*International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)* ## The Definition > ‘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’ ### Illustrations To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations: Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits. Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to: - Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion. - Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. - Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews. - Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g., gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust). - Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. - Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. - 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. - Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries). Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews. Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries. ### Recommended Caveats *As described by the 2016 the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee* We broadly accept the IHRA definition, but propose two additional clarifications to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate. The definition should include the following statements: - It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent - It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent. *Trades Union Congress* - the TUC has added the following, but it does seem to be problematic as it says it "can be" antisemitic, rather than it **IS** antisemitic- highlighted below: > “It’s not antisemitic to support Palestinian rights and self-determination. Nor is it antisemitic to criticise actions of the Israeli government and call it to account for human rights abuses and violations of international law. But holding all Jewish people in the UK responsible for the actions of Israel, or demanding they denounce Israel **can be** antisemitic.” ### Other definitions - [[The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA)]] ## Impact - It might not do too much - [[Summary of Tuck Antisemitism Report, Jan 2023|Tuck]] states that: > “I have no doubt whatsoever (which I do not say lightly in this area in which there is so very much room for doubt) that the adoption of one definition of antisemitism over another would NOT solve the issue of actual or genuinely perceived antisemitism – nor indeed of perceptions of allegations of antisemitism being made in bad faith – within NUS. ([source](x-devonthink-item://33DE828E-2B71-4059-926F-C04B3BAE1B8B?page=57)) - Having said that, the [[Union of Jewish Students (UJS)]] is a strong supporter of its adoption as it sends a signal to Jewish students on campus ## Controversy/ Critique - Tuck states: > “The central criticism of the IHRA definition is that it improperly conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism...The IHRA definition is further said to have a “chilling effect” in preventing advocacy for Palestine because activists fear being accused of antisemitism” - The Equalities Act already covers antisemitism. But this definition is to support the interpretation of acts that fall into potential racism, and therefore would be covered under the Equality Act. - See the 'Caveats' above for more ## Why does this matter? - [[University of Salford Students’ Union|USSU]] has a responsibility under [[Salford SU's charitable objects]] to "provide... forums for discussions and debate for the personal development of its Students". - Our mission is to confront and overcome the barriers to learning at Salford. For Jewish students this could be antisemitism. - Gavin Williamson (Minister for State) campaigned for the definition to be adopted by universities in 2021 ([source](x-devonthink-item://59ABBD75-DA4A-49E8-B0DE-D7BED502A9AF?page=81)). He stated that universities who did not agree this definition would be met by "sanctions". It was also previously raised by Robert Jenrick. - The [[University of Salford]] has agreed this definition, with the caveats as described above. They said in their [2021 integrated report](x-devonthink-item://F4D5C961-0243-4D5A-BA1C-4BC0CB228CCB?page=207): > We have formally adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition on antisemitism. Adopting the IHRA’s definition does not affect the application of equality law and the rights it affords to members of our community or our commitment to provide an environment free from harassment and discrimination. Nor does it affect our legal obligations and the legal rights of our staff and students in relation to freedom of speech and expression, including the ability to discuss and question difficult and sensitive topics, views and opinions, provided that is done responsibly, with respect for others and within the law. - The Office for Students have re-affirmed this directive with a list of institutions who have adopted the definition being made available on a public register linking adoption with regulatory guidance and compliance.