IHRA head: discrediting definition means ‘turning a blind eye’ to anti-Zionism

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism has become a major focus of the criticism being directed at Special Envoy Jillian Segal’s plan to combat anti-Jewish racism. Yet the definition clearly states that criticism of Israel is not automatically antisemitic.

“Criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic,” the definition says. It depends on the context surrounding the criticism.

The definition was adopted by the IHRA at a meeting in Romania in 2016. Forty-six nations have endorsed it, including most of Europe, the US, and Australia in a bi-partisan decision in 2021.

The chief critique – which has existed since the definition was conceived, but has attracted sustained attention since the Segal announcement – is that it “conflates” criticism of Israel with antisemitism, therefore inhibiting people from making legitimate criticism of Israel and its state organs.

This is despite the definition stating that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. Furthermore, Spain and Ireland, for example, have endorsed the definition – yet the presidents of both have accused Israel of genocide.

"The definition provides 11 illustrative examples of antisemitism, some relating to Israel, but only on the basis that these ‘could, taking into account the overall context', amount to antisemitism,” wrote Michael Easson, editor of the New Middle East website, in the Australian Financial Review.

"It is not automatic. There is no blanket characterisation of any particular set of words as antisemitic. Each case must be assessed in context and on its merits. The 'conflation' assertion is thus entirely bogus. Common sense should tell us that it is as fallacious to argue that political criticism of Israel, or of Zionism as a set of beliefs, can never amount to antisemitism as it is to argue that such criticism always amounts to antisemitism."

Political criticism of Israel is "of course" legitimate, "even warranted sometimes," emphasised Easson. "But antisemitism, a term for anti-Jewish racism and hatred, is not".

Buenos Aires-born Dani Dayan, who is chairman of Yad Vashem – the World Holocaust Remembrance Centre in Jerusalem – and is currently also serving as chair of the IHRA during Israel’s presidency of the Alliance this year, visited Australia last November and met with Premiers Chris Minns and Jacinta Allan, the Chancellors of Sydney and NSW universities, and Jillian Segal, who was working on her plan to combat antisemitism at the time.

Dayan offered a robust rebuttal of the concerns about conflation to The Jewish Independent. “The IHRA definition of antisemitism is the basic standard, both in practice and conceptually,” Dayan said. “And the claim that it suppresses criticism of Israel is completely false. What that claim does is let antisemites off the hook. If the claim were true, many Israelis would be guilty of being antisemitic! 

“Those who try to discredit the IHRA definition are turning a blind eye to the most prevalent form of antisemitism in the world today – anti-Zionism. Denying the Jewish people the right to a state. Plus demonisation of that state. Denying the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

“I believe that Premiers Minns and Allan are both allies in the struggle against antisemitism, and it was very important that the Prime Minister [Anthony Albanese] stood with Jillian Segal when she announced her plan. What we need now is concrete action. From the world’s leaders, as well as in Australia.”

While there isn’t a great deal of good news to go around these days, “we do have one positive item”, Dayan asserted. “Holocaust awareness is increasing globally. International Holocaust Remembrance Day, January 27, was established in the 21st century, as was the IHRA definition. Both are recent innovations.

“That said, Holocaust awareness is a double-edged sword. As it becomes more prominent, it’s also being misused, such as in the war between Russia and Ukraine and in the rampant phenomenon of Holocaust inversion.

“Holocaust denial exists mainly at the fringes of social media, with the notable exception of Iran. My main concern is Holocaust distortion, which is increasing and dangerous. A few weeks ago, a Polish member of parliament denied that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz, for example. Or we hear the claim that the entire population of a certain country tried to help the Jews.

“Or we see the tendency to glorify Nazi war criminals because they fought the Communists. And in Russia we see a return to de-Judaisation, where the reference is to Soviet citizens who suffered, without identifying them as Jews.”

There are also concerns about artificial intelligence and social media in regard to Holocaust distortion, adds Dayan.

“AI is useful in telling the story, but it can also tell a distorted narrative. Which means Holocaust remembrance can never be completely secure," he explained.

“We’re currently at the crossroads of generations. In a few years’ time we’ll be living in a world without survivors and without witnesses. Our generation listened to the survivors; it was a formative experience. When we reach that crossroads, it will be ‘happy hour’ for deniers, and we will have to confront them."

“The greatest tool we have is authenticity. It’s one of the reasons why we continue extensive research at Yad Vashem. We have 200 million pages of documents and testimony, yet we go on searching all over the world. It’s a decisive argument against the deniers.

“Yet we also need tools to spread the knowledge, so we have to be innovative, as well as authentic.

"Knowledge of the Holocaust is an essential part of any strategy to combat antisemitism, but it isn’t sufficient. If you discuss antisemitism without a proper definition of the term, you are liable to end up with more antisemitism,” Dayan concluded.