Anti-Semitism not only seems to be increasing, but also it increasingly seems to be in the eye of the beholder: one man’s anti-Semitism is another’s freedom to criticize Israel.

Now, parliamentarians from 50 countries have proposed a clear standard for what crosses the line into anti-Semitism. The “Ottawa Protocol,” released this week by the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism, spells out benchmarks that usefully distinguish between reasonable debate and ugly incitement.

Despite the carping from those who see this as a world conspiracy to muzzle critics, the coalition forcefully denies that this is a back-door way of shutting down the debate on Israel and the Middle East.

“Let it be clear: criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is wrong,” the Protocol declares.

The parliamentarians instead offer a roadmap for legitimate critics to avoid the minefields of stereotyping, demonization and denial that characterize anti-Semitism: denying the Holocaust; accusing Jews of being more loyal to Israel than their home country; denying Israel’s right to exist; incitement to kill or harm Jews; and conspiracy theories about Jewish control of banks and the media.

Denying the Holocaust is frequently paired with comparing Israel to Nazi Germany — a reckless and unacceptable comparison that is hurtful to survivors of the Holocaust. Israel is not a country of gas chambers. Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law, but not genocidal. The conflict between Israel and Gaza has been a humanitarian disaster, but it is not Nazi-like.

The two-day summit also wants universities to define anti-Semitism more clearly, so that codes of conduct can be enforced without infringing on academic freedoms and free speech. This measured approach suggests that a prerequisite to fighting anti-Semitism — and defending free speech — is defining it.

Read more about: