What is the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism?

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) is a 33 country inter-governmental body focused on remembrance of and education about the Holocaust. It was founded in 1998. In 2016 it adopted a Working Definition of Antisemitism (IHRA-WDA), which at least 34 countries have since adopted.

The text of the IHRA definition seems fine to me. What are critics so concerned about?

The actual IHRA-WDA is 38 words long. Taken by itself, the definition is at best fairly vague, and at worst, quite meaningless. In fact, it fails to identify antisemitism as a form of prejudice or racism.

But, like many things, the devil is in the details. The IHRA definition comes appended with 11 illustrative examples of antisemitism, 7 of which specifically focus on the state of Israel, rather than on Jews as a group. The list of examples is intended to conflate antisemitism with criticism of Israel and Zionism. 

Perhaps the most egregious of these examples is the one that says: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” Israel is indeed a racist endeavour. This has been confirmed by the leading Israeli human rights organization, B’tselem, as well as Human Rights Watch. And people need to be able to openly speak about Israeli systemic racism without being labelled as antisemites.

Why should a Jewish group oppose the IHRA definition?

The IHRA antisemitism definition is dangerous for both Jews and Palestinians. It’s dangerous for Jews because it conflates real antisemitism with criticism of Israel. And it’s dangerous for Palestinians because it labels them as antisemites for speaking about their stories of displacement at the hands of Israel and Zionism. 

Several other Jewish groups besides IJV have cautioned against adopting the IHRA, or opposed it outright, including the Reform Movement (the largest Jewish denomination in the USA), The United Jewish People’s Order, J Street, and a coalition of over 40 progressive Jewish organizations from around the world.

The IHRA definition says that "criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”, so what's all the fuss about?

Israel’s actions and overall situation are unlike those of any other country. In fact, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands is the longest standing illegal occupation in the world. Consequently, any criticism levelled against Israel will necessarily be unique. For example, there is no other situation in the world today where a territory and population have been held under military occupation for over 51 years, while the population therein continues to be denied either citizenship or full self-government. Similarly, there is no situation in the world today, other than Israel’s siege of Gaza, where a territory and its people are subject to a crippling open-ended blockade wherein imports, exports and travel are all strictly controlled and limited.

It’s not just what the definition says that concerns us, but also how it’s used. The track record of the IHRA-WDA being used to silence legitimate criticism of Israeli human rights abuses is long and well-documented.

Many who support the IHRA say it is the most widely-accepted definition of antisemitism in the world, and that there is a widespread consensus in favour among Jewish communities internationally. So what’s the problem?

Yes, it’s true that a few dozen governments around the world have adopted the IHRA-WDA, but we know that often what a government adopts is not necessarily what the people of a country want.

But just as important as to who has adopted it is who has opposed it. You only need to peel back the surface a bit to see that Jewish communities internationally are actually thoroughly divided on the IHRA-WDA. In the USA, the entire Reform Judaism Movement, the largest denomination of Jews in America, cautioned against adopting the IHRA as law. Several major liberal Zionist and progressive Jewish groups have come out against it. Not to mention trade unions, academics, civil liberties associations, and even one of the drafters of the definition itself, Kenneth Stern.

Furthermore, in many jurisdictions where it has been adopted in Canada, it has been done so through undemocratic, unilateral methods, with little public consultation. In jurisdictions where it has come up for robust public debate, such as Vancouver, Calgary and Montreal, it has been defeated.

Is there a better definition of antisemitism out there?

Yes. In fact, there are many definitions of antisemitism, and several that clearly distinguish between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, endorsed by over 200 of the world’s leading Jewish and Holocaust studies scholars, offers a powerful corrective to the IHRA definition, and makes very clear what can and cannot be considered antisemitism.

Independent Jewish Voices Canada also has our own definition of antisemitism.

Most importantly, we are acutely aware that defining antisemitism does not actually do the work of dismantling antisemitism. Legislating a static definition for any particular form of bigotry weakens our society’s efforts to combat discrimination across different contexts and over time. Instead of trying to codify definitions of antisemitism, we call on progressives around the world to commit to dismantling it alongside all forms of oppression and bigotry.