This is an important issue in Montgomery County for anyone who wishes resist antisemitism (which is principally a problem coming from the right-wing), to protect freedom of speech, and to block attempts in some quarters to suppress, chill, or censor certain views on how to protect those who live in Israel and Palestine from the unfairness and brutality which has made it so difficult to find a peaceful and just resolution in that troubled part of the world.
Below is the letter I wrote to the Montgomery County Council. Anyone moved to chime in -- and action is needed before Tuesday morning -- should reach out to these officials:
Councilmember Sydney Katz - Office: (240) 777-7906,
email: Councilmember.Katz@Montgomerycountymd.gov
Councilmember Gabe Albernoz - Office: (240) 777-7959,
email: Councilmember.Albornoz@montgomerycountymd.gov
Councilmember Evan Glass - Office: (240) 777-7966,
email: Councilmember.Glass@montgomerycountymd.gov
Councilmember Tom Hucker - Office: (240) 777-7960,
email: Councilmember.Hucker@montgomerycountymd.gov
Councilmember Will Jawando - Office: (240) 777-7811,
email: Councilmember.Jawando@montgomerycountymd.gov
Councilmember Nancy Navarro - Office: (240) 777-7968,
email: Councilmember.Navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov
Councilmember Craig Rice - Office: (240) 777-7955,
email: Councilmember.Rice@montgomerycountymd.gov
Councilmember Hans Riemer - Office: (240) 777-7964,
email: Councilmember.Riemer@montgomerycountymd.gov
Council: ember Andrew Friedson - Office: (240) 777-7828,
email Councilmember.Friedson@montgomerycountymd.gov
County Executive Marc Elrich - Office: (240) 777-0311
July 23, 2022
Gabe Albornoz, President
Montgomery County Council
Councilmember.Albornoz@montgomerycountymd.gov
RE: Resolution to Define and Address Antisemitism
Dear President Albornoz:
I am writing to express my deep concern about the Resolution to Define and Address Antisemitism, scheduled to come before the Council this coming Tuesday, because the particular definition selected would result in serious harm to other values we cherish. The Resolution, while well-intended, would be divisive within the Jewish Community, as well as among other groups who sincerely seek a just peace in the Middle East. I urge you to remove the Resolution from Tuesday’s agenda so that the Council and the community can grapple with the dangers of using the proposed definition.
As a long-time active member of the Jewish Community in Montgomery County, a past Board member of my Reform Congregation, and as a member of the Commission on Social Action of the Union for Reform Judaism, I certainly support a reaffirmation of the County’s commitment to counter antisemitism, discrimination, and hate. But I strongly oppose the Resolution’s codification of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s “working definition” of antisemitism – a definition which the IHRA itself describes as a “a non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism.”
At the outset, it is imperative to note that the Union for Reform Judaism – the umbrella organization of the largest segment of American Jewry -- explained last year why the IHRA “working definition,” while having positive uses, should never be codified into law (see full statement here):
Our commitment to principles of free speech and concerns about the potential abuse of the [IHRA] definition compel us to urge its use only as intended: as a guide and an awareness raising tool. The definition should not be codified into policy that would trigger potentially problematic punitive action to circumscribe speech, efforts which have been particularly aimed at college students and human rights activists. If the effect of application of the IHRA definition is to limit free speech, it threatens to divide the broad coalition needed to combat antisemitism.
IHRA’s opening words introducing the “working definition” clarify the intent that it serves as a “non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism” with examples as a “guide.”
[Emphases added]
The IHRA definition includes eleven “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere.” The proposed County Council Resolution, at Action Item 1, specifically provides that “Montgomery County adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Antisemitism, including the eleven contemporary examples, and endorses the use of the working definition as a framework to identify discrimination rooted in antisemitism.” And it does so in the context of the statement at Background Item 5, which notes that “Discrimination on the basis of religion, race, and ethnicity is unlawful under the County’s human rights law, as well as under state and federal law.” The Resolution thus contravenes the IHRA’s stated intention that its “working definition be “non-legally binding” and opens up the potential mischief that the Union for Reform Judaism statement warned against.
While most of the “contemporary examples” in the IHRA “working definition” are uncontroversial, some can easily (and improperly) be used to label people of good faith – including Jews – as anti-semites. That is why the IHRA calls its entire document a “non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism.” See also, I Drafted the Definition of Antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are Weaponizing It, by Kenneth Stern (2019), responding to former President Trump’s efforts to stamp out dissent through use of the IHRA definition examples.
For instance, the 8th example is “[a]pplying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” Many American Jews vigorously oppose actions of the Israeli Government regarding Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and East Jerusalem, and, according to a poll taken by the American Jewish Committee, an overwhelming majority want Israel to be willing to dismantle some or all of the settlements as part of a two-state solution. They expect Israel to act better because, to use the famous Hebrew National advertising phrase, “we answer to a higher authority.” They oppose certain Israeli government actions not in spite of being Jews, but because they are Jews. They expect more of their Israeli cousins. That, surely, does not make them anti-semites. And it certainly should not be a basis to bring legal actions for discrimination.
The 7th example is “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a ‘racist endeavor.’” In our own country, we are now engaged in painful, but needed, discussions as to the degree to which the United States, through European Americans’ extermination of indigenous peoples and the building of an economy on the backs of enslaved Africans, was (and continues to be) a “racist endeavor.” Recognizing such embarrassing elements in our history and present-day circumstances does not make people anti-American. As the American statesman Carl Schurz proclaimed a century and a half ago, “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” Those who point out a nation’s flaws – whether that nation is the United States, or Israel, or any other nation – in order to help it get on the right track are not enemies of that nation. And pointing out such problems certainly should not be a basis to bring legal actions for discrimination. I am certain that no one on the Council would criminalize statements about observations concerning racism in America. The same should certainly apply with respect to Israel.
I am also certain that no one on the Council, including the Resolution’s sponsor, Councilmember Friedson, intends such a result with respect to discussions about Israel. But, as explained above, on close examination the implications of unanticipated consequences are clear.
While the Resolution is well-intentioned, we should not include in our County’s reassertion of its unalterable opposition to anti-semitism a “working” definition that does more harm than good. Codifying it into law would open the door to abuses for which it was never intended. So any resolution that includes the IHRA “working definition” examples should be rejected.
I am cc’g the other members of the Council and County Executive Elrich.
Sincerely,
David S. Fishback
Olney MD
CC: County Councilmembers Friedson, Glass, Hucker, Jawando, Katz, Navarro, Rice, Riemer
County Executive Elrich (via County Executive portal)
No comments:
Post a Comment