The Nexus Task Force, created in November 2019, analyzes issues at the intersection of Israel and antisemitism.[1] On its website, titled Israel and Antisemitism: Policy at the Nexus of Two Critical Issues, the task force has published the Nexus Document,[2] described as "a resource designed for policymakers and community leaders, aiming to enhance their understanding of the issues that intersect at the nexus of antisemitism, Israel, and Zionism",[3] the Nexus White Paper, titled "Understanding Antisemitism at its Nexus with Israel and Zionism",[4] and the Nexus "Guide to Identifying Antisemitism in Debates about Israel".[5]
In September 2020, "more than 100 prominent Jewish leaders" sent a letter to Joe Biden, drawing his attention to the resources available on the "Israel & Antisemitism: Policy at the Nexus of Two Critical Issues" website.[6][7][8] The "U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism", released on May 25, 2023, states that "the Administration welcomes and appreciates the Nexus Document."[9]
The Nexus Task Force is affiliated with The Bard Center for the Study of Hate (BCSH), which works to increase the serious study of human hatred, and ways to combat it.[1][10] The director of the Nexus Task Force is Jonathan Jacoby. The director of the BCSH is Kenneth S. Stern, who had been the lead drafter of the IHRA definition and its examples, and is an ex officio member of the Nexus Task Force.
Nexus Task Force members
The members of the Nexus Task Force are listed below.[1]
The Nexus Task Force is supported by a larger advisory committee.[1]
What is, and what is not, antisemitic
The big mistake people are making about IHRA is that it’s the final word, and there are many words and perspectives ... You can think of IHRA as the Mishnah and Nexus as the Gemara.
The Nexus Document,[2] which is based on the Nexus White Paper, states that a determination of whether speech or conduct about Zionism and Israel is antisemitic should be based on the standards for speech or conduct that apply to antisemitic behavior in general. It gives seven examples of what should be deemed antisemitic, followed by four examples of what should not be.
Actions that are considered to be antisemitic
According to the Nexus Document, it is antisemitic:
To promote myths, stereotypes or attitudes about Zionism and/or Israel that derive from and/or reinforce antisemitic accusations and tropes. These include:
Characterizing Israel as being part of a sinister world conspiracy of Jewish control of the media, economy, government or other financial, cultural or societal institutions.
Indiscriminately blaming suffering and injustices around the world on a hidden Jewish conspiracy or of being the maligning hand of Israel or Zionism.
Holding individuals or institutions, because they are Jewish, a priori culpable of real or imagined wrongdoing committed by Israel.
Considering Jews to be a priori incapable of setting aside their loyalty to the Jewish people and/or Israel.
Denigrating or denying the Jewish identity of certain Jews because they are perceived as holding the “wrong” position (whether too critical or too favorable) on Israel.
To use symbols and images that present all Jews as collectively guilty for the actions of the State of Israel.
To attack and/or physically harm a Jew because of her/his relationship to Israel.
To convey intense hostility toward Jews who are connected to Israel in a way that intentionally or irresponsibly (acting with disregard to potential violent consequences) provokes antisemitic violence.
To treat Israel in a negative manner based on a claim that Jews alone should be denied the right to define themselves as a people and to exercise any form of self-determination.
To advocate a political solution that denies Jews the right to define themselves as a people, thereby denying them – because they are Jews – the right to self-determination.
To treat Israel differently solely because it is a Jewish state, using standards different than those applied to other countries.
Actions that are not considered to be antisemitic
However, according to the Nexus Document:
As a general rule, criticism of Zionism and Israel, opposition to Israel's policies, or nonviolent political action directed at the State of Israel and/or its policies should not, as such, be deemed antisemitic.
Even contentious, strident, or harsh criticism of Israel for its policies and actions, including those that led to the creation of Israel, is not per se illegitimate or antisemitic.
Opposition to Zionism and/or Israel does not necessarily reflect specific anti-Jewish animus nor purposefully lead to antisemitic behaviors and conditions. (For example, someone might oppose the principle of nationalism or ethnonationalist ideology. Similarly, someone's personal or national experience may have been adversely affected by the creation of the State of Israel. These motivations or attitudes towards Israel and/or Zionism do not necessarily constitute antisemitic behavior.)
Paying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries is not prima facie proof of antisemitism. (There are numerous reasons for devoting special attention to Israel and treating Israel differently, e.g., some people care about Israel more; others may pay more attention because Israel has a special relationship with the United States and receives $4 billion in American aid).
