{{Short description|IHRA-approved statement on antisemitism}} {{pp|small=yes}} {{broader|Definition of antisemitism}} {{Use dmy dates|date=October 2018}} {{Antisemitism|Definitions}} The '''IHRA definition of antisemitism''' is a "non-legally binding working"{{efn|When published, it was neither intended nor mandated that it should replace domestic law among IHRA member states.<ref>See: * {{harvnb|Whine|2010|p=8|ps=: "The Working Definition is not a legal definition and it is not designed to replace domestic laws. Rather, it provides guidance on the contemporary nature of antisemitism for police officers and criminal justice agencies, as well as for the human rights community."}} * {{harvnb|Marcus|2023|p=1275|ps=: "When IHRA proclaimed its Definition to be non-binding, its meaning was clear: the Definition, or rather the proclamation announcing it, created no legal obligations upon its member states. [...] IHRA is a non-treaty organization, and it is not authorized to legally bind its members."}} * {{harvnb|Chiluwa|2021|p=54|ps=: "Although the document describes itself as 'non-legally binding', it has been characterized as a 'quasi-law, in which capacity it exercises the de facto authority of the law, without having acquired legal legitimacy'."}} * {{harvnb|Gould|2018a|ps=: "Lacking the qualities that typically account for legal legitimacy in liberal states, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) document defining antisemitism has introduced a unique dynamic into the adjudication of controversial speech. [...] As a definition that poorly defines its own legal status, this quasi-legal document introduces a new kind of indeterminacy. [...] the implementation and application of the IHRA document as a quasi-law would be fraught with conceptual, legal, and procedural difficulties"}}</ref>}} definition of [[antisemitism]] that was adopted by the [[International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance]] (IHRA) in 2016.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /> It is also known as the '''IHRA working definition of antisemitism'''<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /> ('''IHRA-WDA'''). Accompanying the working definition are 11 illustrative examples, seven of which relate to [[criticism of Israel]], that the IHRA describes as guiding its work on antisemitism.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Defining Antisemitism |url=https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/ |access-date=2026-04-19 |website=United States Department of State |language=en}}</ref>

The definition was first published in 2005 by the [[European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia]] (EUMC), a [[European Union]] agency, and was known as the '''EUMC definition'''<ref name="u294">{{cite web | title=The Students' Guide to Antisemitism | website=Community Security Trust| url=https://cst.org.uk/research/cst-publications/the-students-guide-to-antisemitism | access-date=2026-05-14}}</ref><ref name="z679">{{cite web | last=Heritage | first=Canadian | title=Canadian Handbook on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism | website=Canada.ca | date=2024-10-31 | url=https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/canada-holocaust/antisemitism/handbook-definition-antisemitism.html | access-date=2026-05-14}}</ref><ref name="v090">{{cite web | title=Policing's commitment to combatting antisemitism | website=National Police Chiefs&#39; Council (NPCC) | date=2026-05-14 | url=https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/policings-commitment-to-combating-antisemitism-npcc-statement | access-date=2026-05-14}}</ref><ref name="w498">{{cite web | last=Porat | first=Dina | title=EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism | website=Brandeis Center | url=https://brandeiscenter.com/tag/eumc-working-definition-of-antisemitism/ | access-date=2026-05-14}}</ref> or '''EUMC working definition''',<ref name="i674">{{cite web | author=Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism | title=Working Definition of Anti-Semitism: Fact Sheet | website=U.S. Department of State Archive | date=February 8, 2007 | url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/56589.htm | access-date=2026-05-14}}</ref><ref name="q806">{{cite web | author1=Rabbi Andrew Baker |author2=Deidre Berger |author3=Michael Whine | title=Open letter on the origins of the IHRA working definition | website=ECAJ: Open letter on the origins of the IHRA working definition | date=2021-01-19 | url=https://www.ecaj.org.au/open-letter-on-the-origins-of-the-ihra-working-definition/ | access-date=2026-05-14}}</ref> and was developed during 2003–2004, and was published without formal review by the EUMC on 28 January 2005.<ref>See: * {{harvnb|Stern|2010}} * {{harvnb|Lerman|2018b}} * {{harvnb|Marcus|2015|pp=166–167}}</ref><ref name="inquiry">Great Britain. Department for Communities and Local Government. ''All-party inquiry into antisemitism: government response'', The Stationery Office, 2007, [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228610/7059.pdf p.&nbsp;3]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180417171017/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228610/7059.pdf |date=17 April 2018 }}</ref> The EUMC's successor agency, the [[Fundamental Rights Agency]] (FRA), removed the working definition from its website in "a clear-out of non-official documents" in November 2013.{{sfn|Marcus|2015|pp=166-167}}<ref name="JTA" /><ref name="Wiesenthal" /> On 26 May 2016, the working definition was adopted by the IHRA Plenary (consisting of representatives from 31 countries) in [[Bucharest]], [[Romania]], and was republished on the IHRA website. It was subsequently adopted by the [[European Parliament]] and other national and international bodies, although not all have explicitly included the illustrative examples. [[Pro-Israel]] organizations have been advocates for the worldwide legal adoption of the IHRA working definition.<ref name="Penslar 2022 pp. 133–145"/>

