At various times during discussion of Israel and Palestine on Daily Kos, pro-Israelis will come up with a reference to the European Union having a definition of antisemitism and claiming that it has been officially adopted by the “European Commission”.
The matter is fudged on Wikipedia under the entry for “New antisemitism” (in part}
In September 2004, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, a part of the Council of Europe, called on its member nations to ensure that anti-racist criminal law covers antisemitism. In 2005, the EUMC offered a definition of antisemitism, [98] one that the British government was urged to adopt by a 2006 all-party parliamentary inquiry. Some contemporary examples included, but were not limited to:
There then follows a list of actions.
This set me off further investigating as those of you who know anything of European and EU institutions will know that the Council of Europe is not an EU body. Having tried to navigate the EU’s sometimes labarynthine web sites, not helped by a change in the name of the body, I contacted the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Today I received an answer to my email which states quite simply at the end:
Finally I stress once again that “working definition” is part of an ongoing process with no legal basis whatsoever.
This was the main part of my email to the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA):
I have great difficulty in finding on your site or the main Europa site a definition of “anti-semitism”. Is there one separate from the general treaties, including the Treaty of Amsterdam? Does it list activities which are automatically regarded as anti-semite and are there ones which must be judged separately?
If a separate definition exists, what status does this have within the acquis? Which EU bodies have endorsed this?
These questions are prompted by assertions I have had from certain pro-Zionists that I have encountered which claim the EU regards criticising actions by the state of Israel’s actions towards the Palestinians is defined by it as anti-semitism. This has also been
phrased in terms of “the oppressed becoming the oppressors”. Does the EU regard comparisons of actions by the Israeli governments to action by the Nazis or the apartheid regimes of South Africa to be automatically anti-semitic remarks? These appear to be the interpretations presented by those Americans I have encountered and it would seem that this would
have the effect of restricting criticism of another form of Xenophobia.
The response makes it clear that the “definition” is a working definition used by the FRA and its allied agencies for the purpose of data collection and “supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism”. The exact definition is solely:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed towards Jews and non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
It indeed lists actions and opinions which might be regarded as antisemitism but, and this is the part frequently omitted, “taking into account the overall context”.
The FRA also directed me to the background on this working definition.
The EUMC Report on Antisemitism published in March 2004 highlighted both the lack of operational definitions of antisemitism in most EU Member States and the insufficient data comparability due to the different methodologies used by primary data collectors.
In order to support the collection of more specific and relevant data and to have a very precise view on the developments of anti-Semitism the EUMC and OSCE/ODIHR consulted Jewish organisations like the European Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee , other major Jewish NGO’s and prominent academics. Informal discussions were held with a view to develop a common “working definition” in line with the theoretical arguments elaborated in the EUMC’s antisemitism report, whose author was also consulted to ensure that the working definition is compatible with the theoretical considerations outlined in the report, which was adopted by the EUMC’s Management Board.
This working definition has a practical purpose acting as a basic guide to both official and non-official primary data collecting agencies highlighting possible examples of antisemitism, taking into account the overall national context.
The text was sent to the EUMC’s RAXEN network (organizations based in each EU Member State contracted by the EUMC to collect data) for distribution among data collecting agencies in order to get feedback regarding its functionality, effectiveness and relevance to their country specific situation. The role of the network does not include primary data collection. However, since they interact with both official and non-official primary data collectors, they were asked to discuss this working definition with them and provide the EUMC with feedback regarding their views on its functionality. The text will be reviewed again with all those involved in the process and the next steps will be discussed with OSCE/ODIHR and the Jewish organisations.
For the EUMC the “working definition” is developed as a practical tool to support more accurate data collection and is part of an ongoing process having no legal basis. Similar “working definitions” for data collection proposes, improving comparability and effectiveness, will be also developed in the future for other subjects.
The OSCE/ODIHR’s involvement is particularly important, since they have announced that they will also be collecting data on antisemitism in the near future, and is therefore worthwhile to make an effort to ensure coherence and consistency.
What is clearly a tool to provide common standards of data collection has somehow been transformed into official EU policy in the eyes of some on Kos. It is also interesting to note that changes in definitions also have an affect on the data collected. To take one example, the number of racist incidents reported by the police in the UK rose significantly when the victim was asked if he considered the incident racist. Clearly country by country increases in antisemetic incidents can be recorded where the country’s definition remains the same. On the other hand, EU wide statistics may well be affected by the adoption of a common working definition and its accompanying notes.
