The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism

Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) is a grassroots organization with 2000 members, “committed to defending Palestinian human rights and opposing all forms of racism.” IJV has consistently opposed IHRA, claiming “the IHRA Definition is the Wrong Approach” to combating antisemitism and that “The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism (IHRA-WDA) is designed to silence criticism of Israel and of Zionism by equating this criticism with antisemitism.” In 2025, IJV published “Silenced in Our Name: A Jewish Commentary on Canada’s IHRA Handbook,” which argues that IHRA “fuels anti-Palestinian racism,” and “distracts from real antisemitism.” IJV created the #NoIHRA campaign, which lobbies for the dismantling of IHRA. Many have thel misconceptions IJV has proliferated, including:

1. IHRA Does Not Equate Criticism of Israel with Antisemitism: In a joint statement with 40 other organizations, IJV argues that IHRA is “worded in such a way as to... intentionally equate legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism.” However, IHRA does not classify all criticism of Israel as antisemitic; rather, it addresses when criticism of Israel can become antisemitic, providing a distinction between justified criticism and antisemitism. The IHRA explicitly states, “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” The Canadian Handbook on IHRA explains that IHRA helps “draw the line as to when criticism of Israel becomes antisemitism – when it moves from being legitimate criticism to being discriminatory.”
2. IJV’s Minimization of Antisemitism: IJV routinely minimizes antisemitism by disseminating statements including, “Jews are not oppressed here or in other Western countries.” Simultaneously, IJV justifies attacks on Jewish institutions as “outraged opposition to Israel’s murderous attack.” IJV’s statements demonstrate a desire to justify antisemitism as legitimate opposition to Israel. Consequently, their rejection of IHRA is a threat to their pervasive minimization of antisemitism and would certainly be misconstrued.
3. Identity Manipulation: IJV uses their “Jewish identity” to legitimize their perspective on antisemitism and Israel. Professor David Hirsh, leading scholar on Contemporary antisemitism, explains, “the ‘call to reject’ inverts identity politics. Its claim is that membership of the targeted group gives them not a privileged view, based on experience, of the racism that Jews suffer, but rather… special inside knowledge of the self-serving and dishonest claims made by the majority of Jews! They write as though their standpoint requires them to bear witness against the majority of Jews and Jewish institutions and to warn non-Jews about Jewish cunning, dishonesty and selfishness.”
4. IHRA Does Not Promote Racism: IJV argues that IHRA promotes racism, advancing a statement that is inherently incorrect. Antisemitism and racism are not mutually exclusive. IHRA does not stifle justified criticism of Israel's treatment of Palestinians or other racialized communities. Professor David Hirsh explains that conversation “on the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict would simply not be affected.” The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) explains, “Speaking out against racism targeting Jews is not anti-Palestinian, and this complex conflict is not a zero-sum equation. Supporting Israel is not anti-Palestinian. Palestinians have a unique identity and national aspirations that all of us who support a two-state solution acknowledge, understand, and respect.”
5. IHRA Is a Tool for Identifying and Combating Antisemitism: IHRA continues to be the most widely accepted definition of antisemitism and works by outlining examples of antisemitism in a modern context. However, IJV argues that “Ultimately, the IHRA definition and Canada’s Handbook are not about fighting antisemitism.” IHRA drafters contrast these claims asserting that, “the IHRA working definition is the main document that elucidates what antisemitism is, by providing a general definition and 11 explanatory examples.” Michal Cotler-Wunsh, CEO of the International Legal Forum, explains “The IHRA definition is our most critical tool. If we cannot properly identify antisemitism, we cannot fight the tsunami of Jew-hatred unleashed in our time.” The Government of Canada articulates that, “The IHRA Definition is a resource for recognizing antisemitic expression, behaviour, intention and impact.”
6. IJV’s Separation of Israel from Jewish Identity Contrasts with Majority Jewish Experiences: IJV claims, “Those who allege that human rights groups are antisemitic try to conflate all Jews with Israel. We believe Israel is and must be seen as a separate and distinct phenomenon.” However, this statement is rooted in the fringe community of Jews who negate the Jewish ancestral and religious connection to the land of Israel. Dr. Alexandra Herzog, deputy director of contemporary Jewish life and Jewish peoplehood initiatives at the American Jewish Committee, explains, “the Jewish connection and attachment to the Land of Israel is as old as the Jewish people” and that “The Hebrew Bible, the Talmud and daily Jewish liturgy all emphasize the central importance of the Land of Israel.” Polls from the Pew Research Center demonstrate that “Eight-in-ten U.S. Jews say caring about Israel is an essential or important part of what being Jewish means to them. Nearly six-in-ten say they personally feel an emotional attachment to Israel, and a similar share say they follow news about the Jewish state at least somewhat closely.” Furthermore, Professor Robert Brym’s 2025 publication, “What Does Zionism Mean to Canadian Jews? A Longitudinal Study of Semantic Drift,” states that “94 percent of Canadian Jews said they support the existence of a Jewish state in Israel” and only 1% identify as anti-Zionists. As such, when IJV maintains that Jewish identity must be “separate” from Israel, it ignores the majority of Jewish individuals who feel Israel strongly connects to their Jewish identity.

