What is the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism?
In 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), comprised of 31 member-states, including the United States, formally adopted the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism (“the IHRA Definition”). The IHRA Definition, initially published by a European Union agency in 2005, has been used by the U.S. State Department since 2010 and by the U.S. Department of Education since at least 2019. It was embraced in the 2023 U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism and has been adopted or endorsed by more than half of the U.S. states as well as the District of Columbia. Today, it is used by over 1,000 other governments, universities, NGOs, and other key institutions, demonstrating a clear international consensus.
The definition states:
“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.”
Accompanying the IHRA Definition are 11 examples that “may serve as illustrations” of how antisemitism manifests contemporaneously, ranging from age-old anti-Jewish tropes, to Holocaust denial, to certain expressions of animus toward the Jewish State of Israel that may cross the line into antisemitism. These examples are important, because while certain longstanding myths animating antisemitism have stood the test of millennia, manifestations of antisemitism do change, sometimes significantly, over time and place. It is important to provide guidance built on the knowledge of experts in the field, as well as the lived experience of large segments of the Jewish population.
While there is no singular exhaustive definition of antisemitism, as it can take many forms, the IHRA Definition has become the preeminent and most widely accepted definitional and learning tool used around the world when it comes to understanding manifestations of antisemitism today. No other definition is as widely endorsed and utilized.
How Should the IHRA Definition Be Used?
The non-legally binding IHRA Definition is intended to be utilized by a range of stakeholders including law enforcement, campus administrators and other institutions and entities, to better enable them to identify antisemitism and gather and analyze relevant data. As explained by Katharina von Schnurbein, European Commission Coordinator on Combating Antisemitism: “[N]on-legally binding in its nature, the working definition is helpful in public discourse as well as training for media, educators and public authorities, without impeding the legal right to freedom of speech.”
Today, governments, campus administrators, law enforcement bodies and civil society organizations around the world all use the IHRA Definition as an important tool to help understand and educate others about anti-Jewish bias, to help assess claims of antisemitism, to assist in certain circumstances in identifying whether a crime might also be categorized as a hate crime motivated by antisemitic animus, and/or to aid in determining – again, taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances – whether certain conduct adversely affecting an individual or group may constitute antisemitic discrimination under an existing law or code. In some cases, consideration of IHRA may be required by statute, resolution or executive order.
Why is the IHRA Definition Important?
The IHRA Definition is an important tool for guidance and education about antisemitism. As antisemitic incidents have increased worldwide, governments and civil society have sought ways to speak out against antisemitism and ensure that there is awareness of its real-life manifestations and impact. The definition should not be viewed as a substitute or replacement for existing laws. It is not a “charging authority.” Nonetheless, it is critical as guidance.
As the world’s leading organization fighting antisemitism and hate in all forms, ADL supports the use of the non-legally binding IHRA Definition by various stakeholders as a reference point, or tool, that can provide guidance for educational and assessment purposes.
Does the IHRA Definition Undermine Free Speech or Prohibit Criticism of Israel?
The IHRA Definition does not prohibit criticism of Israel. The text clearly states: “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” Moreover, it is important to note that some of the examples of antisemitism included in the IHRA Definition, particularly those related to Israel, are protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That means that the government may not prohibit such speech or abridge it, including by conditioning penalties upon its exercise or benefits upon its suppression.
The value of the IHRA Definition as a resource is to offer a better understanding of why certain speech may constitute antisemitism that is offensive, intolerant and harmful. As the definition highlights, whether such speech is antisemitic often depends upon specific context and other factors.
ADL does not support the adoption and application of the IHRA Definition in a manner that would create new categories of legally prohibited speech that are subjected to either civil or criminal penalties – something we believe the First Amendment and principles of free speech would prevent.
At the same time, ADL does support carefully crafted resolutions, executive orders and legislative proposals (a) embracing the IHRA Definition as a tool for guidance and trainings, and/or (b) ensuring that government agencies consider IHRA when evaluating whether potentially unlawful conduct was antisemitic. ADL also supports colleges and universities using IHRA for training purposes and when formulating policies to create non-discriminatory environments on campus.
How Can Using the IHRA Definition be Helpful for American Institutions?
The IHRA Definition is one important tool that government entities, educational authorities and civil society institutions can use to illustrate, and thus help identify, contemporary examples of antisemitic expressions that not everyone may realize play on longstanding and deeply harmful anti-Jewish tropes or other forms of animus towards the Jewish religion or Jewish people.
Specific examples of how European governments and civil society constructively have utilized the IHRA working definition can be instructive for American institutions, which also can use them as reference points and guides in educating and assessing antisemitism within their own organizations and beyond.
ADL encourages the use of the IHRA Definition by the U.S. Government to help determine when existing laws may be violated in ways that are antisemitic, such as when a crime may be motivated by antisemitic animus, or when an adverse action may constitute discrimination against Jews. However, applying the IHRA Definition must be done in a careful and appropriate manner in order to ensure that doing so protects civil rights under existing law and does not undermine them.
Is the IHRA Definition Necessary for Combating Antisemitism?
The IHRA Definition is one tool, albeit an important one, that should be used to identify and combat antisemitism. However, it is not a substitute for more nuanced analysis nor meaningful action to counter antisemitism. Its use by institutions must not be treated as a replacement for instituting comprehensive education programs, building of good-faith alliances to fight antisemitism and all forms of hate, and other such initiatives.