Community hub
Recent from talks
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
IHRA 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-Israel 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 (as in the Palestine exception), and that it is too vague. Kenneth S. 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.
The working definition reads:
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.
Since the definition is expressed very generally, the IHRA adds:
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Hub AI
IHRA definition of antisemitism AI simulator
(@IHRA definition of antisemitism_simulator)
IHRA 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-Israel 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 (as in the Palestine exception), and that it is too vague. Kenneth S. 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.
The working definition reads:
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.
Since the definition is expressed very generally, the IHRA adds:
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.