The Weaponization of Antisemitism: How a Contested Definition Threatens Free Speech
Forty governments have adopted it, yet it lacks broad scholarly support. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, initially conceived as a data-gathering tool, is now at the center of a growing controversy, increasingly used – and misused – to stifle debate around Israel and Palestine. This isn’t simply an academic dispute; it’s a battle over the boundaries of free speech with profound implications for universities, political discourse, and the future of academic inquiry.
From Data Collection to Political Tool
The story begins in 2005 with the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia’s attempt to define antisemitism. The resulting definition, deliberately broad – “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews” – was accompanied by eleven examples, many of which touched upon Israel. Critics immediately pointed out the ambiguity, arguing it blurred the crucial line between genuine antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israeli policies. However, the definition gained traction in political circles, particularly after its adoption by the IHRA in 2016.
As historian Mark Mazower details in his forthcoming book, “On Antisemitism,” the vagueness wasn’t a bug, but a feature for some proponents. Organizations like the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) found the definition useful in addressing what they termed the “new antisemitism” – a perceived demonization of Israel that eclipsed traditional forms of anti-Jewish hatred. This shift, Mazower argues, allowed these groups to reframe the ideological battle lines, linking antisemitism to the political left, where much of the criticism of Israel resides.
The Trump Administration and the Escalation of Enforcement
The IHRA definition’s reach expanded dramatically under President Donald Trump. In 2019, an executive order mandated federal agencies to consider the definition when investigating civil rights complaints under Title VI. This opened the door to using antisemitism allegations to target institutions perceived as critical of Israel. The most striking example is the recent settlement between Columbia University and the Trump Administration. Columbia agreed to pay $200 million and broaden its “commitment to combating antisemitism” in exchange for the reinstatement of federal grants. This agreement, critics argue, sets a dangerous precedent.
The Concerns of the Definition’s Original Author
Ironically, Kenneth Stern, the lawyer who drafted the original IHRA definition, has become one of its most vocal critics. He argues that the definition was intended for statistical purposes, not as a weapon to suppress academic freedom. Stern fears that its current application is a “gross distortion” of its original purpose, threatening open inquiry on university campuses. He’s been advising universities on navigating the recent wave of protests, urging them to prioritize academic freedom above all else. His advice, however, appears to have been ignored at Columbia, a fact he laments deeply.
Silencing Dissent: The Impact on Academia
The chilling effect of the IHRA definition is already being felt in higher education. Sociologists Gil Eyal and Peter Bearman at Columbia warn that scholars researching genocide could be accused of antisemitism for comparing Israel’s actions in Gaza to those of the Nazis – a comparison explicitly deemed antisemitic under the IHRA definition. This limits the scope of legitimate academic inquiry into critical issues.
Several prominent scholars have voiced their concerns. Rashid Khalidi, a professor emeritus of modern Arab studies, has refused to teach a course on the Middle East at Columbia, citing the definition’s constraints on discussing Israeli policies. Marianne Hirsch, a genocide scholar and daughter of Holocaust survivors, is reconsidering whether she can continue to assign texts like Hannah Arendt’s “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” a work critical of Zionism. These decisions represent a significant blow to academic freedom and intellectual diversity.
The Future of the Debate: A Definition in Crisis?
The controversy surrounding the IHRA definition isn’t likely to subside. As the definition becomes increasingly politicized, its credibility erodes. The core issue isn’t whether antisemitism is a serious problem – it undoubtedly is – but whether this particular definition is the right tool to combat it. Its vagueness, initially seen as an advantage by some, is now its greatest weakness, allowing for its application to a wide range of speech that falls far short of genuine hatred or discrimination.
The long-term consequences could be significant. A continued reliance on this contested definition risks stifling legitimate debate about Israel-Palestine, undermining academic freedom, and ultimately, hindering the fight against genuine antisemitism. The need for a more nuanced and carefully crafted definition – one that clearly distinguishes between criticism of Israel and antisemitism – is becoming increasingly urgent. The current trajectory suggests a future where the very act of questioning power structures can be labeled as hate speech, a dangerous precedent for any democratic society.
What are your predictions for the future of this debate and the role of definitions in shaping public discourse? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
