As Jews around the world commemorated Yom Hashoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day) last week, 100+ organizations signed onto a Human Rights Watch letter asking the United Nations not to use the most accepted definition of anti-Semitism, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, as part of its efforts to make sure that Never Again isn’t just an empty phrase.
In the international theater of the absurd in which words have little meaning and terrorist organizations (including several of the signatories) are free to brand themselves as “human rights” groups, HRW urged the U.N. to a) fight against “anti-Semitism,” but then b) let anti-Semites have the final say in defining what “anti-Semitism” means.
The absurdity of allowing HRW to set policy around this issue is borne out by their own sins of both commission and omission: HRW has blamed anti-Semitic attacks in the U.K. and in Germany on Israel (instead of anti-Semites,); referred to Jewish law as “primitive”; defended war crimes committed by terrorists; and expressed dismay that Israel has not suffered more casualties as it defends itself. In terms of its tracking “expertise,” as NGO Monitor documents, HRW has a firm corporate policy of ignoring the phenomenon. For example, their 2022 World Report does not even mention anti-Semitism in the United States, despite the highest ever reported number of incidents.
Charitably, if HRW understood what anti-Semitism is, they might be in a better position to offer advice on how best to monitor it- or at the very least stop engaging in it themselves. Practically, the letter is wrong on almost every aspect of the IHRA definition. To set the record straight:
The definition was developed because Jew-hatred was on the rise, and authorities were having a hard time recognizing its many forms. As IHRA’s authors have made clear, it was designed for those who need to know what anti-Semitism is, including “those in authority who are responsible for identifying and responding to anti-Semitic hate crimes and other anti-Semitic events.” While it is true that the American Bar Association, which does not monitor anti-Semitism as part of its mission, recently issued a statement condemning anti-Jewish discrimination without referencing the definition, that is irrelevant to the U.N., whose Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has endorsed IHRA, both in his report to the Human Rights Council about rising rates of anti-Jewish incidents, and in his subsequent recommendation for a U.N. action plan to fight anti-Semitism.
HRW’s pushback comes because the definition includes some useful examples of discriminatory anti-Israel acts that can sometimes cross the line into anti-Semitism. They are ostensibly concerned about the silencing of speech critical of Israel, but offer no concrete allegation of exactly how the U.N. adopting this definition could, in any way, limit anyone’s speech. U.N. officials routinely make vile anti-Semitic remarks which include using Holocaust inversion, supporting the killing of innocent Jewish children, accusing the “Jewish lobby” of controlling the world, and, like HRW, justifying anti-Semitic violence. Apparently, HRW believes that the only societal norm these people would respect would be a U.N. statement condemning anti-Semitic double standards. Demonstrably, however this is not the case: Not one but two U.N. secretary generals have already called out the organization’s systemic bias against the Jewish State, and not a blessed thing has changed. Everyone remains perfectly free to say whatever they want, however abhorrent, about Jews and/or Israel. That doesn’t mean the U.N. should not label things correctly.
The letter is also wrong about what the examples say. HRW cites two examples to make its point that IHRA can be used “as a blunt instrument to label anyone an anti-Semite.” Those examples are:
“denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination; e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” and
“applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
In discussing the first example, the letter openly confuses calling the entire existence of the State of Israel itself a “racist endeavor” i.e. a form of the “Zionism is racism” trope that the U.N. officially revoked, with criticism of particular Israeli government policies or practices.
In discussing the second, they minimize the explicit caveat in the IHRA definition that the examples given “could, taking into account the overall context,” be anti-Semitic. Of course, in any given instance there might be legitimate, non-anti-Semitic reasons why a person or group wants to single out only the Jewish state for different treatment. But there are definitely times when there are not.
IHRA should be adopted because it accurately captures the essence of anti-Semitism. It also draws strength from the unprecedented reality that the vast majority of Jewish people agree that it best encapsulates their shared lived experience of how anti-Semitism manifests. Of course, Jews are not monolithic and there are tiny fringe groups who oppose the definition. But that does not mean that there is no consensus around it, as the letter falsely implies. The citation to the ‘alternative’ definitions proves the point: Since 2016 over 1,100 entities have adopted the IHRA definition, while none have adopted either the Nexus or JDA definitions. 1,100-0 really is more than just consensus — it is a mandate.
If HRW and its allies are really concerned about IHRA’s misuse, they should direct their time and energy towards understanding what the definition actually says, rather than trying to ignorantly and dangerously undermine a near-universal understanding that is finally raising awareness of the problem’s many manifestations. Anti-Semites should not get a say in defining anti-Semitism, and the U.N. should not shy away from the gold-standard definition to make the perpetrators of anti-Jewish hate feel more comfortable.
Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq. is the CEO and Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, Inc. He is also the Senior Partner with Gideon Law Group, LLC. Previously, he served as the founding Editor of the Cambridge University Press Series on Law and Judaism, a Trustee of the Center for Israel Education, and as an adviser to the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.