4 | APRIL 15 • 2021
essay
The Working Definition of
Antisemitism Needs No Rewrite
S
ince 2005, government
and nonprofit profes-
sionals tasked with
combating antisemitism have
championed
the widespread
recognition of
the International
Holocaust
Remembrance
Alliance (IHRA)
Working
Definition of
Antisemitism.
Prior to 2017, the IHRA
Working Definition was
largely uncontroversial in the
United States except among
pro-Palestinian activists and a
few voices on the extreme left.
However, during President
Donald Trump’s term in
office, the definition became
more of a target for criticism.
In the last few weeks, two
alternative definitions have
been proposed that seek to
modify or replace IHRA.
Both of these new definition
projects — the Nexus Task
Force out of the University
of Southern California and
the Jerusalem Declaration on
Antisemitism (JDA) — appear
to have been motivated by
how the Trump adminis-
tration, as well as far-right
organizations and individuals,
employed IHRA. On a num-
ber of occasions, the Trump
administration misrepresent-
ed the Working Definition.
Jared Kushner, for instance,
published an op-ed in the
New York Times claiming
that the Working Definition
makes clear that “anti-Zion-
ism is antisemitism.” This is
simply not true. Indeed, the
document never even uses the
word “Zionism.” Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo was wide-
ly criticized for abusing IHRA
by attempting to use it as a
justification for designating
three human rights organiza-
tions that have criticized Israel
as antisemitic.
However, it is important to
recall that the IHRA defini-
tion was not a creation of the
Trump administration. The
original text of what became
the “Working Definition”
was drafted back in 2005 for
the European Union’s Centre
on Racism and Xenophobia.
It was designed to respond
to an emerging form of
antisemitism, an antisemitism
that utilized old anti-Jewish
memes but substituted the
word “Israel” or “Zionist” for
the word “Jew.” (This form
of antisemitism was notably
present at the 2001 Durbin
Conference.) Indeed, it was
the Obama administration’s
State Department that took a
leadership role in supporting
a modified version — what is
now the IHRA definition — in
2010.
ANSWERING THE CRITICS
Some of today’s critics of the
IHRA definition believe that
any definition of antisemitism
should focus on right-wing
nationalist antisemitism,
believing that this is the only
consequential form of hatred
of Jews. However, such a posi-
tion misreads the nature of
contemporary antisemitism.
Those who study the
problem note that countries
can have multiple forms of
antisemitism that come from
different ideological sources,
and the predominant form can
shift very quickly. The IHRA
definition covers examples of
antisemitism arising out of
multiple sources — from the
antisemitism that emanates
from right-wing nationalist
movements to that which
comes from the extreme left.
Some opponents of IHRA
protest that the definition
equates criticism of Israel with
antisemitism. Such a claim,
however, amounts to a misun-
derstanding of the document.
While the definition lists a
number of examples when
criticism of Israel may be con-
strued as antisemitic in nature,
it clearly states that in all cases
the context of the activity
needs to be carefully consid-
ered. The Working Definition
was not developed to be a
blunt tool to curb criticism of
Israel but rather to be a set of
guidelines to help understand
where speech or actions cross
a line and can be construed as
antisemitic.
Furthermore, IHRA does
not endorse the banning of
speech, even speech that is
critical or hostile to the State
of Israel or Zionism. Nor do
its main proponents in the
United States — such as the
major Jewish community
organizations — advocate
the abridgment of the First
Amendment right to free
speech, even for antisemitic
speech.
The JDA describes the
IHRA definition as “unclear”
and “widely open to different
interpretations.” Yet one of
the virtues of the Working
Definition is that, precisely
because it is open to some
degree of interpretation (par-
ticularly interpretations based
on careful consideration of
context), it has been able to
garner support from Jewish
community organizations,
governments, as well as a huge
range of civil society insti-
Ira N.
Forman
Times of
Israel
PURELY COMMENTARY
continued on page 8
here for it all.