Ten major concerns with the concept of Anti-Palestinian Racism (APR)
Click here to download this resource.
The organized Jewish community generally supports the idea that those facing oppression and discrimination should be who defines it. Who better to explain how it is lived and experienced?
However, the express objective of a new concept, Anti-Palestinian Racism (APR), is to negate the Jewish experience, identity, and values, while also dismissing and diminishing the real need to define and combat Islamophobia.
This should not be accepted, tolerated, or even considered by decision makers.
Here’s why. It:
1. Lacks Debate:
APR lacks scrutiny by experts, academics, jurists and lawyers, diplomats, civil servants, and elected officials. It’s driven by a select group advocating specific political views lacking both consensus and rigorous evaluation.
2. Is inconsistent with established definitions and redundant under the Charter:
APR introduces categories based on national origin and political opinion that diverge from established anti-racism definitions and conflates racism and discrimination. The Government of Canada’s 2024 Anti-Racism Strategy defines the following forms of racism: anti-Asian, anti-Black, anti-Indigenous, antisemitism, and Islamophobia. None cite national origin because discrimination based on national or ethnic origin is already protected under both section 15 of the Charter and under Canadian and provincial human rights legislation.
3. Risks sidetracking creation of Islamophobia guides:
Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia stated in the 2024 AntiRacism Strategy that a major goal was to “Develop a Canadian Guide on Islamophobia and addressing the safety and security needs of Muslim communities.” Islamophobia is a threat to Canadian Muslims, and focusing on APR undermines and polarizes the important work needed to combat Islamophobia.
4. Challenges freedom of expression:
APR has the potential to silence dissenting viewpoints on issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict. It fails to accommodate differing perspectives and narratives, including current government positions. The definitions of genocide denial under APR would mean that the Government of Canada’s position that the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza is NOT a genocide would be considered APR. Unlike the IHRA definition, which explicitly allows (and protects) legitimate criticism of Israel and its government, APR does not permit legitimate criticism.
5. Contravenes Established Government Policies:
Including the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism. APR’s premise that Israel is inherently racist directly contradicts these policies.
6. Is inconsistent with Canadian Foreign Policy:
Framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as one of settler-colonialism and calling for “decolonization” disregards established Canadian foreign policy. The definition for APR directly challenges the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which includes “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.” Premised on Israel being a racist endeavour, APR contravenes IHRA.
7. Imposes divisive environment:
By pitting groups against each other in what resembles a zero-sum game of competing claims of discrimination that undermines unity and collaboration in combating prejudice. Proponents of APR refer to the erasure of “Palestinian-ess” where recognizing Israel, the Israeli flag, supporting a two-state solution, asserting that Jews are indigenous to Israel, and questions regarding representation of the Nakba have all been cited as attempted erasure of Palestinians. Under APR, affirming Israeli identity would be considered erasing Palestinian identity, labeled racism under APR. Most Canadian Jews identify with Zionism. Under APR, this majority view would be considered anti-Palestinian racism, creating deep division and polarization.
8. Silences victims of antisemitism:
Proponents of APR describe “weaponized accusations of antisemitism,” where calling out antisemitism becomes anti-Palestinian racism, undermining and minimizing Jewish lived experiences of antisemitism.
9. Silences discussions of terrorism:
APR definitions stifle legitimate concerns about Hamas, Palestinian political leadership, Palestinian activists’ speech and their methods, and their adoption by government entities. All will lead to a skewed approach on issues that concern both Palestinians and Jews/Israelis.
10. Invalidates anti-BDS legislation and policy: Legislation
Under APR, Ontario’s anti-BDS laws and the Prime Minister’s position on BDS would be considered racism. Anti-BDS laws are not racist against or repressive of Palestinians and do not prevent groups and individuals from supporting the Palestinian cause.