In 2023, 104 organizations signed a letter to the United Nations which claims, “if the UN adopts or endorses the IHRA definition, it will embolden governments to restrict legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies, and stifle growing calls for an end to the system of apartheid Israel imposes on Palestinian.” As a leading signatory and proponent of the letter, Amnesty International promoted it widely. The letter includes a quote from Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Director, stating “‘The UN’s adoption or endorsement of the IHRA definition would pose serious risks for Palestinians’ human rights.” In contrast to these claims, leading scholars explain:

1. IHRA Does Not Legally Restrict Freedom of Expression: Amnesty International reported that Australia's possible adoption of IHRA “risks creating a chilling effect and suppressing freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.” However, this statement contradicts the well established legal protections for freedom of speech ingrained in most countries. Freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are rights that can not be easily infringed. Certainly, IHRA will not have legal effects on foundational rights such as freedom of expression. The European Parliament explains that IHRA “is a non-legally binding practical tool to recognize contemporary forms of antisemitism” and “does not replace or interfere with existing legislation on hate speech or hate crime.” IHRA is not law and cannot restrict individuals' ability to express their opinions. Nonetheless, IHRA is a useful tool that helps individuals recognize when freedom of expression becomes hateful.
2. The Contradiction of Lived Experience: In 2018, Amnesty International launched a campaign stating that, “we should never forget to listen to the people most affected by the issue.” However, they seemingly contradict their own perspective by rejecting the idea that Jewish individuals have a right to define their own experience of hatred against them. Professor Lilach Marom explains that institutions continuously deny “Jewish claims to draw on their lived experiences to identify antisemitism.” Marom highlights the contradictions embedded in systems like Amnesty International, which claim to uphold the rights of minorities while simultaneously ignoring the lived experience of Jews. Marom explains, “Ironically, the success of critical education in emphasizing positionality as a site of knowledge can produce a blind spot when the group in question is not perceived as belonging to an equity-deserving category. The legitimacy of Jewish claims for recognition is undermined by casting Jews as too privileged to suffer or too biased to speak objectively.”
3. Amnesty International’s Failure to Balance Competing Human Rights in Its Criticism of IHRA: Amnesty International claims that IHRA “is not consistent with international human rights law.” Amnesty argues that IHRA breaches Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protects freedom of expression. However, these rights are not absolute; Article 19 permits restrictions for “respect of the rights or reputations of others.” The European Court of Human Rights recognizes situations involving competing Convention rights and provides a “balancing” approach. Amnesty fails to balance the rights that IHRA protects. The European Commission explains that IHRA is “the benchmark for promoting a rights-based and victim-centred approach to combating antisemitism.” Amnesty overlooks the competing rights considerations that IHRA seeks to address and, by focusing primarily on freedom of expression, fails to achieve an objective balancing of interests.
4. The Double Standard on Double Standards: Amnesty rejects the provision in IHRA, which states that it can be antisemitic to apply “double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” However, in a letter to the European Union, Amnesty International claims that the singling out of Palestinian charities is a “blatant double standard” which “demonstrates a concerningly selective approach to human rights.” Amnesty International recognizes that singling out and boycotting a single nation can illuminate discriminatory double standards, yet, when applied to the Jewish people and the Jewish state, it rejects the same principle, which recognizes that highly selective treatment of Israel, in comparison to any democratic nation, can constitute antisemitism.