Debunking Common Claims Against the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
By Zach Halpern, High School Intern
Since 2016, many universities, organizations and governments have adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism to establish a clear, concise definition of antisemitism. The IHRA definition is currently the best way of defining antisemitism in its current state, and for determining when criticism of Israel is antisemitic. However, the definition has also drawn criticism, with many claiming it stifles free speech and legitimate criticism of the State of Israel. Here, I will debunk four of the most common claims made against the IHRA’s definition of Antisemitism
1. IHRA stands in the way of advocating for Palestinian human rights.
Some people fear that IHRA stands in the way of Palestinian human rights. This claim relies on spreading the false predication that ‘Zionism’ and Palestinian human rights are somehow mutually exclusive, that you can’t be ‘Pro-Israel’ and ‘Pro-Palestine’ at the same time, and that being a Zionist means you must be ‘anti-Palestine.’ This is absolute nonsense.
If you support a two-state solution, that already means you support the right of both groups to self-determination. It is extraordinarily easy to advocate for Palestinian rights without being antisemitic, according to IHRA. Issues such as advocating for greater employment equality for Arab Israelis, calling on Israel to discipline any IDF soldiers who commit misconduct against Palestinians, and suggesting better conditions at checkpoints are all acceptable within an IHRA framework (not to mention, these are all much more helpful than movements like BDS).
2. Seven of the 10 examples of antisemitism listed in the definition are about Israel, not Jews.
Some people take issue with the fact that seven of the 11 examples of antisemitism provided by IHRA specifically reference Israel. While anti-Israel rhetoric is surely not the only form of antisemitism, it is one of the most widespread forms seen today in the West. Those who oppose Israel and Zionism try to separate Judaism from Zionism in order to get away with antisemitism. They accuse us of conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, even though the two have clearly blended into one.
According to several studies, including a 2016 study from antisemitism watchdog AMCHA, there is a direct link between anti-Israel activity and heightened levels of antisemitism at universities in North America. Addressing anti-Israel sentiment has to be a major focus of IHRA in order for it to be relevant to fighting the root cause of much of today’s antisemitism. Before the adoption of IHRA, it was difficult for most people to identify when anti-Israel speech was considered antisemitic, and older ‘dictionary definitions’ of antisemitism were lacking in this area. That’s why this aspect of IHRA is so important.
3. If IHRA is adopted, anyone who calls themselves ‘anti-Zionist’ would automatically be labelled ‘antisemitic.’
Many also argue that the IHRA definition would label anyone who identifies as “anti-Zionist” as an antisemite. But this argument is also irrelevant and flawed. Many people who claim to be anti-Zionists are not actually opposed to Jewish self-determination. They are simply misled and don’t know the meaning of the word ‘Zionism,’ which is simply the “self-determination of the Jewish people on their ancestral homeland”. Nothing more, nothing less. It is worth noting that the word ‘Zionism’ does not even appear in the IHRA definition. Nor does ‘anti-Zionism.’
What IHRA does say on this matter is that “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” is antisemitic, and rightly so. Some say that denying Jews the right to self-determination cannot be considered antisemitic, the same way denying other stateless peoples, such as Catalans, Igbos, Basques or Kashmiris, is not racist. But those situations have nothing in common with Jews and Israel: none of them have a state yet. In today’s context, where a Jewish state (Israel) has already been around for over 70 years, opposition to Jewish self-determination (anti-Zionism) essentially means stripping seven million Jews of their home country and subjecting them, again, to ruthless persecution and violence. It may not have been antisemitic to oppose a Jewish state before its creation, but to do so now is, clearly, antisemitic.
4. The IHRA definition of antisemitism stifles legitimate criticism of Israel.
Many people incorrectly claim that the purpose of the definition is to stifle speech that is critical of Israel. However, this is not at all the case. IHRA specifically mentions that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” The only real risk of the definition stifling free speech lies in the possibility that it could be misinterpreted and used irresponsibly by some authorities. In other words, the issue is not with the definition itself, but rather with how people choose to read and apply it.
Critics of IHRA like to exaggerate how much is actually prohibited by IHRA. They’ll tell people that the definition would prohibit allegations such as: “Arab Israelis are discriminated against by Israelis” or “Israel uses excessive military force.” But both of these statements would be considered acceptable under IHRA’s definition. From a thorough examination of the definition, it is clear that neither of these statements would be considered antisemitic. As long as people stay within the IHRA framework, there is plenty of room for harsh criticism of Israeli policy and even the methods and consequences of Israel’s establishment. As long as it doesn’t delegitimize or demonize, it’s fair game.
Zach Halpern is a Hasbara Canada high school intern at Greenwood Academy in Toronto.
