At the same time, there are at least two leading definitions of the term, which has been in regular use against the backdrop of the ongoing Israel–Hamas war.

Although the term antisemitism is often used, not many have agreed on its meaning. The debate is not merely academic, as the lack of a unified definition has caused sharp political tensions, especially when the topic is the State of Israel. Anu Põldsam, lecturer in Jewish Studies at the University of Tartu's School of Theology and Religious Studies, said defining this ancient enmity is even more complicated today, as it encompasses attitudes, actions, and elusive prejudices alike.

"Is hating someone, without any accompanying hostile acts, to be condemned: Is such an attitude based merely on prejudice or something more, such as ideology?" Põldsam pondered. The situation can often blur the line between hate speech and free speech.

The picture is further complicated by the relationship between world Jewry and the state of Israel itself being ambiguous. For some, anti-semitism and anti-Zionism are two sides of the same coin; for others, they are entirely separate phenomena.

According to Põldsam, it is key to distinguish between the long history of the phenomenon and the term applied to it. "There are those who have said this is the oldest hatred in the world, but the concept of anti-semitism is actually much younger than the phenomenon itself," she explained.

The distinction matters, because the word "anti-semitism" is not a neutral description, but a consciously created political concept which provided an old hatred with a new, pseudo-scientific framework.

The first known use of the term "anti-semitism" came in 1879, when it was used by German publicist Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904). "Semite" was a pre-existing linguistic term coined in the 19th century, derived from the Bible and referring to the descendants of Shem, one of Noah's three sons. In Marr's interpretation, it became a racial term describing Jews, but as an inherent threat to the modern German nation state, which had only definitively emerged in 1871.

"Both Marr and Hitler believed that there exists some kind of 'Jewish spirit' or inherent trait that never disappears but always threatens the majority cultures in which Jews reside," Põldsam noted. Historically speaking, hostility toward Jews has been universal and persistent, ranging from opposition on theological and religious grounds, to racial and political hatred.

Forms of antisemitic expression include words, actions, and stubbornly persistent stereotypes. According to Põldsam, one of the hallmarks of anti-semitism lies in its intensity and irrationality.

"There is no logic to it. In capitalist countries, the Jews are accused of being communists; in the communist countries, they are seen as capitalists," she illustrated. The same contradiction can be reflected in social attitudes. "When the Jews live in ghettos, they are accused of separating themselves off and failing to assimilate. When they do assimilate, it is claimed they are trying to take over the state from within, or to rule the world."

These stereotypes can be perpetuated within the cultural sphere, where direct contact with for instance religious Jews is as often as not minimal. The archetypes often stem from historical myths and beliefs passed down through literature and folklore, but which have never been critically examined.

For this reason, antisemitic ideas such as the blood libel can persist even in societies where the Jewish community is small, for instance in Estonia, or practically nonexistent. "[Estonian linguist] Paul Ariste wrote about the figure of the Jew in Estonian folk belief – he pointed out that already in the 19th century, misconceptions emanating from the Christian world were propagating in Estonia: That Jews murder Christian children and drink their blood, and so on," Põldsam noted.

The need for a unified definition is a practical one – it would help governments, organizations, and institutions identify hate speech and discrimination, and respond to same. Today, two main frameworks are in use, each with their supporters and detractors.

The best known and most widely adopted definition is the non-legally binding working definition approved in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Many countries, including Estonia, as well as EU institutions, rely on it. According to Põldsam, the document's popularity lies in its simplicity and clarity. "The document itself is very concise and concrete, is also available in Estonian, and is easy to use," she explained.

According to Ringo Ringvee, adviser in the Ministry of the Interior's department of religious affairs and civil society, the government's own adopted concept for countering anti-semitism is also based on this definition. "At EU level, member states have agreed to use the IHRA definition. This helps ensure that we understand anti-semitism and its forms of expression in the same way," Ringvee said. He added that in Estonia, the framework also serves as a basis for training and other preventive measures.

