One might wonder how the modern Messianic movement approaches the controversy surrounding the definition of antisemitism, particularly as outlined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA). As no comprehensive survey has been conducted, the following insights are anecdotal.

Most Messianic Jewish groups tend to avoid purely academic definitions of antisemitism.

Instead, their perspectives are shaped by personal Jewish experiences and biblical interpretations. Messianic Jews tend to be strongly pro-Israel, often viewing most, if not all, criticism of the State of Israel as inherently antisemitic. This belief stems from the conviction that the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people—a biblical truth not open to political debate within the Messianic community.

Understanding Antisemitism

A key distinction among the main definitions lies in their treatment of anti-Zionism. For example, the IHRA includes the view that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” whereas other frameworks may be more nuanced in differentiating criticisms of Israeli policies from antisemitic intent.

The IHRA adopted this definition on May 26, 2016, at a meeting of the committee in Bucharest, Romania.

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”[1]

According to this committee,

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective—such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
3. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
4. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
5. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
6. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
7. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
8. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
9. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
11. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property—such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries—are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.[2]

None of these definitions are legally binding or codified into US law. However, the US State Department uses the IHRA definition when addressing claims of antisemitism under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.[3]

For the purposes of this document, the IHRA definition and its accompanying examples will serve as the guiding framework for identifying antisemitism. Notably, the IHRA definition does not label all criticism of Israel as antisemitic. Instead, it outlines limits beyond which such criticism might be deemed antisemitic, particularly when it surpasses what would be considered normative criticism of any non-Jewish national entity.

The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA)

The JDA was developed as a response to the IHRA definition and its applications. It provides alternative guidelines and further clarifies its stance in the accompanying question-and-answer section of its statements.

So, is the JDA intended to be an alternative to the IHRA Working Definition?

Yes, it is. People of goodwill seek guidance about the key question: When does political speech about Israel or Zionism cross the line into antisemitism and when should it be protected? The JDA is intended to provide this guidance, and so should be seen as a substitute for the IHRA Definition. But if an organization has formally adopted the IHRA Definition it can use the JDA as a corrective to overcome the shortcomings of the IHRA Definition.

Then does the JDA suggest that anti-Zionism is never antisemitic?

No. The JDA seeks to clarify when criticism of (or hostility to) Israel or Zionism crosses the line into antisemitism and when it does not. A feature of the JDA in this connection is that (unlike the IHRA Definition) it also specifies what is not, on the face of it, antisemitic.

What, in short, are the advantages of the JDA over the IHRA Definition?

There are several, including the following: The JDA benefits from several years of reflection on, and critical assessment of, the IHRA Definition. As a result, it is clearer, more coherent and more nuanced. The JDA articulates not only what antisemitism is but also, in the context of Israel and Palestine, what, on the face of it, it is not. This is guidance that is widely needed. The JDA invokes universal principles and, unlike the IHRA Definition, clearly links the fight against antisemitism with the fight against other forms of bigotry and discrimination. The JDA helps create a space for frank and respectful discussion of difficult issues, including the vexed question of the political future for all inhabitants of Israel and Palestine. For all these reasons, the JDA is more cogent, and, instead of generating division, it aims at uniting all forces in the broadest possible fight against antisemitism.[4]

The statements by the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA), while seemingly similar in emphasis to those of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), were intentionally designed to differ, particularly in their stance on criticism of Israel.

Conclusion

Messianic Jews are usually politically and socially conservative, often taking a hardline stance due to their belief in the unchanging nature of the Bible. This perspective aligns with the IHRA’s view, particularly its stance that anti-Zionism is an expression of antisemitism. Consequently, most Messianic Jews in the Diaspora favor the IHRA definition and tend to be less critical of Israel’s policies toward Palestinians. However, there are smaller groups within the Messianic Jewish community, particularly those living in Israel, who resonate more with the JDA’s approach.