The definition has been criticised by academics, including legal scholars, for equating [[antisemitism]] with the criticism of Israeli actions and policies. The examples relating to Israel have been criticised by academics, including legal scholars, for being open to [[weaponization of antisemitism]] used to stifle free speech relating to criticism of Israeli actions and policies. High-profile controversies took place in the United Kingdom in 2011 [[University and College Union#Working Definition of Antisemitism|within the University and College Union]], and [[Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#Working definition of antisemitism|within the Labour Party]] in 2018. Critics say weaknesses in the working definition may lend themselves to abuse, that it may obstruct campaigning for the rights of [[Palestinians]] (as in the [[Palestine exception]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bangstad |first=Sindre |date=2025-05-04 |title=The Palestine Exception to Academic Freedom and the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03086534.2025.2494669 |journal=The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History |language=en |volume=53 |issue=3 |pages=689–700 |doi=10.1080/03086534.2025.2494669 |issn=0308-6534|url-access=subscription }}</ref>), and that it is too vague.{{sfn|Friedman|2021|pp=1-49}}{{sfn|Gould|2020|p=825}}{{efn|"The weaknesses of the 'Working Definition' are the gateway to its political instrumentalization, for instance for morally discrediting opposing positions in the Arab-Israeli conflict with the accusation of antisemitism. This has relevant implications for fundamental rights. The increasing implementation of the 'Working Definition' as a quasi-legal basis for administrative action promises regulatory potential. In fact, it is instead an instrument that all but invites arbitrariness. It can be used to abridge fundamental rights particularly freedom of speech with respect to disfavoured positions on Israel. In contrast to what the designation 'Working Definition' suggests, no further development of the definition to rectify these weaknesses is occurring."{{sfn|Ullrich|2019|pp=1-21,3,16}}}} [[Kenneth S. Stern]], who contributed to the original draft, has opposed the weaponization of the definition on college campuses in ways that might undermine free speech.{{sfn|Stern|2019}}{{efn|"What started as an honest attempt to tackle growing antisemitism quickly became weaponized by definitional warriors, among them the [[Zionist Organization of America]] (ZOA), the [[American Jewish Committee]] (AJC), and the [[Brandeis Center]], all of whom have lobbied institutions and governments to adopt it."{{sfn|Brown|Nerenberg|2023}}}} The controversy over the definition led to the creation of the [[Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism]] and the [[Nexus Document]], both of which expressly draw distinctions between antisemitism and criticism of Israel.<ref name="Penslar 2022 pp. 133–145">{{cite journal | last=Penslar | first=Derek | author-link= Derek Penslar |title=Who's Afraid of Defining Antisemitism? | journal=Antisemitism Studies | publisher=Indiana University Press | volume=6 | issue=1 | date=2022-04-14 | issn=2474-1817 | pages=133–145 | doi=10.2979/antistud.6.1.07 | url=https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/852572. | access-date=2023-05-27 |quote=Advocates of the IHRA definition are vigorously supportive of Israel and link anti-Zionism with antisemitism even though the definition itself does not explicitly say as much… Over the past couple of years, dissatisfaction with the IHRA definition both on its own terms and with how it has been deployed in the public sphere led two separate groups of people to develop what became the ND and JDA.| url-access=subscription }}</ref> {{toc limit|4}}

==Text== The working definition reads: {{Quote frame|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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Defining Antisemitism |url=https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/ |access-date=2026-04-19 |website=United States Department of State |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=House of Commons - Antisemitism in the UK - Home Affairs Committee |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/136/13605.htm#_idTextAnchor013 |access-date=2026-04-19 |website=publications.parliament.uk}}</ref>}}

==The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) and the drafting of the definition== The Commission on Racism and Xenophobia (CRX) was established in 1994 to monitor different forms of racism and xenophobia. In 1998, it became the [[European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia]] (EUMC), following Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997. In 2002, it published a large-scale monitoring report on [[Islamophobia]] since [[9/11]], including a total of 75 reports, 15 from each member state, and a synthesis report.{{sfn|Allen|Nielsen|2002}}

