Working definition of antisemitism

This article is about the definition promulgated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. For other definitions of antisemitism, see Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism and Nexus Task Force.
Part of a series on
Antisemitism
Definitions
Geography
Manifestations
Antisemitic tropes
Antisemitic publications
Antisemitism on the Internet
Prominent figures
Persecution
Opposition
Related topics
Category

The working definition of antisemitism, also called the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism or IHRA definition, is a non-legally binding statement on what antisemitism is, that reads: "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."[1] It was first published by European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) in 2005 and then by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. Accompanying the working definition, but of disputed status, are 11 illustrative examples whose purpose is described as guiding the IHRA in its work, seven of which relate to criticism of Israel.

The definition was developed during 2003–04 and first published on 28 January 2005 on the website of the European Union agency, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC).[2][3] The publication was made "without formal review",[4] and remained a working draft,[5] until November 2013 when the EUMC's successor agency, the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), removed it from its website in "a clear-out of non-official documents".[4][6][7] The working definition was adopted by the IHRA Plenary (consisting of representatives from 31 countries) in Bucharest, Romania, on 26 May 2016. It was subsequently accepted by the European Parliament and other national and international bodies and employed for internal use by a number of governmental and political institutions, although not all have explicitly included the illustrative examples. Pro-Israeli organizations have been advocates for the worldwide legal adoption of the IHRA definition.[8]

The definition has been heavily criticised by academics, including legal scholars, who say that it stifles free speech relating to criticism of Israeli actions and policies. High-profile controversies took place in the United Kingdom in 2011 within the University and College Union,[note 1] and within the Labour Party in 2018. The definition has been contested for weaknesses that critics say lend themselves to abuse,[10][11][note 2] for obstructing campaigning for the rights of Palestinians, and for being too vague. Kenneth S. Stern, who contributed to the original draft, has opposed the weaponization of the definition on college campuses in ways that might suppress and limit free speech.[13][14] The controversy over the definition led to the creation of the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism and the Nexus Document, both of which expressly draw distinctions between antisemitism and criticism of Israel.[8]

  1. ^ Ullrich 2019, p. 6.
  2. ^ Stern 2010.
  3. ^ Lerman 2018b.
  4. ^ a b Marcus 2015, pp. 166–167.
  5. ^ Great Britain. Department for Communities and Local Government. All-party inquiry into antisemitism: government response, The Stationery Office, 2007, p. 3. Archived 17 April 2018 at the Wayback Machine
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference JTA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Wiesenthal was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ a b Penslar, Derek (14 April 2022). "Who's Afraid of Defining Antisemitism?". Antisemitism Studies. 6 (1). Indiana University Press: 133–145. ISSN 2474-1817. Retrieved 27 May 2023. Advocates of the IHRA definition are vigorously supportive of Israel and link anti-Zionism with antisemitism even though the definition itself does not explicitly say as much… Over the past couple of years, dissatisfaction with the IHRA definition both on its own terms and with how it has been deployed in the public sphere led two separate groups of people to develop what became the ND and JDA.
  9. ^ Marcus 2015, pp. 21–22.
  10. ^ Friedman 2021, pp. 1–49.
  11. ^ Gould 2020, p. 825.
  12. ^ Ullrich 2019, pp. 1–21, 3, 16.
  13. ^ Stern 2019.
  14. ^ 'What started as an honest attempt to tackle growing antisemitism quickly became weaponized by definitional warriors, among them the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), the American Jewish Committee (AJC), and the Brandeis Center, all of whom have lobbied institutions and governments to adopt it.'(Brown & Nerenberg 2023)


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).