国际大屠杀纪念联盟对反犹主义的定义错在哪里?

IF 0.9 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Jan Deckers, Jonathan Coulter
{"title":"国际大屠杀纪念联盟对反犹主义的定义错在哪里?","authors":"Jan Deckers,&nbsp;Jonathan Coulter","doi":"10.1007/s11158-022-09553-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) developed a 'Working Definition of Antisemitism' in 2016. Whilst the definition has received a significant amount of media attention, we are not aware of any comprehensive philosophical analysis. This article analyses this definition. We conclude that the definition and its list of examples ought to be rejected. The urgency to do so stems from the fact that pro-Israel activists can and have mobilised the IHRA document for political goals unrelated to tackling antisemitism, notably to stigmatise and silence critics of the Israeli government. This causes widespread self-censorship, has an adverse impact on freedom of speech, and impedes action against the unjust treatment of Palestinians. We also identify intrinsic problems in the way the definition refers to criticism of Israel similar 'to that leveled against any other country', ambiguous wording about 'the power of Jews as a collective', lack of clarity as to the Jewish people's 'right to self-determination', and its denial of obvious racism. We consider alternative definitions and prefer one like the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) definition, 'hostility to or prejudice against Jews', with the addition of the words 'as Jews'. We recognise that the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) can play a useful purpose in illustrating the shortcomings of the IHRA definition. However, we do not advocate promoting it as the prime international definition. Indeed, we question the efficacy of using complex new definitions to combat racism against Jews or other groups, and instead advocate combatting it through collective action across societies.</p>","PeriodicalId":45474,"journal":{"name":"Res Publica-A Journal of Moral Legal and Political Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9092927/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Is Wrong with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's Definition of Antisemitism?\",\"authors\":\"Jan Deckers,&nbsp;Jonathan Coulter\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11158-022-09553-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) developed a 'Working Definition of Antisemitism' in 2016. Whilst the definition has received a significant amount of media attention, we are not aware of any comprehensive philosophical analysis. This article analyses this definition. We conclude that the definition and its list of examples ought to be rejected. The urgency to do so stems from the fact that pro-Israel activists can and have mobilised the IHRA document for political goals unrelated to tackling antisemitism, notably to stigmatise and silence critics of the Israeli government. This causes widespread self-censorship, has an adverse impact on freedom of speech, and impedes action against the unjust treatment of Palestinians. We also identify intrinsic problems in the way the definition refers to criticism of Israel similar 'to that leveled against any other country', ambiguous wording about 'the power of Jews as a collective', lack of clarity as to the Jewish people's 'right to self-determination', and its denial of obvious racism. We consider alternative definitions and prefer one like the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) definition, 'hostility to or prejudice against Jews', with the addition of the words 'as Jews'. We recognise that the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) can play a useful purpose in illustrating the shortcomings of the IHRA definition. However, we do not advocate promoting it as the prime international definition. Indeed, we question the efficacy of using complex new definitions to combat racism against Jews or other groups, and instead advocate combatting it through collective action across societies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Res Publica-A Journal of Moral Legal and Political Philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9092927/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Res Publica-A Journal of Moral Legal and Political Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-022-09553-4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Res Publica-A Journal of Moral Legal and Political Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-022-09553-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

国际大屠杀纪念联盟(IHRA)于2016年制定了“反犹太主义的工作定义”。虽然这个定义受到了媒体的大量关注,但我们还没有看到任何全面的哲学分析。本文分析了这一定义。我们的结论是,这个定义及其列举的例子应该被拒绝。这样做的紧迫性源于这样一个事实,即亲以色列活动家可以并且已经将IHRA文件用于与解决反犹主义无关的政治目标,特别是污名化和沉默以色列政府的批评者。这造成广泛的自我审查,对言论自由产生不利影响,并妨碍对巴勒斯坦人的不公正待遇采取行动。我们还发现了一些内在的问题,包括该定义中对以色列的批评类似于“对任何其他国家的批评”,关于“犹太人作为一个集体的力量”的模糊措辞,对犹太人的“自决权”缺乏明确的认识,以及对明显的种族主义的否认。我们考虑了不同的定义,更喜欢牛津英语词典(OED)的定义,“对犹太人的敌意或偏见”,加上“作为犹太人”。我们认识到,《耶路撒冷反犹太主义宣言》(JDA)在说明IHRA定义的缺点方面可以发挥有益的作用。然而,我们并不主张将其作为主要的国际定义加以推广。事实上,我们质疑使用复杂的新定义来打击针对犹太人或其他群体的种族主义的有效性,而是主张通过全社会的集体行动来打击它。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What Is Wrong with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's Definition of Antisemitism?

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) developed a 'Working Definition of Antisemitism' in 2016. Whilst the definition has received a significant amount of media attention, we are not aware of any comprehensive philosophical analysis. This article analyses this definition. We conclude that the definition and its list of examples ought to be rejected. The urgency to do so stems from the fact that pro-Israel activists can and have mobilised the IHRA document for political goals unrelated to tackling antisemitism, notably to stigmatise and silence critics of the Israeli government. This causes widespread self-censorship, has an adverse impact on freedom of speech, and impedes action against the unjust treatment of Palestinians. We also identify intrinsic problems in the way the definition refers to criticism of Israel similar 'to that leveled against any other country', ambiguous wording about 'the power of Jews as a collective', lack of clarity as to the Jewish people's 'right to self-determination', and its denial of obvious racism. We consider alternative definitions and prefer one like the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) definition, 'hostility to or prejudice against Jews', with the addition of the words 'as Jews'. We recognise that the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) can play a useful purpose in illustrating the shortcomings of the IHRA definition. However, we do not advocate promoting it as the prime international definition. Indeed, we question the efficacy of using complex new definitions to combat racism against Jews or other groups, and instead advocate combatting it through collective action across societies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Res Publica: a Journal of Legal, Moral and Social Philosophy is an interdisciplinary publication concerned with the philosophical analysis of moral, political, social and legal issues. It provides a forum for discussion of theoretical issues; a public arena for voicing matters of practical concern; and a vehicle for addressing questions of morality, politics, law and society, the interconnections between them and, more generally, the relation of theory to practice. The journal seeks to publish articles and review essays which are both philosophically rigorous and accessible to a wide range of academics and professionals. Replies to articles are welcome. It is the policy of Res Publica to encourage publication by researchers at the beginning of their careers as well as by established scholars; and by those in non-Western countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信