Key Problems with the IHRA Definition

The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism includes a vague definition and 11 examples that are an integral part of the document. Seven of the 11 examples deal with Israel and Zionism, not with Jews. The IHRA definition thus essentially casts any criticism of Israel and Zionism as antisemitism. This is not only wrong, as criticism of a political ideology or a state’s policies are very different from a racist attack against a group. For instance, criticism of Russia’s attack on Ukraine is very different from a racist attack against Russians. This is true of criticism against any state around the world, and there is no reason that it should be any different in the case of Israel. Indeed, the IHRA definition violates First Amendment rights — all people should be free to express their criticism of political ideologies and of state policies anywhere.
The IHRA definition weaponizes the struggle against antisemitism by diverting the focus from protecting Jews to protecting Israel from any criticism, which means that we are actually paying less rather than more attention to protecting Jews.
The IHRA definition furthermore defines as antisemitic forms of criticism of Israel that are absolutely common in relation to other states. For instance, in its example number 7, the document defines as antisemitic criticism of Israel as a racist state. Structural racism in Israel, however, is a reality documented by a very large body of scholarship, also by Jewish and Israeli scholars. This reality is demonstrated, for instance, by the state’s own legislation, specifically the exclusionary Jewish Nation-State Basic Law in 2018. Structural racism is, moreover, a common criticism against states such as the US, Canada, Australia, and France. The IHRA definition here contradicts itself, as the text just before the list of examples indicates that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” This self-contradiction lays bare the purpose of the IHRA definition: to intimidate and create a chilling effect, so that people do not advance absolutely legitimate criticism against Israel. The IHRA definition therefore has nothing to offer in terms of protecting Jews in New Jersey from very real threats of antisemitism.
Outlawing the ability to criticize racism in Israel by defining it as antisemitism would also constitute anti-Palestinian racism, as it would “silence, exclude, erase, stereotype, defame or dehumanize Palestinians or their narratives,” as defined by the Institute for the Understanding of Anti-Palestinian Racism. The law should not deprive people who face state violence the freedom to describe their own experiences.
The IHRA definition was, in any case, never meant to be legally binding. This is in the document itself, which describes the IHRA definition as “non-legally binding.”According to its own premise, then, the IHRA definition should not serve as legally binding in any way.
Hundreds of experts and scholars of the Holocaust, Jewish history, and antisemitism have, in addition, signed onto the Jerusalem Declaration of Antisemitism (JDA: https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/), writing and speaking about the many shortcomings and problems of the IHRA definition. Most of these scholars are Jews, including many Israelis. The IHRA, by contrast, is a political organization consisting of state delegations, including one from Israel. Each delegation includes some scholars, but the decision-making processes are solely in the hands of the diplomats and politicians in the delegations. Hence, adopting the IHRA would be a move that rejects the expertise, knowledge, research, and experiences of hundreds of scholars from around the world, including Jewish and Israeli scholars. For just a few examples among many articles by Israelis and Jewish scholars against the IHRA definition, see here, here, here, here, and here, and see the recent report by Jewish Voice for Peace, “Why NJ Should Not Adopt the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism,” 17 June 2024.
Another reason that so many Jews are criticizing the IHRA definition is that it increasingly more also targets Jews, specifically anti-Zionist Jews. Anti-Zionism emerged in the Jewish world together with Zionism, and it has been and is a legitimate form of Jewish identity. Equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, as the IHRA definition does, therefore attacks Jews for their expression of their Jewish identity. Obviously, this in no way protects Jews; quite the contrary: it puts Jews in danger. It is a cruel absurdity and a clear sign that the state has no place in taking sides in debates and discussions within the Jewish world — just as it has no place in debates and discussion within any community.

For all these reasons, we urge everyone to oppose legislation that includes the IHRA definition of antisemitism from going to a vote in NJ (and in all other states). Instead, meet with a diverse coalition of experts and residents in NJ, including Jews, Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims, to discuss an alternative definition, the NJ Statement on Antisemitism and Islamophobia. Contact the Palestinian American Community Center to arrange a meeting:

info@paccusa.org

(973) 253-6145

Key Problems with the IHRA Definition

NOIHRA

Important Links