Only IHRA definition combats antisemitism - opinion

Once again, the Jewish community has been put in a position where it needs to fight for the legitimacy of our definition of antisemitism.

Anyone with access to the internet can see that antisemitism is on the rise. Every year, the FBI releases another report that tells us what we already know, that Jews are the primary victims of religious-motivated hate crimes.

May is Jewish American Heritage Month, described as a way to pay tribute to generations of Jewish Americans who helped form the fabric of American history, culture and society. In a show of solidarity, the White House hosted a celebration of the Jewish heritage with the president and first lady. It featured a performance with the stars of the Broadway rendition of Parade.

The Broadway show tells the story of Leo Frank and highlights the dangers and consequences of a society infested with antisemitism. President Joe Biden reaffirmed his commitment to combat antisemitism to the attendees and revealed that his government is working on a new national strategy to deal with growing Jew hatred.

While this sounds like a productive way to address the growing antisemitism in the United States, controversy has erupted over the fact that this task force will not base its antisemitism criteria on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition.

The IHRA definition is best for fighting antisemitism

The IHRA is a consensus definition that over 37 different countries have adopted. As a historically oppressed minority, hatred towards Jews has manifested differently throughout centuries, so the IHRA definition is essential to address today’s antisemitism accurately.

The IHRA definition addresses conspiracy theories about Jews, the notion that Jews have power and control over the economy, governments and the world. It also addresses Holocaust denial, blood libels, dual-loyalty claims, denying Jews the right to self-determination (by claiming that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor) and holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of Israel.

It seems, however, the White House is hesitating on whether or not to adopt the IHRA as the criteria for their national task force because of its Israel components. Excluding the IHRA would be a huge mistake and would, once again, put American Jews at risk.

Hatred toward Jews does not only come from the ultra-Right or Neo-Nazis. In the last couple of years, we have seen a surge of antisemitism from the left and, unfortunately, from other minority groups. The clearest example of this happened in May 2021, during Israel’s Operation Guardian of the Walls with the Gaza Strip. At that time, it was Jews all over the world (not just Israelis) who had to face an onslaught of vicious antisemitism, both physically and online.

IN ONE day alone, “Hitler was right” was tweeted more than 17,000 times. Antisemites in the UK chanted, “Rape your daughters,” global demonstrations called for the death of Jews and the bombing of Tel Aviv. Many of my friends in the United States and Canada who live in Jewish neighborhoods were targeted and attacked and received warnings from the police about planned lynchings. None of this is a criticism of Israeli policies, it is just plain and vicious antisemitism.

Over the weekend, more than 550 rabbis called for the Biden administration to include the IHRA in their strategy for fighting antisemitism. In the letter, they write that “the IHRA is critically important for helping to educate and protect our congregants in the face of this rising hate.”

Progressive groups are pushing for adopting the Nexus definition instead, which minimizes the idea that double standards against Israel are antisemitic. The nexus definition argues that “paying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries is not prima facie proof of antisemitism” and that “there are numerous reasons for devoting special attention to Israel and treating Israel differently.”

How can the White House claim to address the rise in Jew hate but then question what the collective Jewish community is presenting as antisemitism? Why is it that when Jews present what we know to be our manifestations and experiences of hatred, we are forced to fight for people to accept it? The reality is that you cannot effectively combat antisemitism without the IHRA.

The IHRA definition provides a comprehensive framework that not only identifies the various manifestations of antisemitism but also guides policymakers in formulating strategies to combat it. By incorporating this definition, the task force would have a strong foundation to develop targeted and effective policies that tackle the multifaceted nature of antisemitism.

By encompassing a broad range of antisemitic acts, the IHRA definition enables the task force to address the underlying hatred against Jews in all its forms, ensuring a comprehensive and holistic approach to combating antisemitism.

Many countries and organizations worldwide have adopted the IHRA, fostering a unified and cohesive response to antisemitism. By aligning with these global efforts, the Biden administration’s task force can leverage effective best practices in the fight against antisemitism worldwide.

Ultimately, it would empower the task force to confront and dismantle the underlying bigotry, making significant strides toward fostering a more inclusive and tolerant society.

The reality is that a ceremony to honor Jewish heritage means nothing if the White House chooses to ignore what the vast majority of American Jews know to be antisemitism. By not incorporating the IHRA definition in the task force, the Biden administration has already failed to tackle and delegitimize modern antisemitism.

The writer is a social media activist with over 10 years of experience working for Israeli, Jewish causes and cause-based NGOs. She is the co-founder and the COO of Social Lite Creative, a digital marketing firm specializing in geopolitics.