Haaretz Misleads Its Readers
News site falsely claims that the UNGA endorsed the controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism
How, people often wonder, does a lie become the truth? A cliché answer is that if it is repeated often enough, people just come to believe it. But it also matters who is repeating it and how it is repeated.
When the lie is reinforced by a source that doesn’t seem to be part of the group that is usually pushing the falsehood, it’s more convincing. Moreover, when it is reported casually, in a manner that seems incidental rather than being the thrust of the statement, it tends to slip into consciousness more easily.
Sadly, this happened today, in no less a publication than the Israeli daily, Haaretz. The news source is commonly used by people trying to get a better overview of Israel, both internally and in terms of its foreign policy and apartheid policies. It is sometimes referred to as Israel’s New York Times, a sobriquet that holds truth more because the Times is far from the reliable news source it once was than for the journalistic integrity that the phrase is intended to convey.
Today, Haaretz reporter Jonathan Lis, who has been with the outlet for many years, reported on the United Nations General Assembly resolution condemning and vowing to combat Holocaust denial. The resolution was quite a good one, taking a strong and unequivocal stance against Holocaust denial and distortion. Hopefully, it can serve as a template for the denial of so many other crimes in recent memory.
Most of the Haaretz report on this was accurate, but the sub-headline read “The resolution, which the U.S. and Germany have also lobbied for, also recognizes the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism.” This is outright false.
Before I explain that point, I want to say that Lis did not report that falsehood this in his piece. He did write, “Passage of the resolution also included UN recognition of a definition of Holocaust denial and distortion (emphasis added) that is contained in its text and is based on the working definition used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.” That is accurate.
Most people who work on Israel-Palestine but are not necessarily well versed in Holocaust history or the study of antisemitism understandably associate the IHRA with its definition of antisemitism, which, in part, conflates criticism of Israeli policies with antisemitism and has become a major point of controversy because of its inappropriate utilization in drafting laws, educational guidelines, and similar uses. I should note, that the IHRA definition of antisemitism itself is not that problematic; it is some of the examples they use that inappropriately and inaccurately conflate criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism. In any case, it was never intended to be used as a legal stick.
But the IHRA does a lot more than that, and much of its work is quite commendable. They educate about the Holocaust, including reminding people that many other groups were sent to the camps by the Nazis, not only Jews. They work to universalize the lessons of the Holocaust, even while fully respecting the particular importance of the event to Jews, who were its primary targets. They treat the mantra “Never Again” as applying to anyone, not only Jews as so many zealous Israel supporters see it.
The IHRA definition of Holocaust denial is not nearly as problematic as their definition of antisemitism. It reads, in the main part,
“Holocaust denial is discourse and propaganda that deny the historical reality and the extent of the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and their accomplices during World War II, known as the Holocaust or the Shoah. Holocaust denial refers specifically to any attempt to claim that the Holocaust/Shoah did not take place.
“Holocaust denial may include publicly denying or calling into doubt the use of principal mechanisms of destruction (such as gas chambers, mass shooting, starvation and torture) or the intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people.
“Holocaust denial in its various forms is an expression of antisemitism.”
I can’t see anyone having a problem with that. Except, of course, Holocaust deniers.
But the Haaretz report’s sub-headline refers not to this definition, but to the IHRA’s antisemitism definition, which is being widely and increasingly used to stifle criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights, often in a most draconian and anti-intellectual fashion.
Read the General Assembly resolution for yourself. You will see that it makes no attempt to define antisemitism, and certainly makes no reference whatsoever to the IHRA definition of it. It does say this: “[The General Assembly] Urges Member States to develop educational programmes that will inculcate future generations with the lessons of the Holocaust in order to help to prevent future acts of genocide, and in this context commends the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.”
This could not be clearer. The resolution precisely specifies the context it is talking about; that is, education about the Holocaust. It commends the IHRA for the work they do in this regard. Indeed, by specifying the context in which they are placing the commendation, the GA was almost certainly trying to ensure that everyone understood they were NOT endorsing the controversial definition of antisemitism.
Lis seemed to grasp this distinction, but whoever wrote the headlines did not.
That is a serious example of Haaretz misleading their readers. Months from now, people will be debating the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and could well recall that they read that the UNGA had endorsed the IHRA definition. If challenged, a quick web search will bring up Haaretz’s article, and there the proof will be. They are unlikely to read the entire article. Indeed, many people won’t read the article now, they will simply see the headline.
And thus does a lie become the truth.
Recent Articles
A piece on employees at big tech firms demanding that their work not be used to oppress Palestinians at The New Arab
A piece from November about why gutting the Build Back Better bill was a serious political mistake at Medium.
An analysis of the obstacles Biden faces in reopening the US consulate in Jerusalem and what he could and should do about it for Responsible Statecraft.
Finally, a piece on the hostage situation at a synagogue in Texas for Medium.
Thanks for reading the newsletter. You can always offer feedback or comments directly at http://mitchellplitnick.substack.com. And, please, if you find this as interesting as I hope you do, encourage your contacts to sign up.
Follow me on Twitter @MJPlitnick