Three Ds of antisemitism

The 3D Test of Antisemitism is a set of criteria put forth by Natan Sharansky to distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemitism. The three Ds stand for Delegitimization [of Israel], Demonization [of Israel], and [subjecting Israel to] Double standards, each of which, according to the test, indicates antisemitism. It was published in the Jewish Political Studies Review in 2004. The test is intended to draw the line between legitimate criticism towards the State of Israel, its actions and policies, and non-legitimate criticism that becomes antisemitic.

The 3D Test of Antisemitism rebuts arguments which claim that "any criticism toward the State of Israel considered as antisemitic, and therefore legitimate criticism is silenced and ignored". This test has been adopted by the U.S. Department of State.

While the test was recognized as a useful starting point, it was criticized for lack of rigor.

Main concepts

The theory can be applied to many different situations, especially non-classical antisemitism, i.e., antisemitism that is more subtle and harder to recognize. This non-classical antisemitism takes the form of attacking Israel, the Jewish state. As Sharansky explains, "hiding behind the veneer of 'legitimate criticism of Israel', this new antisemitism is much more difficult to expose".

Professor Irwin Cotler has said that "we’ve got to set up certain boundaries of where it [criticism of Israel] does cross the line, because I’m one of those who believes strongly, not only in free speech, but also in rigorous debate, and discussion, and dialectic, and the like. If you say too easily that everything is anti-Semitic, then nothing is anti-Semitic, and we no longer can make distinctions.”

A person can analyze a news story, op-ed, interview or even a protest and see if the criticism being made in it crosses the border of at least one of the following "D's":

Delegitimization

The term "delegitimization of Israel" refers to the denial of the Jewish people's right of self-determination, for example, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. This claim discriminates Jews by denying their basic right for self-determination as it was determined by the international law. Since any discrimination against a specific ethnic, religious, racial or national group is considered a type of racism, delegitimization of the Jewish people right for self-determination is labeled as racism against Jews, i.e., antisemitism.

Former Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden, Per Ahlmark, an advocate in the combating of antisemitism, wrote: “compared to most previous anti-Jewish outbreaks, this new anti-Semitism is often less directed against individual Jews. It attacks primarily the collective Jews, the state of Israel and then such attacks start a chain reaction of assaults on individual Jews and Jewish institutions. [...] in the past the most dangerous anti-Semites were those who wanted to make the world Judenrein, free of Jews. Today, the most dangerous anti-Semites might be those who want to make the world Judenstaatrein, free of a Jewish state." Prof. Irwin Cotler has defined Delegitimization as one of the nine sets of what he calls "new antisemitism". Cotler uses the term "Political anti-Semitism" to describe the denial of the Jewish people's right to self-determination and the de-legitimization of Israel as a state.

Demonization

The second "D" refers to the portrayal of certain groups as evil, demonic, or satanic. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (EUMC) has defined antisemitism as "frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for "why things go wrong". It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and actions, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits". If the criticism uses metaphors, images or rhetoric that implies that the Israelis or Jews are evil, it is once again a projection of antisemitic blood libels and rhetoric. One example of it might be making mendacious, dehumanization, demonization, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective—such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about the world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Double standards

The last "D" refers to the application of different sets of principals on similar situations. If a person criticizes Israel and only Israel on certain issues, but chooses to ignore similar situations conducted by other countries he is performing a double standard policy against Israel. The implementation of a different moral standard for Jews and Israel compared to the rest of the world, just like the Delegitimization claim, discriminates against a specific group and is labeled as antisemitism. Similar arguments were made by Thomas Friedman, claiming that Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movements that ignore the situation in Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are hypocrite and antisemitic. On the same matter, Friedman has also written that the "criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction—out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East—is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest". Prof. Irwin Cotler has also defined Double Standards as one of the nine sets of what he calls "new anti-Semitism". Cotler offers the denial to Israel of equality before the law in the international arena (i.e., "the singling out of Israel for differential and discriminatory treatment in the international arena") as a new antisemitic act.

Example of application

Abraham Foxman gives the following example. During the Second Intifada, a cartoon of an Israeli soldier pointing a rifle at a Palestinian baby was published. This kind of scene is a disturbing political exaggerration, but not anti-Semitism. However, the baby was a typical depiction of the baby Jesus, who was telling to the soldier (in the caption), “Oh, you’re doing it to me all over again.” Therefore this is an example of the second "D", demonization via the antisemitic canard of Jewish deicide.

Commentary

Jonathan Judaken writes that "the criteria of demonization, delegitimization and double standards for demarcating when criticism of Israel becomes Judaeophobia are a useful beginning, but they are still tenuous and pose problems".

Kenneth L. Marcus writes that: "While Sharansky’s 3D test is helpful in part for its mnemonic cleverness, I have argued in Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America that it lacks sufficient rigor to be used without modification for scholarly or governmental purposes."

Further reading

• Natan Sharansky. "Antisemitism in 3-D", Forward.com, January 21, 2005.