The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism Criticisim, Implementation, and Importance

Key Findings:

The researchers analyze the current status of the IHRA document, while examining the main points of objection it has been subjected to and the responses to these points. 

The IHRA working definition of antisemitism (first formulated in 2004–2005) is arguably the most accepted and widely adopted definition. The document focuses on a concise definition of antisemitism and provides 11 concrete examples, which enable antisemitic cases to be identified and monitored. It is employed by hundreds of diverse bodies, including governmental institutions, societal organizations, and corporations. 

Criticism of the text ranges from claims of it not being precisely worded enough, to dismissal of the whole project as impractical, since it is a non-legally binding text. The main points of contention with the IHRA definition are to do with examples related to anti-Israel antisemitism, e.g., that it encroaches on the right to freedom of speech and serves to silence voices critical of Israel and its policies via accusations of antisemitism.

The IHRA definition aids in distinguishing anti-Israel stances from antisemitic anti-Zionism, such as the kind intrinsic to the BDS movement. BDS embodies the type of Israel-critic who would like absolute freedom to advance its ideology and ignore the restrictions imposed on hate speech. The means through which BDS has managed to gain some importance involves cloaking their anti-Jewish animosity in political and human rights jargon, and justifying it via the pretext of advancing the Palestinian cause, or the human rights cause in general.

There is also the risk that the IHRA definition might be abused to label any criticism of Israel as anti-Jewish hatred. It can be concluded, given the heated debate around the working definition, that it has stimulated discussion on contemporary antisemitism and its anti-Israel forms, rather than limiting free speech (as accused by critics of the IHRA document). 

Policy Recommendations On the Employment and Adoption of the IHRA Working Definition:

The definition should be used as a tool to understand a phenomenon of hatred and to implement and interpret already existing laws, by-laws, and regulations of states, institutions, and organizations that relate to hate crimes and hate speech. 

The definition should be integrated into existing institutional codes of ethics and statutes, and employed only to interpret such codes. The definition should not be used to seek disciplinary or punitive measures against individuals. It should only be used in courts as an interpretive tool to understand if certain conduct is driven by an antisemitic motive. 

Monitoring organizations should avoid using the terms “violation,” “contravention,” or “infringement” with regard to the definition, for it cannot be violated or breached as it is not a law. Conduct or speech should be labeled as “antisemitic according to the IHRA definition.” 

Law enforcement agencies, judicial authorities, and legal practitioners should organize training courses that include the IHRA document in the toolkit for combating hate crimes. Human rights activists, community leaders, and religious leaders (Jewish and non-Jewish) should ensure the dissemination and implementation of the IHRA working definition at different levels by organizing seminars about its inclusion in their work and best practices. 

The definition should be employed with caution when assessing a single first expression or statement of antisemitism that is not followed by attacking or blaming an individual or an organization; the individual or organization’s overall stance and behaviour should be assessed.

Employing the IHRA definition to identify anti-Israel antisemitism is important. Anti-Israel ideologies lead to anti-Israel discrimination, at times manifested in boycotts against Israelis, Jews and/or any entities doing business with Israel. Such discrimination (however plain) may not necessarily amount to antisemitism, but this kind of discourse might include antisemitic tropes. Employing the IHRA document for pro-Israel activities and advocacy should be limited to cases in which antisemitic speech and motivation is clearly identified.

More explanatory examples could be added in the future, but should only be added after careful consideration of the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) and IHRA committees that originally drafted and subsequently adopted the working definition.