The IHRA Antisemitism Definition: Chilling Debate Without Protecting Jews


Antisemitism is a serious issue that demands attention and action. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has developed a definition of antisemitism in an effort to combat this problem. While the intention behind the definition is noble, there are concerns that it may have unintended consequences, particularly when it comes to stifling free speech and limiting legitimate criticism of Israeli policies. In this article, we will explore how the IHRA antisemitism definition may be chilling debate without adequately protecting Jews.

The IHRA Antisemitism Definition

The IHRA definition of antisemitism states that “antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” It also includes examples of contemporary antisemitism, such as denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination and using double standards to judge Israel.

While the definition itself seems straightforward, the problem lies in its implementation and interpretation. Critics argue that it is often used to silence legitimate criticism of Israeli policies, conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. This conflation not only undermines the fight against true antisemitism but also hampers free speech and academic freedom.

The Chilling Effect on Debate

The IHRA definition, in some cases, has had a chilling effect on public discourse. Individuals and organizations who wish to engage in open and honest discussions about Israeli policies or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may fear being labeled as antisemitic. This fear of being branded as such can lead to self-censorship and the avoidance of important conversations.

Furthermore, the definition’s inclusion of “double standards” as an example of antisemitism can be problematic. While it is crucial to combat any unfair bias against Israel, this example can be misused to dismiss valid criticisms of Israeli actions. It is essential to distinguish between legitimate criticism and bigotry, as conflating the two undermines the credibility of the fight against antisemitism.

Protecting Jews and Free Speech

It is important to recognize that protecting Jews from antisemitism does not mean stifling free speech or suppressing legitimate criticism. The fight against antisemitism should go hand in hand with the promotion of open dialogue and the free exchange of ideas.

By narrowing the definition of antisemitism to include only clear instances of hatred and discrimination against Jews, without conflating it with legitimate criticism of Israeli policies, we can strike a balance between protecting Jewish communities and upholding the principles of free speech.

Alternative Approaches

There are alternative approaches to combating antisemitism that do not carry the risk of chilling debate. One such approach is the “Working Definition of Antisemitism” developed by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). This definition acknowledges the importance of protecting Jews while also safeguarding freedom of expression.

Additionally, fostering education and awareness about antisemitism is crucial. By promoting understanding and empathy, we can create an environment where antisemitism is less likely to thrive, and legitimate criticism can be separated from bigotry.


While the IHRA antisemitism definition aims to protect Jews from discrimination, it is important to consider its potential drawbacks. The conflation of antisemitism with legitimate criticism of Israeli policies can stifle debate and hinder the fight against true antisemitism. Striking a balance between protecting Jewish communities and upholding free speech is essential. By exploring alternative approaches and promoting education, we can work towards a society that effectively combats antisemitism while fostering open dialogue and understanding.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *