Dear journalists,

If it was your job to bring Israel back together, to help it find its balance, what would you do? What can you do?

Israel is powerful and strong, fragile and vulnerable. It is a miracle, but a miracle that can disappear in the blink of an eye. Yet here we are, throwing all caution to the wind, without concern for the consequences.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

We like to believe we can insult and attempt to demolish each other, break all the rules and cross all the red lines. We can thoughtlessly ask other countries to intervene in our internal affairs, deplete the country economically and send a message of military uncertainty and weakness.

How is this not madness?

Yet both sides are convinced they are righteous, good and rational. That they are defending their rights. One side calls it defending democracy and human rights; the other calls it defending security for the Jewish people and Judaism.

Will we realize in time that we need both?

Can you, our journalists, come to Israel's assistance? Your voice is powerful. You define which issues are emphasized. You can highlight the stupidity of a few people or you can help address the deep divisions in Israeli society in a constructive manner.

It is impossible not to be emotionally involved in these issues, but you must check your emotions at the door. You must seek to reflect all the voices in the country in order to help them understand each other and compromise.

What you see may outrage you, but to do your job honorably, you have no choice but to remain objective and understand all those involved.

There can be no victory for Israel if the judicial reforms are stopped. It would be undemocratic, denying the results of the last election and angering more than half the population. There can be no victory if the reforms are enacted in full while half the country is terrified of them.

Democracy cannot be allowed to threaten people's entire way of life and deny their success in making and defending the country. At the same time, people who win elections cannot have their voices suppressed.

Victory for Israel is possible if everyone contributes to the judicial reforms in good faith. People must be helped to let go of the undemocratic intention of toppling the government and to explore the issues at stake with honesty, respect and compassion.

As journalists, you can platform those on both sides of the debate and their legitimate concerns without demonizing them. You must rise to the challenge of reporting on people you disagree with without despising them.

You can show that there are other ways for the opposition to defend its positions, such as forming a unity government, forging a compromise or waiting for its turn in the next elections.

You can help the coalition become an example of how power can be and should be shared magnanimously, rather than give in to their impatience or desire for revenge. You can show them how to moderate their goals in order to unify the country. You can help them see those areas in which they do not contribute equally to the country's economy and defense, while acknowledging that they need structures that do not threaten their way of life and that changes are taking place, albeit slowly.

These are times of runaway polarization, in which people take sides without nuance. This polarization takes on a life of its own. It diminishes our ability to see the whole picture, find solutions and play according to the rules. It invites psychological and finally physical violence. Everything becomes justified.

The world in general seems to be going through a cycle of polarization. No nation has escaped it, including Israel.

As journalists, you can easily gauge and help citizens gauge the extent to which they are caught up in this polarization. You should understand and help them understand that polarization means being trapped by an intense passion that expresses itself in condescension, contempt and hatred of those we think are totally wrong. It is being convinced, as the song "I Don't Hate You" says so well, that half the country is mad, ignorant, hateful, racist, chauvinist, autocratic and fascist; and that the other half is arrogant, atheist, anarchistic, aristocratic, racist and treasonous.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

You think those who do not think like you are pathological. You are convinced that only you are correct; that you are morally impeccable. Maybe you are a bit kinder and think the other side acts this way because they are traumatized, but nonetheless, you are certain their beliefs are not valid.

Perhaps it is more dangerous to hate outside enemies and safer to simply vent our anger on each other. Maybe it is, but only if we know when to stop. The moment to stop is now.

Journalists, if you help both sides listen carefully, they may accept that they both need to change. Each side has legitimate concerns and needs. This means they must adjust themselves in order to live together.

A therapeutical concept called "titration" is needed. It means change that comes in small increments and, most of all, with dialogue, respect and empathy. That is where, as journalists, you can work magic.

 Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post An appeal to the Israeli media appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Formally adopted in 2016 by 31 member states after a decade of research and political interchange, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism addresses the virulent, multi-layered and chameleon-like nature of Jew-hatred.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

While this definition of antisemitism addresses a dozen examples of anti-Jewish acts, it also points to anti-Zionism as this latest metamorphosis of attacks. While it maintains that denying Jewish self-determination, using double standards regarding Israel and criticism that uses dehumanizing and labeling language are anti-Semitic, it also adds: "However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic."

Is there a valid reason for the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) to challenge the IHRA?

Created by academics at educational institutions in the United States and Europe, the competing JDA definition is concerned that the IHRA one could "block criticisms against Israel and limit political speech and action concerning Zionism, Israel and Palestine."

Both definitions recognize the discrimination, persecution and violence against Jews throughout history and the universal lessons of the Holocaust for bigotry based on racial, ethnic, religious or cultural bias. But they differ fundamentally regarding the role of Israel in Jewish identity and contemporary antisemitism. In fact, the JDA voices an ongoing concern that the IHRA definition harms the defense of the Palestinian cause.

