The ongoing debate about antisemitism and the lack of action against antisemitic attacks clearly shows that we need a united front in the fight against this hatred. Many organizations and actors are trying, with good intentions, to create new definitions of antisemitism to better describe the current situation. However, instead of helping, these initiatives risk dividing, delaying, and ultimately making it even harder to move forward.
The antisemitic attacks we see today often aim to criticize Israel for the situation in Gaza. And it is, of course, terrible. But even if we have different opinions about the conflict and its causes, we should all agree that regardless of what one thinks about the situation in Gaza, it is unacceptable that Swedish Jews feel threatened and unsafe here because people are angry at another country.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism, which Sweden adopted under Stefan Löfven’s government, is the most recognized and widely used internationally. It provides clear guidance on when criticism of the State of Israel crosses the line into antisemitic attacks against Jews. Adhering to this definition is crucial for effectively identifying and combating antisemitism.
In times of populism, where simple solutions to complex problems are often sought, it is even more important to stand firm on principles such as a common definition of antisemitism. Creating new definitions, even if the intentions are good, complicates the work against the hatred directed at Jews today. It causes us to remain stagnant rather than unite and take strong action against the rising antisemitism.
To move forward, we must work together based on a common definition – and the IHRA definition is our strongest tool in this fight.
Released in https://fores.se/tisdagsklubben/
By David Lega