![\"\"](\"https:\/\/natharatmouchrika.net\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/f0584b3f9d187b5e4a58a4964699f38c-200x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
In July 2025, the Massachusetts legislature\u2019s Judiciary Committee heard testimony on a bill<\/a>\u00a0to make it the 38th state to follow the federal government, 45 other countries (almost all of them in the global North), and more than 50 U.S. local governments in adopting a strange definition of antisemitism.<\/p>\n In 2016, the\u00a0International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance<\/a>\u00a0(IHRA), a group of 35 mostly European countries, drafted what it called a\u00a0working definition of antisemitism<\/a>. The Alliance had been founded in 1998 to promote Holocaust education and, in its own words, to \u201cstrengthen governmental cooperation to work towards a world without genocide.\u201d All too sadly, right now, its definition is being used to do the opposite: it\u2019s helping to criminalize opposition to genocide.<\/p>\n Is It Really About Antisemitism?<\/strong><\/p>\n Most anti-racist organizations, like the\u00a0NAACP<\/a>, the\u00a0American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee<\/a>, the\u00a0League of United Latin American Citizens<\/a>, and\u00a0Stop Anti-Asian and Pacific Islander Hate<\/a>, do not, in fact, offer a specific definition of racism. Instead, they simply work to combat discrimination and fight for equal opportunity and basic human and civil rights.<\/p>\n Jews in the United States don\u2019t, in fact, face the same kinds of systemic racism the people that formed the above organizations\u00a0face. Unlike\u00a0them, Jews\u00a0tend<\/a>\u00a0to be disproportionately high income,\u00a0highly educated professionals.<\/p>\n So, in the IHRA\u2019s\u00a0list<\/a>\u00a0of examples of antisemitism, not one refers to inequality or structural discrimination. Instead, they focus mostly on ideas and speech \u2014 and in particular things said about Israel. And what those examples, in fact, tend to do is turn the definition of antisemitism into a thinly veiled tool for use in prohibiting criticism of any sort of Israel.<\/p>\n The IHRA\u2019s\u00a0definition<\/a>\u00a0itself appears relatively straightforward, even if it focuses on thought and speech rather than structures of racism: \u201cAntisemitism 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.\u201d<\/p>\n What follows, however, is a confusing and contradictory amalgam of 11 \u201cexamples of antisemitism in public life,\u201d six of which focus on political debate that raises questions about Zionism, Israel as an ethnostate, or Israel\u2019s actions.<\/p>\n Creating legal avenues to suppress what would otherwise be protected political speech about Israel is a major reason that the IHRA and its allies have felt the need to turn their definition into law. And advocates for the legal adoption of that definition\u00a0claim<\/a>\u00a0that it\u2019s necessary because antisemitism is on the rise in this country. But the expansive and confusing examples of antisemitism that the definition relies on actually make it impossible to know whether such a statement is, in fact, accurate. The\u00a0organizations<\/a>\u00a0that use the IHRA definition to track antisemitism won\u2019t tell us whether what is on the rise is actually antisemitism or simply opposition to Israel and its increasingly unnerving actions in the Middle East.<\/p>\n In addition, the IHRA text is based on the assumption that all Jews, by definition, identify fully with Israel and with the nature of Israel as a Jewish state. And so, for the IHRA, challenging \u201cthe state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity\u201d is in itself an example of antisemitism.<\/p>\n Yet the document also denounces as antisemitic the stereotyping of Jews and, in particular, \u201caccusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.\u201d<\/p>\n Notice a contradiction? While the IHRA claims that stereotyping or caricaturing Jews, or attributing a particular version of pro-Israel politics to Jews, is antisemitic, its own definition stereotypes, caricatures, and attributes a particular politics about Israel to Jews.<\/p>\n Legal and Logical Contradictions: A Double Standard for Israel<\/strong><\/p>\n After suggesting that \u201cthe state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity\u201d must not be challenged, the Alliance then does step back and agree that \u201ccriticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.\u201d<\/p>\n However, there is no other country that is conceived as a Jewish collectivity. To demand that criticism of Israel must be \u201csimilar\u201d to that leveled against other countries to be legitimate is just another way of saying that no such criticism can truly be legitimate.