Jews here should answer for what Israel does

The fuller answer

Citizenship is not inherited by religion

Say this first, because it is the whole of it. A Jewish person in Manchester or Melbourne has the relationship to the Israeli government that any other foreign national has, which is none unless they choose one. No vote, no passport, no seat, no say. There is nothing to answer for, because nothing at all follows from being Jewish.

The shortest way to say it is a comparison, and it is the one that travels furthest with people who are not looking for a lecture on antisemitism.

Nobody asks a British Catholic to answer for Italy. Ask me my view and I’ll give it.

That is not a debating trick. It is the whole architecture of the thing in one sentence. A Catholic in Liverpool has a religious centre in a foreign country and a spiritual leader who is a head of state, and no colleague has ever required him to disown the Vatican’s politics before a meeting could start.

The two documents that disagree about almost everything else agree about this one. The IHRA working definition and the Jerusalem Declaration, the second written in part by people who wanted the first narrowed, both treat holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel as antisemitic. Cite the more restrictive of the two, the one written by the critics, and you are still on solid ground.

Now concede the legitimate version, because there is one

If an organisation has publicly taken a position, that position can be challenged. If a person says they support something, they can be asked why. Ring-fencing a political argument from scrutiny because of who is making it would be its own kind of condescension, and refusing to concede this makes you look as though you are avoiding the question.

So concede it in one sentence, then hold them to it. A question anybody may be asked is answerable, and it ends when it has been answered. Watch what happens when the answer comes back and the asking carries on. At that point nobody wants your opinion.

Where it goes wrong

The problem is not the question. It is the test.

Watch for the moment at which someone is required to denounce a foreign government before they can be treated as a normal colleague, classmate or neighbour. That is not a request for their opinion; it is a condition of entry, applied to one group. It is worth naming precisely because most people applying it have not noticed they are doing it.

Two questions expose it, and both are more effective asked than asserted.

Who else gets asked? Nobody requires a British Pakistani to disavow Islamabad’s conduct in Kashmir before joining a union branch. Nobody requires British Hindus to account for Delhi, or a Turkish colleague to account for Ankara. If the test applies to one group and not the others, the subject is the group, not the policy.

What happens if they decline? If declining to denounce results in exclusion, then the position being tested was never really the point.

And what is the rule, written down? Ask for it. Ask which foreign governments members are screened on, and where that list is published. Almost nobody applying this test has written it down, because writing it down is what makes it visible.

Lines you can say

Nobody follows these mechanically. Take the shape and use your own words.

I’ll answer for what I’ve said. I’m not answering for a government I don’t vote for.

Who else here was asked to account for a foreign government before they were let in?

Nobody asks a British Catholic to answer for Italy. Ask me my view and I’ll give it.

What happens to the person who says no? If they’re out, the policy was never the point.

Which foreign governments do you screen members on? Show me where that list is published.

Using this at work or on campus

This claim usually appears in an institution rather than an argument, which changes what to do about it. You are not trying to win a debate; you are asking whether a test is being applied to one group of people and not others. Institutions have procedures for that question, and it is a much easier question for them to answer than a political one. See speaking up where you work for how to raise it.