Published: 8 February 2021
Last updated: 21 May 2026
- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
- 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.
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
I not only drafted this tool, I applaud its acceptance. But I oppose the political uses to which the definition is being used. Ken Stern, IHRA drafterIn late January, the US State Department announced that the Biden administration will continue to use the definition. A spokesman for the State Department told The Jewish Independent: "US administrations of both political stripes have embraced the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism in its entirety including its examples… “The Biden-Harris Administration will continue this policy and practice…We must be able to identify the many manifestations of antisemitism in today’s world so that we can most effectively address them." The statement by the Biden Administration was widely praised throughout the Jewish world, including by organisations such as the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, some of whom claimed that the statement by the State Department was the result of their calls to the Biden Administration to do just that. But as acceptance of the "working definition" grows, controversy about its use and efficacy – particularly with regard to the examples that relate to Israel - is also increasing, especially within Jewish communities. "I not only drafted this tool," Stern says, "I applaud its acceptance. It's incredibly important to push back against harassment, intimidation and discrimination against Jews. But I oppose the political uses to which the definition is being used, and I fear that it will be codified into legislation." Stern worries that the definition is widely understood to equate anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel with antisemitism. "The working definition was never meant to label anyone an antisemite or determine who is within or outside the Jewish tent. “I am a Zionist, and it pains me to read things that are anti-Zionist, but it is simplistic to claim that all anti-Zionism or criticism of Israel is antisemitism. Some, of course, especially if it employs classic antisemitic tropes, is. But not everything." He adds, rhetorically: "The Satmar (sect of ultra-Orthodox) Jews are anti-Zionist, so should we call them antisemites? And if a young Jewish person says, based on their Jewish values, that their Jewish identity can't be squared with how Israel treats the Palestinians, who has the right to say they are antisemitic?"
Today, there is a new antisemitism focused on a demonology of the Jewish state and those who support its right to exist Alan Johnson, Editor, FathomThe IHRA does not create a clear equation between the two, writes David Hirsch, a senior lecturer in sociology at Goldsmiths, London University, in Fathom magazine. "The IHRA highlights the possibility of antisemitism which is related to hostility to Israel," he contends, "because that is a significant part of the antisemitism to which actual Jewish people are subjected in the material world, as it exists.” Alan Johnson, editor of Fathom and writing in the same journal, agrees. "Antisemitism has taken on radically different forms throughout history…Today, there is a new antisemitism focused on a demonology of the Jewish state and those who support its right to exist."
The speed with which some are rushing to condemn the IHRA definition just doesn't pass an intuitive 'smell test’ Gil Troy, McGuill, UniversityAnd while some claim that conflating antisemitism with criticism of Israel is absurd, since Israel is criticised all the time in the public arena – and no more so than in Israel itself, historian Gil Troy, professor at McGill University and a prominent activist in the debate over Zionism and the future of Israel, says that the equation is often apt. "The speed with which some are rushing to condemn the IHRA definition just doesn't pass an intuitive 'smell test’," Troy, co-author (with Nathan Sharansky) of Never Alone: Prison, Politics, and My People, told The Jewish Independent. He cites the example of last year’s knee-choke killing of George Floyd while in police custody in Minneapolis. "Somehow or other, condemnations about the killing of Floyd quickly led to accusations the Israeli government has been teaching the US police to do knee chokes and Israeli authorities use knee chokes against Palestinians, too – therefore, Israel is a racist state. “When every issue that ends up as if a Jew is behind the problem, or the Jewish State is behind the problem – that's antisemitism. "There's plenty of reason to criticise Israel, the occupation, and the Israeli military," he continues. "But in too many cases, these criticisms have the same morphology and infrastructure, and use the same ideas and images that have followed the Jews for millennia, and are now put on Israel," Troy states. Yet he insists that application of the definition will not quell free speech. "If you stay within robust boundaries, there's a lot of room to make criticism without going down that alley. Criticising Israel is fine, but the use of demonising language is not merely a matter of free speech."
The working definition was never meant to label anyone an antisemite or determine who is within or outside the Jewish tent Ken SternIn response, Stern points, for example, to a December 2019 decision by former US President Donald Trump, who, surrounded by prominent Jewish and Evangelical Christian supporters, issued an Executive Order on Combatting Antisemitism, in which he gave the IHRA definition and its Israel-focused examples the weight of US law. This has led to numerous complaints and investigations related to criticism of Zionism and Israel, attempts to incorporate the IHRA definition into laws that deal with hate crimes and discrimination, pressure campaigns against Facebook and other media platforms to enforce the IHRA definition. Furthermore, legislation against anti-Zionism as antisemitism and utilising the IHRA definition has been advanced in several US states. Most of these complaints, Stern says, were about speakers, assigned texts and protests that allegedly violated the working definition. "I fear that right-wing Jewish groups are taking the working definition and tying it in with US civil rights law, especially Title VI cases," which prohibit discrimination in federally-assisted programs on grounds of race, colour, or national origin. "If the definition is incorporated into legislation," he warns, "government institutions will be answering internal Jewish questions. If you give government the right to suppress speech, it's not going to suppress the speech you care about – it's going to suppress the speech that it doesn't like. As Jews, we know that isn't good."
There's plenty of reason to criticise Israel, the occupation and the Israeli military; but in too many cases, these criticisms use the same ideas that have followed the Jews for millennia, and are now put on Israel Gil TroyMany of the complaints attempting to utilise the working definition have focused on the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions (BDS) movement. Last November, former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement that the US is "committed to countering the global BDS campaign as a manifestation of antisemitism. He added that the State Department would ensure that organisations that participate in the BDS campaign would not receive state department funds." Stern continues: "I'm no fan of BDS, and the academic boycott particularly rankles me. But I worry that right-wing groups will hunt political speech with which they disagree and threaten to bring legal cases. Administrators in organisations and on campuses will have a strong motivation to suppress, or at least condemn, political speech for fear of litigation. “And even if it isn't codified into law, it will have a strong chill effect on free speech."
We should be smarter in the way we handle antisemitic behaviour. Courses on Israel, which present it as a complex culture, are much more valuable than these efforts to restrain free speech Leonard Saxe, Brandeis UniversityOne of his primary concerns, he says, is freedom of speech on university campuses. "A campus is not intended to teach students what to think – it's to teach them how to think, and how to recalibrate their lives as they get older. Today, Jewish students are being told to sacrifice their doubts, their curiosities, and their thoughts to groupthink. “They should be learning that it's ok to be wrong, and that you should expect push back, and that you are on campus to try out new ideas. But all this is getting lost in the attempts to censor and condemn speech, and I'm very sad that many in the Jewish community are supporting this." Others join Stern's criticisms from a practical viewpoint. "We are making too much of antisemitism and by putting a focus on it, we're handing over the microphone to the antisemites to spew their thoughts,” Leonard Saxe, director of the Cohen Centre for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University, told The Jewish Independent. “As parents, we know that young children behave in outrageous ways to gain attention. As a community, we should be smarter in the way we handle antisemitic behaviour. Courses on Israel, which exist on many campuses and present Israel as a complex culture, are much more valuable than these efforts to restrain free speech." Stern concludes, "Only a short while ago, on the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, we saw extremists wearing 'Camp Auschwitz' T-shirts and declaring that six million were not enough. It is ridiculous and lamentable that the members of the Jewish community are dealing with political agendas instead of the real threats we face."
