Definition would silence criticism

Irwin Cotler, the noted international human rights lawyer who was involved in the development of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, explains that, “to be able to combat antisemitism, you have to be able to recognize it, to identify it, and to define it.”

He points out that, in contradiction to (this article’s) thesis that the definition is being misused to label criticism of the state of Israel as antisemitic, the definition specifically says that criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country is not antisemitic.

However, (the definition posits that) singling out Israel as a sole target for claims about human rights violations is discriminatory.

As (the column) mentions, there are 11 illustrative examples included with the definition, but (it) focuses on only one: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.”

Marcia Zalev, Toronto

Thank you for your comprehensive article on the issues with the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

I’m sure you’ve received a lot of negative reactions and probably accusations of hating Jews. Please know that, while those voices may be loud, they do not represent all of us. In fact, a national survey of Jewish Canadians a couple years back found that 48 per cent of Jews believe accusations of antisemitism are used to silence criticism of Israel.

Israel’s human rights abuses are well documented and it shouldn’t be off limits to talk about them. Especially when the Canadian government takes positions that reinforce the systemic oppression and occupation of millions of Palestinians and when Canadian organizations target people who stand in solidarity with Palestinians.

So, thank you for being brave in covering this and in holding firm against the pressure you may be feeling as a reaction to your article.

Louise Smith, Toronto