<\/p>\n The closest example of a country with a diverse population conceived as the collectivity of a single group might be apartheid South Africa, which of course was the target of widespread global condemnation. Another parallel today might be Hindu nationalism in India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But criticism of Hindu nationalism, like that of White nationalism in South Africa, has never been proscribed or punished for being a form of discrimination. (No matter that Donald Trump\u00a0deemed<\/a>\u00a0White South Africans an oppressed minority!)<\/p>\n In yet another contradiction, the document denounces \u201capplying double standards [to Israel] by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation\u201d as constituting antisemitism. In fact, however, its definition applies a double standard to Israel by proscribing language and criticism that no institution proscribes with respect to any other country.<\/p>\n The United States imposes no legal prohibitions on challenging ethnonationalism in other lands. I am free to criticize India, Hungary, or any other country, democratic or otherwise, that in any way privileges one race, ethnicity, or religion over others \u2014 but I can\u2019t criticize Israel for doing the same when it comes to Palestinians. I\u2019m free to criticize racism, discrimination, and racist violence anywhere else on earth \u2014 but not in Israel. If any other country creates the equivalent of concentration camps or commits genocide, we can denounce it and try to stop it \u2014 but if Israel does that, I will be accused of antisemitism for telling the truth about what Israel is doing.<\/p>\n According to the IHRA, we can state those truths about any other country committing war crimes and genocide, but not about what Israel is doing in Gaza. Given what we are witnessing in Gaza, that is not just a double standard, it\u2019s impunity for genocide.<\/p>\n Is Accusing Israel of Genocide Antisemitic?<\/strong><\/p>\n The IHRA further adds that \u201cdrawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis\u201d is a manifestation of antisemitism. This prohibition\u00a0extends<\/a>\u00a0not only to direct comparisons, but to any\u00a0claim<\/a>\u00a0that Israel is by its very nature an ethno-state, or that it is currently engaging in genocide, creating\u00a0concentration camps<\/a>, planning for mass expulsions, or engaging in other war crimes or crimes against humanity.<\/p>\n But what does it mean if a country is granted blanket impunity against any accusation of racism, war crimes, or human rights violations? The IHRA would prohibit journalists, human rights organizations, international organizations, international legal groups, and scholars from investigating, or denouncing what the country is doing, much less taking action to restrain it. Indeed,\u00a0some people from these groups<\/a>\u00a0have been\u00a0accused<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0sanctioned<\/a>\u00a0for their investigations, while others\u00a0self-censor<\/a>\u00a0out of fear of being seen as antisemitic.<\/p>\n In short, the IHRA itself commits two of the acts that it claims to oppose: it creates a double standard for Israel and an impenetrable cover for committing genocide.<\/p>\n Major human rights organizations like\u00a0Amnesty International<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Human Rights Watch<\/a>\u00a0have concluded that Israel is indeed committing genocide in Gaza. Close to\u00a0two dozen countries<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 almost all from the global South \u2014 along with the Non-Aligned Movement, the Arab League, and the African Union, have joined with South Africa to accuse Israel of genocidal acts before the International Court of Justice. And all of those claims have been duly\u00a0condemned<\/a>\u00a0by Israel and its allies.<\/p>\n Israeli genocide historian Omer Bartov proceeded cautiously with his own judgment. In November 2023, he\u00a0wrote<\/a>: \u201cAs a historian of genocide, I believe that there is no proof that genocide is currently taking place in Gaza, although it is very likely that war crimes, and even crimes against humanity, are happening.\u201d He believed then that genocide was indeed possible in Gaza and urged the world to mobilize to prevent it.<\/p>\n Despite global protest, Israel\u2019s assault on Gaza only continued. In July 2025, Bartov\u00a0wrote<\/a>: \u201cMy inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. Having grown up in a Zionist home, lived the first half of my life in Israel, served in the I.D.F. [Israeli Defense Forces] as a soldier and officer and spent most of my career researching and writing on war crimes and the Holocaust, this was a painful conclusion to reach, and one that I resisted as long as I could. But I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.