, as it is painfully present these days with Russian expatriates suffering because of the general rebuff of Putin's foreign policy. The definition also does a good job at stating that the Holocaust is not only an undeniable historical fact, but also that it was intentional and aimed at the extermination of Jews.

Where the IHRA definition fails miserably, and the Jerusalem Declaration accurately points out, is in its protection of Israel as a state. It is important to appreciate that not every group of Jews is a Jewish group, in the same way that not every soccer team with 11 Argentinian players is Argentinian national team. This is a distinction that the working definition fails to acknowledge when it tags as antisemitic "the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity". The definition goes on to decry the application of "double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation". The truth is that the situation of Israel is quite particular, so it does not easily lends itself to comparisons with other democratic nations. Additional entries in their list of examples further curtail the possibility to exercise legitimate criticism on the State of Israel.

The bottom line is that the IHRA has largely extended a blank cheque to Israel as a state by creating such a wide definition of antisemitism that would definitely cover accepted critiques exercised by the international community towards other countries. It is precisely at this point where the decision makers in every country should choose between bravery and cowardice, between the rightful and the convenient. On December last year, Russia-American journalist Masha Gessen, of Jewish descent, published this article in The New Yorker pointing out the lack of backbone of the European countries in their Middle East policies. Ironically, thanks to that article, they never got to receive the Hannah Arendt Award for Political Thought because of the accusation of antisemitism (!?).

I understand that the historical debt of Germany towards the Jews is huge, in the same way as the one of the US against the former slaves, but their cases are not unique. It is a source of hope that both the harm inflicted upon the victims and the responsibility of the perpetrators has been acknowledge. It is also a very human (and humane) feeling, when in doubt, to try to side with "the weak ones", with the victims. But it is essential not to loose the perspective and realize that being a victim does not protect anyone from the risk of being an aggressor in the future. It is an unpleasant situation and it takes a lot of courage to point out the injustices that former victims might create. Not everyone might have the aplomb to do so, but it is everyone's duty to defend and protect the right of those courageous people to exercise legitimate criticism. Anything else is censorship, cancel culture and extending an inexplicable blank cheque.

Have a nice evening.