The unique characteristic of antisemitism is due to its ancient nature and pervasive reach across countries, continents and civilizations. The very definition of "Jewish" indicates the complex nature of the Jews' participation in society. Jews are at once part of a nation, ethnicity and religion, providing multiple entries for antisemitism to expand. Its metamorphosis from country to country and civilization to civilization means that it adapts to the acceptable parameters of its host society.

Thus, for example, when a world horrified by the atrocities of the Holocaust decided to banish Nazi antisemitism from polite society, a quick substitute developed – anti-Zionism, the demonization of the Jewish national movement. The irony is that many anti-Semites abhor Zionist nationalism yet exalt the Palestinian national movement, label Israel as apartheid and allows a Palestinian president to declare he wants a "Juden-free" state. Beyond targeting Israel, their abhorrence extends to targeting Jews in the Diaspora for being Jewish even if they do not feel attached to Israel.

The JDA signatories should be alarmed by this double standard. Regarding concern for the Palestinian cause, they can be reassured since IHRA supporters include international organizations such as the European Union Council, Parliament and Commission, as well as the Council of Europe, and international representatives such as U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres and Ahmed Shaheed, the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Religion or Belief. They all clearly take the Palestinian cause to heart in their financial assistance and policies. They may understand that the IHRA speaks a universal language that not only does not harm but can potentially help the Palestinian cause.

They recognize how appalling and alarming it was that Jewish communities in several EU countries (and now in the United States as well) are still vulnerable to widespread, irrational anti-Semitic hatred and attacks. Indeed, the IHRA definition was adopted in response to a period of troubling inaction in the face of rising antisemitism in Europe that stems from throughouth the Muslim world and contaminates the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The JDA's fear that the IHRA definition can block criticism against Israeli policies, and limit political speech and action concerning Zionism, is strange considering the onslaught of unrelenting and ferocious demonization and attacks against Israel since its inception. With social media, verbal attacks have spread worldwide and are now manifesting in physical attacks.

Anyone interested in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can adopt a different path. They can support normalization between the Gulf states and Israel, and encourage others to follow suit. These deals can change the enmity dynamic between Jews and Muslims, and Israelis and Palestinians. For decades, the Palestinians were the unwitting pawns of this enmity, but they don't need to hold on to hatred anymore. If encouraged, these new alliances between Muslims and Jews can positively impact Israeli, Palestinian and Arab-Israeli societies. The widespread acceptance of the non-legally binding IHRA definition by countries (including by Arab states) that support the Palestinian cause can be used to encourage and speed that change.

One of the JDA guidelines states that it is not anti-Semitic to support a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or to oppose Zionism. As Zionism lies at the heart of Israel, the national home of the Jewish people, it would naturally seem anti-Semitic to oppose Israel's historical right to exist, even if this is not the intention. Opposing Zionism is experienced by many Jews as a significant macro-aggression, not a micro-aggression.

Another JDA's guideline calls into question whether the BDS movement against Israel is anti-Semitic. The founders of BDS openly declare the intent to eradicate the Jewish state; the movement suppresses the freedom of speech of Jewish students and activists in the Diaspora as well. Yet the promotion of BDS only entrenches "the victim status" of the Palestinians, as if they don't play any part in the conflict. It takes away from their internal locus of control and destroys efforts of cooperation; it holds them back from building a flourishing, self-reliant and cooperative society; and it exacerbates Israeli mistrust and making co-existence less possible.

Both the IHRA and the JDA definitions recognize the relationship between antisemitism and xenophobia, racism, radicalism and violent extremism – "isms" that threaten the well-being of hundreds of millions of people. Both seek tools to erase from the collective unconscious a scourge that has traveled in so many different paths along with history. But the IHRA places a much stronger emphasis on antisemitism's daunting and uncanny ability to metamorphize and metastasize with its most recent attempt to couch its efforts under the guise of human rights and justice.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Anyone focused on helping the Palestinian cause must understand that ongoing threats of Jewish annihilation compromise the well-being and independence of the Palestinians. The best way to assure peace is to make sure that antisemitism in every shape is identified and denounced. After all, it harms its victims as well as its victimizers.

Reluctance to address the metamorphosis of antisemitism into anti-Zionism and the potential hijacking of the Palestinian cause harms the Palestinians and lessens everybody's ability to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A clear definition of antisemitism that protects the Jewish people and Israel is essential for supporting a promising future for the Palestinian people. The explosion of antisemitism and of enmity between Palestinians and Jews after the recent round of conflict with Hamas in Gaza this spring makes it more urgent than ever to understand that the two are closely related.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Understanding discrepancies between definitions of antisemitism appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

I attended the inaugural summit organized by the Combat Anti-Semitism Movement (CAM), the global interfaith coalition of grass-roots activists, thinkers and diplomats working to create a more inclusive future and to eradicate Jew-hatred. As part of the proceedings, CAM honored former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on March 1 with its first-ever Global Leadership Award.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The breadth and diversity in culture, religious participation, generational inclusion and its honoring of people working for this cause was a breath of fresh air amid the present political polarization and growing incidents of anti-Semitic attacks.