The IHRA defines anti-semitism as "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." Such a perception-based approach also allows for cases where non-Jews come under attack because they are mistakenly believed to be Jews or to be associated with Israel. To clarify the definition, eleven examples were added, illustrating manifestations of anti-semitism while the fact that context must always be considered was also stressed.

It is precisely these examples which have caused the most controversy surrounding the document. According to Põldsam, seven of the eleven examples refer to the modern-day State of Israel, which is why critics consider the document overly politicized and restrictive of free speech. In the IHRA understanding of the term, anti-semitism may include, for instance, denying the Jewish people's right to self-determination by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor. Applying double standards by demanding the behavior bar be set much higher for Israel than is not expected from any other democratic state is also captured by the IHRA definition.

At the same time, the document stresses that criticizing Israel in the same way as any other state might be criticized is not antisemitic. However, there is a very fragile line between the two things, Põldsam noted. "The problem arises when criticism of the Israeli state starts to meld with anti-semitism – for example, if someone says, 'I'm opposed to Israel because the Jews control the media.' That is a borderline statement where, from a certain point onward, the difference between criticism and hatred disappears."

Ringvee also pointed out that the IHRA definition has not yet been applied in local court practice. "Estonia has been relatively uninvolved in this topic so far – there have been few cases, and they have been the obvious ones," he acknowledged.

The Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-semitism (JDA) was created in response to the IHRA and criticism of it. The JDA was published in March 2021, signed by nearly 200 academics, and as such it is currently used predominantly in academic circles. Its preamble is clearly critical of IHRA, and it presents itself as a "better alternative." The JDA is also more detailed than IHRA and seeks to draw clearer boundaries.

Conceptually speaking, the major difference is that JDA defines anti-semitism as but one form of racism, whereas the IHRA treats it as a prejudice- and perception-based phenomenon, separate from other types of racism. According to Põldsam, the JDA's greatest strength and innovation is its so-called positive program.

The document lists, among other things, five points describing Israel-critical positions that should not, in and of themselves, be considered antisemitic. These include, for example, criticism of Zionism as a form of nationalism, evidence-based criticism of the State of Israel, and support for Palestinian rights, including via boycott, divestment, and sanctions.

"The JDA adds that it is antisemitic to deny Jews the right to live and flourish in Israel, both individually and collectively. At the same time, the document states that it is not antisemitic to support Palestinians' rights to political, national, civil, and human rights," Põldsam outlined.

On the other hand, the meaning of supporting self-determination depends on "which Palestine" is being supported. "If one supports a state whose self-definition is based on Hamas' vision, then that's a problem. The Hamas charter denies the Jewish people as a nation – for them, Jews are only a religion, not a people, and a Jewish state has no place in the Middle East. In that case, supporting Palestinian self-determination effectively promotes something that is, in essence, antisemitic," Põldsam cautioned.

At the same time, JDA has also attracted sharp criticism of its own. According to Põldsam, the document almost completely dodges the question of addressing anti-semitism as rooted in religious extremism, even though many classic stereotypes originate precisely from the beliefs of the other two Abrahamic faiths, Christianity and Islam.

Even more problematic is point 15 of the JDA, which states that political speech need not be "have to be measured, proportional, tempered, or reasonable to be protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and other human rights instruments." Põldsam found that: "This immediately raises the question: Does that mean criticism of Israel or Jews need not have an evidence-based foundation? For many critics, this point is one of the biggest issues — where exactly the line is drawn."

According to Ringvee, the JDA has never been discussed at government and state institution level in Estonia. "This is more connected to academic freedoms – interest groups have the right to use any definition they prefer, or none at all," he noted.

To sum up, the two definitions reflect a broader political and ideological divide. "There are those who see the IHRA as a tool for Israel's supporters and JDA as a tool for its critics," Põldsam observed. These debates are not merely academic – they directly influence how society understands anti-semitism, which positions are considered acceptable, and where the limits of free speech lie.

"Freedom of speech is important, but a word driven by blind hatred or prejudice is not freedom – it is shackled to that same hatred and prejudice," Põldsam concluded.

At the same time, she warned that if every form of criticism is too easily labeled as anti-semitism, the term would eventually lose its weight and credibility too.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!