The UN must not adopt the IHRA definition
In May 2016, 31 member states of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) met in the Romanian capital Bucharest to adopt a “working definition of anti-Semitism.” reportedly at the request of Israel. The group endorsed a definition — since known as the IHRA definition — accompanied by 11 “contemporary examples of anti-Semitism,” seven of which relate to Israel and a few to legitimate criticism of discriminatory Israeli policies in Palestine.
Over the past seven years, there has been an active campaign to encourage governments and public institutions to adopt and use the definition. However, rather than help combat anti-Semitism, the definition has been used as a weapon against critics of Israel and its settler-colonial apartheid.
Worse, it has crept onto college campuses, threatening freedom of speech and thought in the United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Even the lead author of the definition has warned against its use in academia.
Flanked by politically motivated groups, Israel is now lobbying the United Nations to adopt this definition. If the UN were to do so, it would have serious consequences for the international body itself, for the international human rights regime more broadly and for the fight against anti-Semitism.
The impact of the IHRA definition
In recent years, governments and institutions in the West have eagerly adopted the IHRA definition, which is already having negative consequences for freedom of expression, freedom of thought, human rights work and academia.
The European Union has given its full weight to legitimizing and promoting the definition, with the European Commission making it a priority.
Apart from adoptions at national level, the EU has issued a series of statements reinforcing its support for the definition. To promote its implementation in multiple policy areas, the Commission has published a “handbook for practical use” of the IHRA definition.
The EU sees the IHRA definition as a useful “tool in education and training, including for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to identify and investigate anti-Semitic attacks more efficiently and effectively”.
This very deep level of institutional investment in the IHRA definition has contributed to pre-existing trends of delegitimizing criticism of Israeli policies and practices, self-censorship and anti-Palestinian racism.
The IHRA definition is increasingly used against human rights defenders, civil society and student groups, scientists and journalists who criticize Israel.
It has even hit organizations that deal with anti-Semitism. For example, European Jews for a Just Peace – a coalition of progressive Jewish-Palestinian groups – claimed in 2020 that the European Commission refused to admit them to a working group on anti-Semitism it had organized. The coalition is openly critical of the Israeli occupation and rejects the IHRA definition.
In January, a written response from the European Commission to an inquiry by members of the European Parliament suggested that an Amnesty International report describing Israel’s rule over the Palestinians as apartheid was anti-Semitic.
Journalists have also suffered from the ubiquitous application of the IHRA definition in the EU. In Germany, for example, Palestinian and Arab journalists have been censored for no valid reason. Last year, German state broadcaster Deutsche Welle fired seven Arab journalists, accusing them of anti-Semitism after an investigation into their social media posts that applied the IHRA definition.
The US government has also embraced the IHRA definition. Following silent approval by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights in 2018, former President Donald Trump’s 2019 executive order directed government agencies to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Acts on college campuses and to enforce the IHRA definition. use as a guide to anti-Semitism.
This facilitated on-campus attacks against students and faculty, including a recent complaint against Lara Sheehi, a psychology professor at George Washington University, which was eventually dismissed by the university after an internal investigation.
The US State Department has also adopted the definition. In 2020, it reportedly went so far as to consider an “anti-Semitic” label for groups such as Oxfam, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Canada’s adoption of the IHRA definition has also had far-reaching consequences. Last year, the Department of Canadian Heritage announced it planned to require those applying for funding to sign a statement that they will not undermine Canada’s anti-racism strategy, which clearly references the IHRA definition.
This sets a very dangerous precedent in Canada that could spread to other agencies. It would not only protect Israel from criticism, but also alienate and marginalize the Palestinian and Arab minorities who support the Palestinian cause. More than 30 Canadian groups, including Amnesty International Canada and Independent Jewish Voices, recognized the dangerous impact this move could have and petitioned the department to remove the IHRA definition from funding requirements.
In the UK, government funding for universities is linked to institutional support for the IHRA definition, which has been used in several universities to suppress free speech and foment smear campaigns against pro-Palestinian staff.
In 2021, Professor Somdeep Sen, who was invited to give a book lecture at the University of Glasgow, was asked to provide his slides and information about the content of the lecture in advance. Since his book is about Palestine, scholars expressed concern that the incident reflected the encroachment on the IHRA definition — adopted by the university — of freedom of expression.
In 2022, Dr. Shahd Abusalama, a Palestinian lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University, was investigated for her Twitter posts after being accused of anti-Semitism. Many also saw in her ordeal the far reach of the IHRA definition.
The UN and the global fight against IHRA
The “success” of the IHRA definition in enabling intimidation of pro-Palestinian voices has encouraged the Israeli government to step up its promotion.
It has now launched a campaign led by Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan, to pressure the organization to adopt it.
In addition to berating the UN for “neglecting its purpose” in fighting anti-Semitism, Ambassador Erdan has invoked the IHRA definition in his brutal attacks on key UN actors advancing Palestinians’ fundamental rights: the Human Rights Council, the Commission of Inquiry, the Special Rapporteur on Palestine and UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees.
Let’s be clear: an acceptance by the UN of the IHRA definition would do enormous damage to the UN itself in the first place. The definition could then be conveniently used as a UN standard against UN officials and bodies who criticize Israel.
Moreover, if the definition is validated as a global standard for combating anti-Semitism, it would lead to far more violations of free speech and democratic rights than we have seen to date.
Ultimately, this would simultaneously weaken the fight for justice in Palestine and the fight against anti-Semitism. Fighting anti-Jewish hatred would be severely undermined by political efforts to link it almost exclusively to Israel and legitimate criticism of its policies against the Palestinians.
Fortunately, the IHRA definition is meeting increasing opposition from the UN itself. In October 2022, the Special Rapporteur on Racism published a report sharply criticizing the IHRA definition for the “damage to human rights resulting from its instrumentalization”, calling on states [its] adoption and promotion”.
A few weeks later, 128 leading scholars in anti-Semitism and related fields urged the UN not to adopt the IHRA definition. Recently, more than 100 civil society organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Palestinian and Israeli human rights groups, conveyed the same message to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres: Don’t adopt the IHRA definition.
Such counter-pressure is also relevant in anticipation of an “action plan” to combat anti-Semitism, which the UN is currently preparing.
Above all, the IHRA definition shields Israel from international criticism and accountability for the regime of racial discrimination and repression it has established between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The definition has become a critical battleground in the global struggle against settler colonial apartheid – and should be rejected and withdrawn.
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the editorial view of Al Jazeera.