Reception
Haaretz wrote "The new documents [IHRA, Nexus Task Force and Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism], then, may have achieved their goal of opening up the conversation, but consensus among Jews on what antisemitism is looks like – and how it relates to how Israel is discussed – seems further away than ever."[11]
An article by Ira Forman in the Moment is mildly critical of the Nexus Task Force and the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, and concludes "These two new definitions focus on issues worthy of debate and analysis. But their guidelines represent the views of a smaller constituency. [...] From a practical perspective, the widespread adoption by dozens of countries, scores of law enforcement organizations and hundreds of governmental, educational and non-profit institutions means we should not relitigate the language of IHRA."[12]
Another article by Ira Forman, this time in The Detroit Jewish News, is again mildly critical of both the Nexus Task Force and the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, and concludes "There is no doubt that false and reckless charges of antisemitism are a hindrance to the battle against antisemitism. But rather than campaign for an alternative tool, those involved in the fight should support the continued use of the IHRA Definition [...]".[13]
The Forward wrote that "The new definition could serve as an alternative to one from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance [...]".[7]
A more critical article in The Forward states that the Nexus Task Force's "[...] endeavor, while undoubtedly well-meaning, is unnecessary and possibly dangerous."[14]
An article in The Jerusalem Post stated that "For outsiders to the conflict, it’s hard to understand what the fight is about. The IHRA, JDA, and Nexus definitions have many similarities and overlaps. It is in the distinctions, views on double standards, self-determination and legitimate criticism, that counter-antisemitism activists and political activists clash."[15]
The Jerusalem Post also carried an article by Ron Kampeas, with the lead paragraph "Paying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries is not prima facie proof of anti-Semitism."[16]
The same article by Ron Kampeas appeared in The Times of Israel, with the lead paragraph "Nexus Task Force [...] says IHRA definition is too broad, not all double standards toward Jewish state manifest prejudice".[17]
U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism
The "U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism", released on May 25, 2023, includes the following paragraph:
There are several definitions of antisemitism, which serve as valuable tools to raise awareness and increase understanding of antisemitism. The most prominent is the non-legally binding “working definition” of antisemitism adopted in 2016 by the 31-member states of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which the United States has embraced. In addition, the Administration welcomes and appreciates the Nexus Document and notes other such efforts.[9]
The inclusion of definitions other than the IHRA definition in the National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism was a topic of heated debate leading up to the Strategy's unveiling.[18]
The significance of including the Nexus Document in the National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism was noted by The New York Times,[19] NPR,[20] Vox,[21] the Jewish Insider,[22] and numerous other media outlets.
61 Jewish American leaders issued a statement praising the National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism, saying: “We are encouraged that the strategy acknowledges the necessity of employing a diverse toolkit to combat antisemitism, including the Nexus Document.”[23]
Critical reactions from some Jewish organisations
Some Jewish organisations have criticized the inclusion of the Nexus Document and/or downplayed its significance:
The Zionist Organization of America called the National Strategy a “lopsided document” because it includes the Nexus Document and insufficiently embraces the IHRA definition.[24]
B'nai B'rith wrote "We are, however, disappointed in the document’s mention of the Nexus definition of anti-Semitism. We believe that definition allows the more invidious of Israel’s nemeses to hide their animus behind 'strident' criticism of Israel. The important and well-established IHRA definition addresses this issue in a far superior manner."[25]
Ronald Lauder, head of the World Jewish Congress, said that "The inclusion of a secondary definition in addition to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism is an unnecessary distraction from the real work that needs to be done."[26]
The Anti-Defamation League's CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt stated that "The White House plan elevates and embraces IHRA as the preeminent definition that it is now using to understand antisemitism in all its forms. Whereas previously only the State Department and Department of Education were using it, now it’s the position of the entire administration."[27] Downplaying the significance of the inclusion of the Nexus Document, Greenblatt added, "They did welcome the Nexus Document, but they didn’t cite their definition."[27] The latter statement is hard to understand as the Nexus Document is the Nexus definition. So in citing the Nexus Document, the strategy does cite the Nexus definition.
Deborah Lipstadt's response to the critical reactions
She quoted from the Nexus Document: "It is antisemitic to promote myths, stereotypes or attitudes about Zionism and/or Israel that derive from and/or reinforce antisemitic accusations and tropes."[28]
According to the Nexus Document, these include: "Characterizing Israel as being part of a sinister world conspiracy of Jewish control of the media, economy, government or other financial, cultural or societal institutions; Indiscriminately blaming suffering and injustices around the world on a hidden Jewish conspiracy or of being the maligning hand of Israel or Zionism; Holding individuals or institutions, because they are Jewish, a priori culpable of real or imagined wrongdoing committed by Israel," and so on.[2]
"That's pretty explicit,” Lipstadt said. “I think some of the things that have been said about Nexus are not accurate. There were parts in there that some people can see as troublesome. I'm not denying that, but we didn't adopt or embrace Nexus. We recognize that because of where it's explicit there, that is helpful to us."[28]
October 2023 onward
Hamas attack of October 2023
Following the Hamas terror attack of October 7, 2023, when some left and pro-Palestinian advocates demonstrated support for Hamas despite the murder of innocents, Nexus Task Force member David Schraub wrote a column with Alan Solow, a former Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, asserting that the Biden administration's National Antisemitism Strategy is a more effective tool for forming alliances across the wide range of American constituencies and communities because it incorporates the Nexus Document and does not rely solely on the IHRA definition.[29]
Subsequent responses to antisemitism and allegations of antisemitism
Former AIPAC executive director Tom Dine, wrote "The Nexus Document provides a more precise characterization of antisemitism than IHRA’s and allows for a broader range of criticism of Israel. In doing so, it lays the groundwork for building a more expansive coalition to combat antisemitism, a coalition that is particularly important at a time like this."[30]
In an article discussing whether anti-Zionism is always antisemitic, Jonathan Weisman wrote "Jonathan Jacoby, the director of the Nexus Task Force, [...] warned that shouting down any political action directed against Israel as antisemitic made it harder for Jews to call out actual antisemitism, while stifling honest conversation about Israel’s government and U.S. policy toward it."[31]
^ abcdNexus Task Force. "Nexus Task Force". Israel & Antisemitism: Policy at the Nexus of Two Critical Issues. Retrieved January 18, 2023.
^ abcNexus Task Force (February 24, 2021). "The Nexus Document". Israel & Antisemitism: Policy at the Nexus of Two Critical Issues. Retrieved June 9, 2023.
^"Israel & Antisemitism". Israel & Antisemitism: Policy at the Nexus of Two Critical Issues. Retrieved May 29, 2023.
Category