If a definition of antisemitism can be misused, do we need another one?

In a Zoom event hosted by The Jewish Independent, Jeremy Jones maintained the IHRA definition is broad and sound; Dov Waxman argued it contains ambiguity that allows people to misuse it

THE IHRA DEFINITION of antisemitism, which the Australian government has now adopted, does not of itself suppress criticism of Israel but contains sufficient ambiguity for it to be misused for that purpose.

These were the two main arguments put forward, if not wholeheartedly agreed, by two authorities on the subject in a panel discussion on Zoom hosted by The Jewish Independent on Sunday.

In a robust but always respectful exchange, Jeremy Jones, from the Australian and Israel Jewish Affairs Council, and Professor Dov Waxman, from the University of California, Los Angeles - moderated by journalist Deborah Stone - covered a wide range of issues around the contentious subject.

The discussion included the framing of the IHRA definition to the motivations for the alternative “Jerusalem Document” definition, identifying when criticism of Israel is antisemitic and whether boycotts applied to Israel are antisemitic.

Dov Waxman said the “IHRA's vagueness and failure to specifically address the suggestion that criticism of Israel could be interpreted as antisemitism is what led to more than 300 scholars to draft the Jerusalem Declaration (JDA).

“The point of the JDA was to have a definition that is more clear, precise and more nuanced than the IHRA and less liable to be misused than the IHRA definition, and thus protect freedom of speech,” he said.