Why definitions matter in antiracism approaches: exploring the definition of antisemitism

This piece has been checked by a member of the Jewish community to ensure a lived experience perspective has been included, and the content has been checked for nuance and impartiality.

As anti-racist and anti-oppression practitioners we need to recognise when something is solely politically motivated. This is because communities experiencing marginalisation are often at a political disadvantage. 

One of the ways employers can ensure a safer working environment is to adopt a generalised definition that adequately describes the type of prejudice and discrimination specific communities face. Anti-racist definitions seek to protect people, not political interests.

This is an important conversation to have as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s [IHRA] Working Definition of Antisemitism [WDA] and the state of Israel has lobbied for organisations and institutions to adopt their definition. They have also pushed for the United Nations to do the same. 

However, the definition has been seen as controversial by a number of human rights advocates, academics and politicians alike, even dividing the Jewish community. As a result of this, The IHRA WDA may not be an adequate descriptor.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance [IHRA] Working Definition of Antisemitism [WDA]

According to  the IHRA WDA:  “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” On the face of it, this definition adequately describes antisemitism. However, in this piece, we dive deeper into the complexity and nuance around this definition.  

The IHRA’s definition of antisemitism continues for 572 words to elaborate on what this could include. This definition also suggests that "manifestations [of antisemitism] might include the targeting of the state of Israel''.  

In early October 2020, the former English Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson, wrote to UK universities urging them to formally adopt IHRA’s definition of antisemitism. In his letter, he accused the higher education sector of “dragging its feet” on combating anti-Jewish prejudice, threatening regulatory action and suspension of funding streams for non-compliant institutions. 

The definition put forward by the IHRA has been met with widespread criticism. These critics have included notable Jewish professors, authors and experts in antisemitism, Holocaust and Jewish history.

A recent report by Professor E Tendayi Achiume, the UN special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, included criticism of the IHRA definition for its negative impact on human rights. Achiume explains that the political endorsement of the IHRA’s WDA has become highly controversial and divisive due to its “susceptibility to being politically instrumentalized.”

As a result of the IHRA’s lobbying of the United Nations, 128 scholars wrote to the United Nations explaining that they find the definition “deeply problematic, vague and incoherent”. The letter was penned by Jewish academics, lawyers and authors amongst others. The signatories go on to explain “...the IHRA WDA does not satisfy the basic requirements of a good definition. Rather than ensuring greater clarity, the IHRA WDA has been generating confusion about what constitutes antisemitism.”

The Jerusalem Declaration of Antisemitism

Out of the 11 examples of antisemitism put forward by the IHRA, seven of these pertain to criticisms of Israel as a state. According to the letter signed by 128 scholars, many of whom are Jewish, the definition has been “hijacked” to protect Israel from international criticism. The authors of the letter also added that if the United Nations were to go ahead with the definition of antisemitism, it would be a risk to freedom of expression: 

"Human rights defenders and organisations challenging Israel's violations would be fully exposed to smear campaigns based on bad-faith allegations of antisemitism.”

In 2021, 54 scholars issued a similar warning.

In retaliation to the definition laid out by the IHRA and the lobbying of the state of Israel, 350 scholars have stated what they believe is a more adequate definition of antisemitism under the name of The Jerusalem Declaration of Antisemitism.

Their definition goes as follows: “Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).” The authors go on to say that “there are 15 guidelines for those seeking to recognise antisemitism in order to craft responses”.

The declaration doesn’t ignore the state of Israel but gives robust explanations as to what constitutes antisemitism. It has specific sections dedicated to conversations around Israel and Palestine, giving guidance around what may seem like antisemitism but should not be treated as antisemitism. One of these examples include:

“It is not antisemitic to point out systematic racial discrimination. In general, the same norms of debate that apply to other states and to other conflicts over national self-determination apply in the case of Israel and Palestine. Thus, even if contentious, it is not antisemitic, in and of itself, to compare Israel with other historical cases, including settler-colonialism or apartheid.”

Is antisemitism a form of racism?

Oxford Dictionary explains that racism is “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”

The Oxford Dictionary also defines being Jewish as  “relating to, associated with, or denoting Jewish people or Judaism”. Judaism is “the monotheistic religion of the Jewish people.”

There’s a debate as to what Zionist and Zionism means with no real concrete definition, thus requiring further reading. But for the purpose of this piece broadly speaking it is associated with the support for the existence of Israel as a state for the Jewish people.