The online event's overall outcome was a well-established understanding of Israel's importance as an indispensable security ally and partner for the United States, and vice versa. The innovation was acknowledging the extraordinary beneficial potential of the Abraham Accords to the Middle East peace process.

In these times of exploding anti-Semitism, including anti-Zionism, the accords are a strong additional branch to the framework addressing the region's overall security needs.

When he received the award, Pompeo showed what happens when people committed to seeing results allow themselves to bring creativity to an old unfruitful process. Lasting for more than 70 years, despite multiple attempts and independent of the composition of both Israeli and American governments, this ongoing "stuckness" has cost many lives and pitted countries, religions and entire regions against each other. It has left the youth of so many countries hopeless and vulnerable to be recruited for violence.

The additional optimism that exuded from Moroccan Ambassador to the United Nations Omar Hilale and several other presenters, such as founder/director of Faith Matters Fiyaz Mughal OBE and Ambassador Dennis Ross, must become contagious. All countries searching for peace in the region and the world must open themselves up to this extraordinary change that brings long-term enmities to an end. It is important to let fresh air come in.

Indeed, there is a major movement of Muslims not only ready to stop being anti-Semitic but to combat anti-Semitism. Let us marvel at the willingness of the ministry of education in Morocco to introduce Hebrew classes in its primary schools and universities. It is a complete irony that some Muslim and Arab countries are taking these incredible initiatives while the school system in California is struggling to ensure that its diversity program does not teach anti-Semitic myths.

Hilale spoke of King Mohammad VI's desire to create a "house of memory" by restoring the original Jewish names of streets; to recognize that the 2,500-year-old Jewish Moroccan community was and remains part of the Moroccan legacy and history, and contributed to Moroccan culture.

He believes that this is not reconciliation, but a reconnecting or relinking—recognition of the place of the Jewish people in the Middle East for thousands of years. Such statements put to rest the concept that the Israelis are a European import in the Middle East.

Pompeo spoke of the resistance his team encountered in its efforts to realize the Abraham Accords. This indicates the need to be open intellectually to optimism and to let go of the stubborn strategies that show no progress and that continue to alienate and separate the people involved.

Whether US State Department officials or the European Union worried about the so-called "Arab Street" or carrying a monolithic concept of Muslim countries, it is crucial for them to leave behind the old paradigm that only the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could help the rapprochement between Jews and Arabs. We must let go of the assumptions that kept the Islamic world hostage to a resolution of that conflict. While it is a just cause, it was laden with unrealistic expectations and demands, unworkable conditions and unrealistic assessments.

It does not require that we abandon the need to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On the contrary, it adds another dimension to its resolution: It shows that relationships do not have to be based on anger and hatred or the arbitrary goodwill of one party. They are better based on diplomatic relations, economic partnerships and security alliances.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The possibility of progress is huge; it can bring significant change to peace in the area. There is now a crop of bold leadership that, according to Pompeo, "came together to change the face of the globe," and as such needs to be supported and encouraged by all people who support peace. This will encourage many more Muslim countries, including populous Indonesia, to join the Abraham Accords.

The other resistant groups are Iran, the far-right and the far-left everywhere, especially in Europe and now even in the United States, the Islamists, BDS sponsors and Pakistan, etc. The rise of anti-Semitism everywhere is deeply troubling. We need to do our best to stamp it out.

Ahmed Shaheed, a Maldivian diplomat who served as the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iran and chair of the Universal Rights Group – a Geneva-based human-rights think tank – spoke of the importance of supporting the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. He recognized the need to focus on this issue as an international issue that affects the world's well-being.

Indeed, a specific way in which this issue affects the world's well-being is to look at the rise of anti-Semitism as a sign of societies in trouble. It is the failure of a society to benefit its population that gives rise to anti-Semitism. This understanding can help each community and country and the international community give the proper attention to the needs of these groups and bring healing. This will help combat anti-Semitism, while also alerting us to that society/group's needs and help us plan the right interventions.

Of course, education is essential. Katharina Von Schnurbein, the first European Commission Coordinator on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life, and others spoke of the necessity of adopting the IHRA as an educational tool to be used by law-enforcement agencies and teachers, and to be made more widely known in schools, universities, municipalities, cities, sports, etc.

Shaheed, Pompeo and others in the summit coined what should become, in my view, the new slogans:

"No action (on anti-Semitism) is not an option."

(Fighting anti-Semitism is) "the morally appropriate thing to do."

"Don't let hatred become normalized."

I would add:

"Leave no social wound ignored or group devalued and despised."

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org

The post The new face of combating anti-Semitism appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.