\u201d Ongoing denial of the genocide, he added, \u201cwill cause unmitigated damage not just to the people of Gaza and Israel but also to the system of international law established in the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust, designed to prevent such atrocities from happening ever again.\u201d<\/p>\n In fact, Bartov observes, there is now an overwhelming consensus among genocide scholars (who study comparative genocide or different genocides worldwide) that what we are witnessing in Gaza is indeed a genocide. Holocaust scholars mostly hold the opposite view and many have argued, in line with the IHRA, that any such accusation against Israel could only be motivated by antisemitism. \u201cThe Holocaust has been\u2026 relentlessly invoked by the state of Israel and its defenders as a cover-up for the crimes of the IDF,\u201d concludes Bartov, citing an array of publications that accuse genocide scholars of antisemitism for simply describing what Israel is doing in Gaza and quoting Israeli officials about their aims.<\/p>\n What About Other War Crimes \u2014 Or Any Crimes at All?<\/strong><\/p>\n Yet another IHRA example of antisemitism refers to \u201cblood libel,\u201d which it doesn\u2019t define, but which generally refers to the grim myth that Jews killed non-Jewish children to use their blood in rituals. The IHRA text cites \u201cusing the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis\u201d as examples of antisemitism.<\/p>\n And such accusations haven\u2019t just been made against critics of the present war in Gaza outside of Israel. When Israeli politician Yair Golan spoke out against Israeli atrocities in Gaza, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately\u00a0accused<\/a>\u00a0him of \u201cblood libel.\u201d When the Israeli newspaper\u00a0Ha\u2019aretz<\/em>\u00a0published\u00a0an investigative report<\/a>\u00a0with soldiers\u2019 testimonies about being ordered to shoot at Gazans approaching humanitarian aid sites, the paper was subject to the same accusation. When Israeli opposition politicians accused Netanyahu of prolonging the war in the service of his own political interests, the Israeli ambassador to the U.S.\u00a0accused<\/a>\u00a0them, too, of \u201cblood libel.\u201d<\/p>\n Is it antisemitic for the World Court to hear a case accusing Israel of the crime of genocide in Gaza? Benjamin Netanyahu has openly\u00a0claimed<\/a>\u00a0so, as did the\u00a0Anti-Defamation League<\/a>, the\u00a0American Jewish Committee<\/a>, and the U.S.\u00a0Combat Antisemitism Movement<\/a>. Is it antisemitic for genocide scholars to study this particular case of mass killing, just because its perpetrator happens to be Israel? Is it antisemitic for Israeli journalist Dahlia Scheindlin to\u00a0point out<\/a>\u00a0that \u201cIsrael\u2019s plan to herd 600,000 Palestinians into a special camp at Gaza\u2019s southern border with Egypt\u201d is in fact a plan to create the equivalent of a concentration camp?<\/p>\n The impunity that such a proscription attempts to grant Israel is immense.<\/p>\n There\u2019s More: It\u2019s Legally Binding<\/strong><\/p>\n Although the IHRA originally insisted that its definition was \u201cnon-legally binding,\u201d it is, in fact, becoming so. The group itself and\u00a0major Jewish organizations<\/a>\u00a0in the United States have launched political campaigns to promote their definition and turn it into law.<\/p>\n By mid-2025, 46 countries had\u00a0adopted<\/a>\u00a0the definition. President Trump implemented it with an\u00a0executive order<\/a>\u00a0in 2019, citing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin for any program that gets federal financial assistance. As a result, Title VI proscriptions can now be applied to a person who criticizes Zionism, who uses the term genocide to describe Israel\u2019s slaughter in Gaza, or who\u00a0advocates<\/a>\u00a0the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement or indeed any withdrawal of U.S. support for what Israel is now doing.<\/p>\n The Biden administration\u00a0maintained<\/a>\u00a0Trump\u2019s policy and the current Trump administration, and universities now pressured into following in its footsteps, have used it to\u00a0fire<\/a>, punish, or, in the case of the government,\u00a0deport<\/a>\u00a0people under the guise of preventing antisemitism. In fact,\u00a0Harvard University\u2019s<\/a>\u00a0decision in January 2025 to become the\u00a0first Ivy League<\/a>\u00a0university to join the trend, adopting the definition (followed by Yale in April), specifically\u00a0designated<\/a>\u00a0\u201cZionists\u201d as a protected class. Thus, the policy prohibits \u201cantisemitic, racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Zionist, anti-Arab, Islamophobic, anti-LDS, or anti-Catholic\u201d behaviors.<\/p>\n