Brussels Parliament approved a resolution againt antisemitism on Friday with 46 legislators in favour and 35 abstentions, but the draft's sponsors complained that amendments made to their text had sorely weakened it.
Friday's debate proved less tense than a commission session held three days after the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel on 7 October, a sensitive issue in a city with 184 nationalities.
The resolution, presented by Viviane Teitelbaum (Mouvement Réformateur), was co-signed by parliamentarians from the opposition Les Engagés, as well as majority parties DéFI and Open Vld. It originally stated Brussels Region's adherence to the EU Strategy against anti-Semitism and in support of Jewish life.
Legislators decide to drop IHRA definition of antisemitism
That strategy is based on the definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).
During the debate in commission, some legislators pressed for the exclusion of the IHRA definition from the resolution, fearing it might conflate criticisms of Israel with antisemitism.
The text was amended accordingly, at the initiative of Parti socialiste (PS) and Ecolo legislators, much to the regret of the co-signatories.
Signatories say amendments weakened their original draft
Viviane Teitelbaum (MR) said she saw the commission "as a breaking point in her parliamentary life" and the denigration of a facet of her identity. She criticised the ecologists and socialists for debasing a text meant to support the European strategy against antisemitism and Jewish life.
Similarly, Marie Nagy (DéFI) defended the text, stressing that it was clear: "criticising the State of Israel is not antisemitism." "What do you find problematic?" she asked. "It is not this. It's the political posture."
Stressing that the PS had a great track record in the struggle against antisemitism, Ridouane Chahid, leader of the socialist group, rejected accusations of wanting to weaken the text, claiming that he sought to reinforce it.
Antisemitism is 'a moral blemish on our history' - Ecolo
"We did not seek to not condemn Hamas's actions of 7 October, or to downplay very real issues in certain neighbourhoods," Chahid said.
John Pitseys (Ecolo) stressed that antisemitism "must be condemned and combated. It's a moral blemish on our history, spanning 2000 years across all societal strata," he said. However, he deemed the IHRA definition unhelpful and even "counter-productive" if the aim is to the fight against antisemitism, "which ought to be the objective of everyone."
In his view, the broader agreement on the text was down to "one or two words."
His statement drew a strong response from Céline Frémaut (Les Engagés) who felt the time needed - hours or even days - should have been taken to reach a unanimous position, rather than a variant of the text that no longer reflected the draft proposed by the joint signatories.
Vooruit calls for concrete action
Fouad Ahidar (Vooruit), who had made controversial comments in the aftermath of the 7 October attack, tried to set the record straight by condemning racism and antisemitism, and acknowledging their presence in Brussels.
Without disregarding MR's departure from the chamber during his speech, Ahidar called for concrete actions beyond condemnation.
"Mrs. Teitelboom complains that the Jews of Brussels feel abandoned. But where are the police? Where is the justice system? These levers are in the hands of the federal government," he commented.
EU strategy on combatting antisemitism
In October 2021, the European Commission adopted an EU strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life in Europe against the backdrop of rising antisemitism in member states fuelled by conspiracy theories during the coronavirus crisis and outbreaks of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The strategy followed a Council declaration in December 2020. The Council welcomed the fact that a majority of EU’s member states had already endorsed the IHRA non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism and invited those that had not done it yet to do it as soon as possible.
The borderline between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel and its government is often blurred and has become politicized. The definition distinguishes between legitimate criticism and verbal attacks against Israel that might be fuelled by antisemitism and antisemitic stereotypes. Criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
The list of examples in the definition includes denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, accusing Israel of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, and applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nations.
“A red line is crossed is when the existence of Israel is questioned,” said Margaritis Schinas, Commission Vice-President for Promoting our European Way of Life, when he presented the EU action plan. "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination and stating that the very existence of Israel is racist is antisemitism. It’s known and the strategy doesn’t depart from it.”
Update: The article has been updated to include the EU position on the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.
