French President Emmanuel Macron speaks during a press conference in Paris, France, June 12, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Stephane Mahe

Last weekend, the Associated Press subtly whitewashed antisemitism in its coverage of the rape of a 12-year-old Jewish girl in France.

It did so in an otherwise well-written article covering the reactions to the rape in France, saying it brought “antisemitism to the fore” in the country’s politics and describing the victim’s account of how the rapists mentioned the word “Palestine” and insulted her with antisemitic slurs.

But the story’s last two paragraphs surprisingly undermine the very definition of antisemitism, and thus underhandedly legitimize certain aspects of it, particularly those which seem to have motivated the gang-rape.

.@TheIHRA definition of antisemitism is accepted by 43 countries & hundreds of other organizations & local authorities.

Sneaking these two paragraphs into the end of an @AP story about the antisemitic rape of a 12-year-old Jewish girl is beyond the pale.https://t.co/I305lVlDqZ pic.twitter.com/dh1kxnnI4S

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) June 23, 2024

Questioning Antisemitism

The problematic penultimate and concluding paragraphs — numbers 21 and 22 — seem to add a redundant, agenda-driven “bottom line” to the lengthy story:

Antisemitism refers to hatred of Jews, but there is no universally agreed definition of what exactly it entails or how it relates to criticism of Israel. The Israeli government regularly accuses its opponents of antisemitism, while critics say it uses the term to silence opposition to its policies.

The war has reignited the long debate about the definition of antisemitism and whether any criticism of Israel — from its military’s killing of thousands of Palestinian children to questions over Israel’s very right to exist — amounts to anti-Jewish hate speech.

Uninformed readers may think that these paragraphs are accurate, particularly because up to this point the article is relatively balanced (although unlike other outlets it calls the rape “alleged.”)

But that’s exactly why it’s underhanded: it diminishes the widely accepted definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), and thus whitewashes Jew-hatred:

• First, by saying that “there is no universally agreed definition of what exactly it [antisemitism] entails or how it relates to criticism of Israel,” the AP fails to mention that the IHRA definition is accepted by 43 countries and numerous non-governmental bodies. It also ignores the last element of the IHRA definition which clearly states that it’s antisemitic to hold Jews “collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”
• Second, AP suggests that by calling out antisemitism, Israel tries to silence “critics,” which is an implicit way to question the labeling of any antisemitic attack. Such a view can lead to the legitimization of real-life threats to Jews in Israel and abroad.
• Third, AP comes close to violating the IHRA definition by implicitly questioning Israel’s right to exist and conflating Jew-hatred with Israel’s actions, such as the “killing of thousands of Palestinian children.” This, in turn, also subtly questions the labeling of the gang rape — during which the word “Palestine” was mentioned — as antisemitic.

The result of all of the above is not only a complete contradiction of the entire article and the fact that the rape is being investigated as an antisemitic attack, but also the masked justification of certain aspects of antisemitism.

Questioning the widely accepted definition of such a dangerous phenomenon, in such an underhanded way, in a story depicting the horrible acts it leads to, is neither journalistic nor academic.

It’s a distortion of words, aimed at muddying the waters of what antisemitism is, on the back of a 12-year-old girl.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.