| Part of a series on |
| Antisemitism |
|---|
 |
 Category |
The Livingstone Formulation is the manner of responding to an accusation of antisemitism with the counter-claim that the complainant is weaponizing antisemitism to prevent criticism of Israel. The term was invented by British sociologist David Hirsh after an incident involving former London mayor Ken Livingstone. [1] [2]
In 2005, sociologist David Hirsh coined the term "the Livingstone Formulation" for "responding to an accusation of antisemitism with a counter-accusation of Zionist bad faith". [3] [4] [5] The concept is named for former London mayor Ken Livingstone, who said "the accusation of antisemitism has been used against anyone who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government" after he was called antisemitic for saying a Jewish journalist behaved like "a German war criminal". [4] [6] [7]
David Hirsh characterizes the Livingstone Formulation's key elements as follows:
Hirsh gives as examples of the Livingstone Formulation: former President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who responded to criticism of his Holocaust denial by complaining that "As soon as anyone objects to the behaviour of the Zionist regime, they’re accused of being anti-Semitic"; American white supremacist David Duke; British National Party leader Nick Griffin; and American aviator Charles Lindbergh. [5]
Hirsh wrote in 2021 that "rhetoric resembling the Livingstone Formulation ... long pre-dates antizionist antisemitism," identifying passages from 19th-century German antisemites Heinrich von Treitschke and Wilhelm Marr that complained of "concocted allegation[s] of bigotry" against reasonable critics of "the undeniable weaknesses of the Jewish character". [8] John Hyman and Anthony Julius connect "the 'Antisemitism as smear' trope" to the "established antisemitic defamation" that Jews are dishonest, as polemicized by Martin Luther in On The Jews and Their Lies (1543) and Heinrich von Treitschke's declaration that "Jews stand for 'Lug und Trug' [lying and cheating]." [9]
Efraim Sicher and Linda Weinhouse state that the Livingstone Formulation's history goes back to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion , which accused Jews of "inventing or being the cause of antisemitism". [10] Ben Cohen said Henry Ford used an early example of the "discursive technique" when he complained in 1921 of the "degrading charge of 'anti-semitism' and kindred falsehoods". [11]
Hirsh also highlights the 1952 "confession"—extracted under torture—from Rudolf Slánský, former General Secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, of "shield[ing] Zionism" by accusing its critics of antisemitism as a deployment of the Livingstone Formulation characteristic of Soviet antisemitism. [5] Izabella Tabarovsky makes a comparison between contemporary left-wing antisemitism and Soviet antisemitic campaigns that sought to accuse Zionists of "complain[ing] about antisemitism in order to smear the left" between 1967 and 1988. [12] [13]
Lars Rensmann describes the Formulation as a "discursive ideological strategy to immunize antisemitism from antisemitism charges". [14] Daniel Sugarman of the Board of Deputies of British Jews said the Livingstone Formulation was an "almost Pavlovian reaction". [15] Sugarman and others, such as Ernest Sternberg, have said the Livingstone Formulation is particularly common on the far left. [15] [16] [17] Lesley Klaff, speaking of British politics (particularly on discourses involving Holocaust inversion), says the Livingstone Formulation amounts to a "denial of contemporary antisemitism commonplace in Britain". [18] [19]
Sina Arnold and Jacob Blumenfeld identify use of the Livingstone Formulation as a key characteristic of discourse related to antisemitism on the US Left. [20] Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) has been criticized by Neil J. Kressel and Miriam F. Elman for deployment of the Livingstone Formulation, with Elman writinng that JVP "works on the American campus to discredit concerns about antisemitism, casting them instead as a deceitful effort to censor legitimate discourse and debate about Israel," enabling the dismissal of concerns about antisemitism on American college campuses. [21] [22]
Fully explaining the reasons for these positions towards antisemitism within the United States left is beyond the scope of this article, so we can only briefly touch upon them here. However, it is important to stress that, in our analysis, these political patterns do not stem from conscious and open antisemitism. We are not saying these dynamics are motivated by antisemitic hatred, but are rather the result of unexamined assumptions, myopic political analysis, and, importantly, a genuine but inconsistent concern for the suffering of others. Nevertheless, the result is that the left has set an inordinately high bar for what constitutes antisemitism, in effect defining it out of existence – at least on the left. [...] As previously noted, we do not believe this is the result of antisemitic intent but rather unexamined assumptions, faulty political analysis, and social pressure to conform to left conventional wisdom. Nonetheless, the various political blind spots, peculiar bedfellows, and double standards we have addressed stand out by the uncommon prominence, tolerance, and emotional weight the left assigns them.