IHRA definition of antisemitism

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), an intergovernmental organization founded in 1998, developed a definition of antisemitism . The IHRA definition, also called a Working Definition of Antisemitism , is a non-legally binding (ie., requires adoption by national authorities for effectiveness) definition that has been adopted by a number of governmental and non-governmental organizations worldwide. The definition (which is published accompanied by illustrative examples) is: 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. It 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). The publication was made "without formal review", and during the tenure of the EUMC the definition remained a working draft. The EUMC did not adopt the definition, and in November 2013 its successor agency, the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), removed it from its website in "a clear-out of non-official documents". In 2016, the working definition and its list of examples was adopted by a plenary meeting of the 31 countries in the IHRA. Following its adoption by IHRA, the working definition has been adopted for internal use by a number of government and political institutions, including in historical order: the Israel , France , Germany , United Kingdom , Austria , Scotland , Romania , Bulgaria , Lithuania , North Macedonia , Italy and Argentina . The working definition has been formally adopted by eight countries and 6 of 31 governments whose countries are members of IHRA have formally endorsed or adopted the definition. As at January 2020, the IHRA definition of antisemitism has been adopted or recognize by 18 countries, including the US State Department, Germany, France, Israel, Cyprus and other European nations. The countries adopting the IHRA definition also appoint a national coordinator for the fight against antisemitism. The IHRA definition has been criticised, especially on the basis that it stifles free speech relating to criticism of Israeli actions and policies. Its adoption of the concept of new antisemitism , specifically connecting some criticism of Israel with antisemitism, has generated controversy. High-profile controversies took place in the United Kingdom in 2011 within the University and College Union and within the Labour Party in 2018. The definition has been contested by scholars of antisemitism for conflating antisemitism with criticism of the Israeli government, obstructing campaigning for the rights of Palestinians and being so vague as to fail the test of any definition – to be definitive. These include Brian Klug , David Feldman , and Antony Lerman ; jurists including Hugh Tomlinson , Stephen Sedley , Geoffrey Bindman , and Geoffrey Robertson ; and one of the original drafters Kenneth S. Stern has opposed the misuse of the definition to suppress and limit free speech. The European Union, Antisemitism, and the Politics of Denial . Italy adopts IHRA definition of antisemitism Argentina adopts IHRA definition of anti-Semitism "Flawed reporting on antisemitism claims against the Labour party" . The Definition of Anti-Semitism . The Definition of Anti-Semitism . At the same time, the Working Definition has had its share of critics, as should be expected of any serious intergovernmental effort to address this difficult subject. In 2011, the United Kingdom's University and College Union (UCU), a trade union of English university professors, considered a motion to disassociate itself from the EUMC definition ... based on a belief that it 'confuses criticism of Israeli government policy and actions with genuine anti-Semitism' ... This triggered a lively controversy that engulfed not only the English academic and Jewish communities, but also Jewish, human rights, and higher education groups throughout Europe and Worldwide. In the United States, the meaning and application of the Working Definition have been contested even among those who support it. In 2011, Kenneth Stern, who was then the top anti-Semitism expert at the American Jewish Committee, drew intense criticism when he ... argued that the Working Definition was being invoked by complainants in federal civil rights cases before the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to censor speech that is critical of Israel. Stern 2017 . sfn error: no target: CITEREFStern2017 ( help )

IHRA-approved statement on antisemitism For broader coverage of this topic, see Definition of antisemitism . The IHRA definition of antisemitism is the "non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism " that was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. It is also known as the IHRA working definition of antisemitism (IHRA-WDA) . It was first published in 2005 by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), a European Union agency. Accompanying the working definition are 11 illustrative examples, seven of which relate to criticism of Israel , that the IHRA describes as guiding its work on antisemitism. The working definition was developed during 2003–2004, and was published without formal review by the EUMC on 28 January 2005. The EUMC's successor agency, the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), removed the working definition from its website in "a clear-out of non-official documents" in November 2013. On 26 May 2016, the working definition was adopted by the IHRA Plenary (consisting of representatives from 31 countries) in Bucharest , Romania , and was republished on the IHRA website. It was subsequently adopted by the European Parliament and other national and international bodies, although not all have explicitly included the illustrative examples. Pro-Israeli organizations have been advocates for the worldwide legal adoption of the IHRA working definition. It has been described as an example of a persuasive definition , and as a "prime example of language being both the site of, and stake in, struggles for power". The examples relating to Israel have been criticised by academics, including legal scholars, who say that they are often used to weaponize antisemitism in order to stifle 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 , and within the Labour Party in 2018. Critics say weaknesses in the working definition may lend themselves to abuse, that it may obstruct campaigning for the rights of Palestinians , and that it is too vague. Stern , who contributed to the original draft, has opposed the weaponization of the definition on college campuses in ways that might undermine free speech. 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. [...] As a definition that poorly defines its own legal status, this quasi-legal document introduces a new kind of indeterminacy. [...] the implementation and application of the IHRA document as a quasi-law would be fraught with conceptual, legal, and procedural difficulties" Ruth Gould, Rebecca (2020). "The Central Political Role of German Left Actors in the Campaign to Replace the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism" . 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. In Chiluwa, Innocent (ed.). The controversy over the IHRA definition is a prime example of language being both the 'site of, and stake in, struggles for power'. I hope that my application of Critical Discourse Analysis to this highly controversial text will give the reader some insights into the ideological assumptions underlying its, at first sight, bewilderingly vague and inappropriate language, and that those concerned with deconstructing 'common sense in the service of power' will ask themselves who is empowered, and who is disempowered, by the adoption of 'persuasive definitions' such as this one. There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or templates on this page, but the references will not show without a template or template (see the help page ).