People keep calling the IHRA definition of antisemitism “controversial.” That label gets repeated so often it’s treated as self-evident. It isn’t.
IHRA refers to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, a multinational body dedicated to Holocaust education and combating antisemitism. Its working definition of antisemitism is non-legally binding and was written as guidance—nothing more, nothing less. Yet critics routinely claim it exists to silence criticism of Israel.
That claim collapses the moment the definition is actually read.
The IHRA text states explicitly that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” In plain terms: criticizing Israeli policy is not antisemitism. It becomes antisemitic only when Israel is treated differently—held to standards no other country is judged by, or used as a proxy to target Jews as a group.
That isn’t censorship. It’s a tool for identifying bias.
It’s also worth asking why this definition provokes such resistance. IHRA was written by a committee of antisemitism experts to describe how it manifests in the modern world. We don’t allow outsiders to redefine racism for other minorities. Jews shouldn’t be the exception.
And this isn’t a fringe framework. The IHRA definition has been adopted by dozens of governments, U.S. states, cities, universities, and over a thousand organizations worldwide.
IHRA isn’t controversial because it bans criticism of Israel. It’s controversial because it removes the camouflage that antisemites have grown comfortable hiding behind.
Found this video interesting? Follow the HonestReporting page on Facebook to catch more videos, and read articles debunking news bias and smears, as well as others explaining Israel’s history, politics, and international affairs. Click here to learn more!
© Divuach Ne’eman R”A, 2025
