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.