In May 2023, President Biden unveiled the long-awaited National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, a move that was generally met with widespread approval by Jewish leaders and organizations across the United States. On the surface, the plan promises to be the most ambitious governmental effort against antisemitism in American history. However, despite its commendable goals, the strategy is marred by significant omissions and inconsistencies that cannot be overlooked.
Selective Focus: A Missed Opportunity The Biden administration has committed to combating certain forms of antisemitism while seemingly overlooking others. This selective focus represents a critical missed opportunity. The strategy could have utilized the influential platform of the White House to unequivocally condemn all forms of antisemitism with equal vigor. Instead, it appears to perpetuate a partisan viewpoint, addressing the antisemitism of political rivals more robustly than that of allies within its own ranks.
What is Antisemitism? Confusion in Definitions The strategy’s weakening of the longstanding definition undermines our ability to fight antisemitism. While it acknowledges the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, it also entertains alternative definitions, leading to confusion. This equivocation seems to reflect the pressures from progressive groups within the administration, complicating the strategy’s stance on when criticism of Israel crosses into antisemitism.
Failure to Address Left Wing Antisemitism A glaring weakness of the strategy is its exclusive focus on domestic antisemitism, which allows it to sidestep addressing significant international sources of antisemitism, such as the Palestinian Authority, the United Nations, and Iran. These entities, known for their antisemitic rhetoric and actions, remain unchallenged in the document, despite the profound impact they have on global and domestic perceptions and safety of Jewish communities.
The DEI Dilemma The strategy calls for the inclusion of antisemitism awareness in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs across various institutions. However, the very DEI initiatives that are meant to combat discrimination have been criticized for excluding Jewish perspectives and even perpetuating antisemitism, especially in academic settings. This approach risks replacing one form of discrimination with another, under the guise of equity and inclusion.
Leadership Questions The strategy’s development was led by figures such as Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff and Susan Rice. While their intentions may be positive, their ability to fully grasp and address the complexities of antisemitism has been questioned. This is particularly pertinent given the administration’s partial approach to recognizing different sources and manifestations of antisemitism.
The Biden administration has made an attempt, but it is ill equipped to eradicate antisemitism. Leaders that unequivocally condemn all forms of hate, regardless of their source, are needed.
In May 2023, President Biden unveiled the long-awaited National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, a move that was generally met with widespread approval by Jewish leaders and organizations across the United States. On the surface, the plan promises to be the most ambitious governmental effort against antisemitism in American history. However, despite its commendable goals, the strategy is marred by significant omissions and inconsistencies that cannot be overlooked.
Selective Focus: A Missed Opportunity
The Biden administration has committed to combating certain forms of antisemitism while seemingly overlooking others. This selective focus represents a critical missed opportunity. The strategy could have utilized the influential platform of the White House to unequivocally condemn all forms of antisemitism with equal vigor. Instead, it appears to perpetuate a partisan viewpoint, addressing the antisemitism of political rivals more robustly than that of allies within its own ranks.
What is Antisemitism? Confusion in Definitions
The strategy’s weakening of the longstanding definition undermines our ability to fight antisemitism. While it acknowledges the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, it also entertains alternative definitions, leading to confusion. This equivocation seems to reflect the pressures from progressive groups within the administration, complicating the strategy’s stance on when criticism of Israel crosses into antisemitism.
Failure to Address Left Wing Antisemitism
A glaring weakness of the strategy is its exclusive focus on domestic antisemitism, which allows it to sidestep addressing significant international sources of antisemitism, such as the Palestinian Authority, the United Nations, and Iran. These entities, known for their antisemitic rhetoric and actions, remain unchallenged in the document, despite the profound impact they have on global and domestic perceptions and safety of Jewish communities.
The DEI Dilemma
The strategy calls for the inclusion of antisemitism awareness in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs across various institutions. However, the very DEI initiatives that are meant to combat discrimination have been criticized for excluding Jewish perspectives and even perpetuating antisemitism, especially in academic settings. This approach risks replacing one form of discrimination with another, under the guise of equity and inclusion.
Leadership Questions
The strategy’s development was led by figures such as Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff and Susan Rice. While their intentions may be positive, their ability to fully grasp and address the complexities of antisemitism has been questioned. This is particularly pertinent given the administration’s partial approach to recognizing different sources and manifestations of antisemitism.
The Biden administration has made an attempt, but it is ill equipped to eradicate antisemitism. Leaders that unequivocally condemn all forms of hate, regardless of their source, are needed.