The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism has been the global standard for years, but pro-Palestinian groups are moving to chip away at what constitutes anti-Jewish hate speech.
That pressure paid off last month in Indiana. A bill to enshrine IHRA in state law was waylaid after legislators agreed to remove the definition’s “contemporary examples” involving criticism of Israel, a concession sought by the Indiana Muslim Advocacy Network that was opposed by Jewish groups.
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, a Republican, ripped the compromise bill as a “toothless mess.” The legislation was ultimately vetoed by Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb, who instead issued a proclamation condemning all forms of antisemitism.
“While I applaud the General Assembly’s effort to address and define antisemitism, I cannot agree with the outcome therefore I vetoed HEA 1002,” Mr. Holcomb said in a March 18 statement. “The language that emerged in the final days of the legislative session fails to incorporate the entire International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition and its important contemporary examples.”
The defeat of the Indiana legislation came as more of a blip than a pattern for the widely adopted IHRA, but the episode also demonstrated the growing influence of Palestinian advocates seeking to continue their excoriations of Israel without being accused of antisemitism.
They have an uphill climb. More than 1,200 entities, including the State Department, 36 U.S. states and 45 nations, have signed onto the “non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism” adopted by the 31-nation alliance at its 2016 plenary in Budapest.
So far this year, IHRA bills have been signed into law by the GOP governors of Georgia and South Dakota. In February, the Las Vegas City Council became the 91st municipal body to approve an IHRA resolution.
“The reason that the definition is really important is that it helps define contemporary manifestations of antisemitism,” Arthur Maserjian, Combating Antisemitism Movement chief of staff, told The Washington Times.
“Antisemitism didn’t begin or end with Nazi Germany or the Holocaust — it existed long before that, and still exists long after,” he said. “We have to be able to first define the problem and recognize it if we’re going to be able to combat it effectively.”
The IHRA definition states that “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,” and it stresses that criticizing Israel isn’t necessarily antisemitic.
“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity,” the definition states. “However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
Where the IHRA runs afoul of the left is in its contemporary examples, starting with the one that says antisemitism may include “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
Another example warns that antisemitism may manifest itself in “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
That’s a problem for protesters erecting “Israeli Apartheid Week” walls on university campuses, calling to “globalize the intifada” or chanting “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
Foes of the definition argue that it suppresses legitimate criticism of Israel and “criminalizes speech.” The Indiana Muslim Advocacy Network said it “could have been used to stifle free speech in schools and on college campuses.”
A 2023 letter led by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch urged the United Nations not to adopt the IHRA, saying it has been wielded “to muzzle legitimate speech and activism by critics of Israel’s human rights record and advocates for Palestinian rights.”
“Adoption of the definition by governments and institutions is often framed as an essential step in efforts to combat antisemitism,” said the letter signed by 104 groups. “In practice, however, the IHRA definition has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism, including in the US and Europe.”
Peggy Shapiro, Midwest executive director of the pro-Israel group StandWithUs, argued that IHRA isn’t incompatible with open discourse, saying that “as much as I hate antisemitic speech, people have a right to say things. And we have a right to call it out.”
“Adopting IHRA does not stifle any speech. You can get up on the rooftop and scream, ‘I hate Jews!’ IHRA in no way enforces any restriction on speech,” Ms. Shapiro said. “But if we have a definition, I can also call you out and say, ‘Hey, what you’re saying is antisemitic.’ You have the right to say racist things, sexist things, but we can identify them and call you out for it.”
Victor Davis Hanson, conservative columnist and professor emeritus at California State University Fresno, said the eruption of campus antisemitism since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israeli civilians has laid bare the free-speech argument.
“The old myth that being anti-Israel had nothing to do with being anti-Semitic is now exposed for the lie it mostly always was,” he said in an April 10 column. “The pro-Hamas crowd makes no distinction, and certainly not on campus, where the more educated the protestor, the more likely he is to harass Jews first, and ask questions later if at all about whether his targets support Israel.”
That may explain why the IHRA has been a nonstarter on campuses. Boston University was the only college to adopt the working definition in 2023. No Ivy League university has done so, Mr. Maserjian said.
“I think in this moment that we’re dealing with, the pro-Palestinian groups have been making more noise around this issue on campus after Oct. 7,” he said. “We’re seeing this at some of our most elite institutions, which is certainly problematic.”
In January, the Columbia University student Senate nixed a request to form Law Students Against Antisemitism using the IHRA definition. The group was granted recognition a month later after the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education raised viewpoint-discrimination concerns.
The foundation defended the students even though it said it has “objected to the use of IHRA’s definition in government policy on the grounds that it could chill constitutionally protected speech.”
“But the right to express this perspective does not sanction obstructing the rights of others to express different views,” said the organization.
Academics on the left have promoted at least two alternative antisemitism definitions. The best known is the 2021 Nexus Document, which says that “paying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries is not prima facie proof of antisemitism.”
The document’s critics dismiss it as a fringe measure that lacks legitimacy, but the Biden administration referenced both IHRA and Nexus in its 2023 U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, a sign that Nexus has supporters in the White House.
Meanwhile, Rep. Anthony Esposito, New York Republican, introduced legislation last week to apply IHRA to federal civil rights laws, saying it would not create a new law but rather help federal officials “assess and prosecute criminal and discriminatory incidents motivated by antisemitism.”
“This much-needed clarity will also prevent criminal antisemitic actors from exercising loopholes in the law, such as falsely claiming their attacks on Jewish institutions, individuals, or points of Jewish collective identity were motivated by ‘anti-Israel’ sentiment,” said his April 11 press release for the Define to Defeat Act.
One of the 14 states that hasn’t adopted the IHRA definition is California. Last week, the state released its first-ever Golden State Plan to Counter Antisemitism with no mention of IHRA.
The Combating Antisemitism Movement praised California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, for taking a “significant step forward in protecting Jewish communities from violence and discrimination,” but urged the state to go a step further.
“By adopting the IHRA definition, California’s plan will be even better equipped to delineate, address, and confront antisemitism in all its contemporary forms,” said CAM CEO Sacha Roytman. “Thank you, Governor Newsom, for standing in solidarity with the Jewish people at this challenging moment in history. We look forward to California becoming the 37th U.S. state to adopt the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism in the near future.”
• Valerie Richardson can be reached at vrichardson@washingtontimes.com.