Skip to main content

← Fear of the Antisemitism Label

The IHRA Definition: What It Says, What It Protects, and How It Is Being Used

A parent who is afraid of being called antisemitic for reading about the Iran war should read the definition that is most often used to make that charge. It takes ten minutes. The surprise for most readers is that the definition itself protects the parent's question. The danger is not in its text. It is in how it is being written into law and applied.

What IHRA is​

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted a "working definition" of antisemitism, with a list of examples, on May 26, 2016 (the date the Define to Defeat Act's text uses). It has since been adopted by governments including the United States and Israel; a long X post on the definition's spread dates Israel's adoption to January 22, 2017 and the U.S. adoption to December 11, 2019, under Executive Order 13899 (@lrlivinglife, April 13, 2024).

The two sentences a parent needs​

An Israeli think tank at Tel Aviv University, the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), published a defense of the definition in December 2021. It quotes the text:

"However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." — IHRA working definition, as quoted by INSS, December 23, 2021

And among its examples of real antisemitism: "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."

Put those together and a parent has a working rule:

  • Protected: "Israel's government pushed for this war, and I want to know how much influence it has had on my government." That is the kind of question citizens ask about any foreign government.
  • Not protected: blaming Jews as a people for anything the Israeli government does.

An Israel-based media watchdog that exists to expose anti-Israel bias says the same thing: "The IHRA definition of antisemitism isn't 'controversial.' It explicitly says criticism of Israel like any other country is NOT antisemitic. What it blocks is something else: using Israel as a proxy to target Jews" (@HonestReporting, February 4, 2026). When a pro-Israel watchdog and a worried parent agree on where the line is, the parent can stop being afraid of the wrong thing.

The drafter's own warning​

The definition's original drafter, Kenneth Stern, has, according to a Council on American-Islamic Relations fact sheet, "publicly denounced its misuse" (CAIR fact sheet, September 2025). The Electronic Intifada, which is hostile to the definition, reports the same: Stern, "an official with the Israel lobby group the American Jewish Committee," "later denounced how the definition was weaponized to silence critics of Israel" (Electronic Intifada, June 8, 2023). Sana Saeed, writing about a congressional resolution adopting the definition, noted that "even the creator of that definition is against" such uses (@SanaSaeed, December 6, 2023).

How it is being used​

The problem parents fear is real, and it is documented. The European Legal Support Center studied 53 cases in Germany, Austria, and the United Kingdom in which the definition was used against advocates for Palestinian rights. As the Carnegie Endowment's interview with its authors put it, the report was "Based on 53 cases where the IHRA definition was used to target Palestinian rights advocates with allegations of antisemitism that were proven to be unfounded" (Carnegie Endowment, June 6, 2023). The same interview described the definition's origin as "a concerted effort—underway since the early 2000s—by individuals and organizations aligned with the Israeli government, to redefine antisemitism."

A British activist wrote in May 2026 that after criticizing Israel's actions in Gaza "and the US-Israeli and British war on Iran," "Police arrested me at my home, leaving my children to look after each other," and that "in every case of police and workplace harassment, it is the 'IHRA definition of antisemitism' that is being used as a benchmark" (@CPGBML, May 24, 2026). That is one person's account, posted by a British communist party's account; it shows how the definition is experienced by those it is used against.

A former Speaker of Israel's Knesset, Avraham Burg, wrote in a July 2026 blurb for a new book on the pro-Israel lobby that it "now wields antisemitism as a legal and political weapon, criminalizing the very criticism that American democracy requires" (@QuincyInst, July 13, 2026).

The move from definition to law​

The definition was adopted as a "working" guide. The next step, which worries civil-liberties advocates on the left and right, is writing it into civil-rights enforcement. The details, including the Define to Defeat Act, the Antisemitism Awareness Act, and a House resolution declaring that "anti-Zionism is antisemitism," are on the next level down: Bills That Write the Definition Into Law.

What a parent does with this​

  • Read the "any other country" sentence yourself, and keep it in your pocket.
  • Keep your nouns precise: the Netanyahu government, the Israeli Air Force, AIPAC, a named bill. Never "the Jews."
  • Do not let fear of misuse stop you from reading. The definition's own text protects the reading.

Sources​

Research captures: twitter/t72__v853.md, t72__v859.md, t72__v862.md, t72__v863.md.

Status: Kenneth Stern, Sana Saeed, and Avraham Burg are alive. Nothing on this page is a claim that any of them committed a crime.

Last Updated: 2026-09-26

Last updated on