It’s important to understand these definitions in order to understand the concept of antisemitism and whether it is an issue of racism. Although being Jewish is not considered a race, there are still some that believe it to be so. This is particularly true of Nazis, white nationalists and others who base their hatred of Jewish people on the idea that they are an inferior race.

One of the first guidelines of The Jerusalem Declaration of Antisemitism states “It is racist to essentialise (treat a character trait as inherent) or to make sweeping negative generalisations about a given population. What is true of racism, in general, is true of antisemitism in particular.” 

Using anti-racism to confront antisemitism

Anti-racism must encompass the fight against antisemitism. As a practice, it demands that we make a conscious effort to combat racial prejudice, systemic racism, and the oppression of specific racialised groups. Thus, encompassing that, we advocate against antisemitism.

By being anti-racist, you recognise that not everyone's the same and that difference is something that should be celebrated. As anti-racists, we must recognise that there is diversity in the Jewish community. There is diversity in opinion and practice.

In order to provide adequate support to the Jewish community as a whole, we must be careful about not upholding the idea that all Jewish people support the state of Israel. We would be doing a terrible disservice to the Jewish community were we to support a definition that doesn’t acknowledge this.

In an article titled “Supporting Palestinian rights is antisemitic because Israel wants it to be” Abraham Guttman, a Jewish journalist born in Israel says:

“Historically, criticism of the Israeli government has been linked to antisemitism. But it’s not nearly that simple. By conflating Judaism and Israel, the Israeli government created a paradox in which Israel’s actions are beyond critique.” He goes on to say “Conflating Israel with Judaism — and Israelis with Jews — is unfair and leads to tropes about dual national loyalties.”

In a 2015 survey  85 percent of Jewish people who identified as Zionists accepted that a committed Zionist could still be a critic of Israeli policy. However, only 57% of Jewish people identifying as non-Zionists held that view. A 2010 study concluded that “many of those who define themselves as “non-Zionist” are using the term to mark their disagreement with contemporary Israeli government policy.”

These figures help us understand the diversity of thought that exists within the Jewish community in regard to how we define antisemitism. Because only those with lived experience can really determine and decide what oppression to them looks like.

How can organisations combat antisemitism?

The IHRA’s definition of antisemitism fails to adequately support the Jewish community as a whole, as not all Jewish people support the state of Israel and their decisions. Just like not all Christian people support the English government and their decisions, or not all people of Islamic faith support the actions of the Iranian government. It’s important to understand this as Jewish people do not hold a monolith of opinions, as demonstrated by the authors of the Jerusalem Declaration of Antisemitism.

Anti-racism requires us to use an intersectional lens when approaching issues of discrimination and prejudice. For example, Black Jewish people who are subjected to institutional racism in the state of Israel must be able to criticise the Israeli government for this. This is why it’s important that we have constructive conversations about what antisemitism is and whether the IHRA’s WDA adequately supports the Jewish community as a whole.
Professor E Tendayi Achiume reiterates that there is an “urgent need for Member States to remain committed to fighting antisemitism in all its manifestations”. However, there needs to be “greater attention and care regarding the implications of tools used in that context” calling upon “Member States to ensure that all measures taken and instruments relied upon are fully compliant with and supportive of broader international human rights law norms.”

In light of this, organisations must not only do the same but ensure that they don’t adopt controversial definitions of antisemitism that go beyond combatting hostility against the Jewish community.

Organisations can have more constructive conversations around antisemitism by adopting a definition that does not restrict freedom of expression and the diversity of thought that exists within the Jewish community. Otherwise, organisations may run the risk of committing human rights violations in regard to freedom of expression as laid out in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.

Suppose an organisation employs and/or supports a diverse range of people and/or is seeking to. In that case, it's important that, if they choose to adopt a specific definition or policy,  they do the same for other groups experiencing marginalisation, especially in regard to protected characteristics. It’s also important to have open and honest conversations about what constitutes discrimination and prejudice of any kind so that employees are able to recognise when this takes place. It’s the responsibility of anti-racist and anti-oppression practitioners, managers and CEOs to ensure this happens. This is to ensure that a safe working environment is in place. Not only does it help to attract, but also to retain talent. 

If you and/or your organisation would like to explore this topic more, sign up to our newsletter for exclusive resources. 

Looking to develop anti-racist and anti-oppression strategies in your work? Get in touch with us today!

This piece was written by Zoe Daniels (They/Them), our Brand and Engagement Lead.