March 9, 2020: Updates – Israeli election, IHRA definition of antisemitism

By Michael Regenstreif

Israeli election

As this issue went to press on February 28, I can’t comment yet on the results of the March 2 election in Israel – its third in less than a year after governing coalitions were not formed after the first two.

The latest opinion polls still showed Likud and Blue and White running neck-and-neck, with each winning 33 to 35 of the Knesset’s 120 seats – although it appears that Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu may be closer to finding enough coalition partners needed to form a government than he was after the last two elections.

IHRA definition of antisemitism

In my column last issue, I wrote about the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and noted that Canada – which adopted the definition in 2017 – was among the growing list of countries (now 33) to recognize the definition.

I also mentioned that Bill 168, An Act to Combat Antisemitism – a private member’s bill introduced by MPP Will Bouma – would, if passed, make Ontario the first province to adopt the definition. I’m pleased to report that Bill 168 passed second reading unanimously at Queen’s Park on February 27.

Bill 168 has now been sent to the standing committee on justice policy for review – including public input – before it returns to the legislature for third and final reading before final passage.

You can be sure that there will be briefs and/or testimonies at the committee opposed to Bill 168. Despite the fact that the IHRA explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic,” groups and individuals seeking to delegitimize the very existence of the State of Israel push a nonsensical narrative that the IHRA definition “criminalizes” any and all criticism of Israel.

As I pointed out last issue, the IHRA definition does provide parameters pointing out how criticism of Israel can cross the line into antisemitism by “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,” or “using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis,” or “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” or “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.” But such antisemitic criticism in and of itself will not result in criminal charges. However, when such criticism motivates criminal acts, police and the courts could be guided in determining when criminal acts are also hate crimes.

So, when Ontario’s standing committee on justice policy does ask for public input on Bill 168, it is important that we make our voices heard in support. In an era when antisemitism and antisemitic hate crimes are on the rise, a commonly accepted definition of what constitutes antisemitism is important.