In 2003, EUMC commissioned a report on antisemitism. The context for this was a rise in antisemitic incidents in the period of the [[Second Intifada]] of 2001-2, and calls for European authorities to address this (including the influential interventions by Canadian human rights scholar and parliamentarian [[Irwin Cotler]]), as well as the identification by Swedish politician [[Per Ahlmark]] and others of the concept of the "collective Jew" as part of a "[[new antisemitism]]"; this all led to the [[Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe]] (OSCE) organizing its first conference on antisemitism in 2003, as well as the EUMC study.{{sfn|Feldman|2016}}<ref name="q806"/>{{sfn|Marcus|2015|p=150-153}}

The commissioned report, written by the [[Centre for Research on Antisemitism]] (ZfA) in Berlin, was suppressed by the EUMC, which then wrote its own report. In December 2003, the ZfA analyzed a pre-release version of the EUMC report, which was leaked to the press and, according to civil rights lawyers [[Kenneth L. Marcus]] and [[Kenneth S. Stern]], was badly received. The report initially said the primary cause of rising antisemitism in Europe was young Muslim males, while a press release for the subsequent final publication attributed the rise to "young, disaffected white Europeans", although the final report itself was more nuanced.{{sfn|Marcus|2015|p=152-153}}{{sfn|Stern|2010|p=96-97}}

The EUMC report was entitled ''Manifestations of antisemitism in the EU 2002–2003'', and was published in May 2004 incorporating a second report on perceptions of antisemitism based on interviews with European Jews.{{sfn|EUMC|2004}}{{sfn|Whine|2010a}} The antisemitism report was based on data collected by the 15 contact points of EUMC's monitoring network, RAXEN, and evaluated by [[Alexander Pollak]], an independent researcher.{{sfn|EUMC|2004}}

The report noted that in compiling the report, only nine of its 15 contact points used an explicit definition of antisemitism, and that those nine were all different, and that this generated problems of comparability in the data.{{sfn|EUMC|2004|p=320}} It therefore included a section (written by Pollak and Alexander Joskovicz) on definitions. This cited [[Brian Klug]]'s argument that antisemitism "is best defined not by an attitude towards Jews but by a definition of 'Jew'" and who regards antisemitism as "the process of turning Jews into 'Jews'", and concluded by proposing this definition in order to collect and compare incidents across countries: {{Quote frame|Any acts or attitudes that are based on the perception of a social subject (individual, group, institution, or state) as "the ('deceitful', 'corrupt', 'conspiratorial', etc.) Jew".{{sfn|EUMC|2004}}}} The report explored the question of when [[anti-Zionist]] or anti-Israel expression might be antisemitic,{{sfn|EUMC|2004|pp=13–14}} Marcus describes this as a "figural definition". It was based on "seven [[stereotypes of Jews|stereotypical]] traits: deceptiveness, strange-ness, hostility, greed, corruption, conspiratorial power, and [[deicidal]] murderousness".{{sfn|Marcus|2015|p=153}}{{sfn|Stern|2006|p=97-98}} The EUMC report concluded that anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist expression could only be considered antisemitic if it was based on the stereotype of Israel as the collective Jew, leading Marcus to conclude that "it generated a standard under which most forms of anti-Israel animus would appear to be excluded, even if they resulted in violence against individual non-Israeli Jews", as in a [[United Talmud Torahs of Montreal#Arson in the elementary school library|Montreal school firebombing]] that occurred days after the report was released.{{sfn|Marcus|2015|p=153-154}}

Following the EUMC report, the OSCE's Berlin Declaration, made at the organization's second conference on the topic, recognised that post-[[World War II]] antisemitism had taken on "new forms and manifestations" and was now at times directed against Jews as a collective and Israel as an embodiment of the Jew.{{sfn|Marcus|2015|pp=159–160}}<ref name="q806"/> The Berlin Declaration also tasked the OSCE's [[Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights]] (ODIHR) to work with the EUMC to develop better ways to monitor antisemitic incidents in OSCE countries.{{sfn|Marcus|2015|pp=159–160}} According to Marcus, the EUMC scrapped this failed definition of antisemitism, largely due to pressure from American Jewish organizations.{{sfn|Marcus|2015|p=160}}

===2004-5 drafting and publication=== According to [[Kenneth S. Stern]] of the AJC, a human rights lawyer, Israeli scholar [[Dina Porat]], then head of the [[Stephen Roth Institute]] at [[Tel Aviv University]], proposed the idea for a common definition of antisemitism during an NGO conference organized by the [[American Jewish Committee]] (AJC){{when?|date=May 2026}}.{{sfn|Stern|2010}} Stern was critical of the EUMC's original definition, as it was confusing about when attacks on Jews related to the [[Israel–Palestine conflict]] could be considered antisemitic, and required investigators to know the intentions of attackers.{{sfn|Stern|2010}} Meanwhile, the EUMC asked Jewish NGOs and academics to provide "a simple working definition that would encompass antisemitic demonization of Israel, and which could also be used by their own RAXEN network of national focal points and by law enforcement agencies".{{sfn|Whine|2010a}} According to the AJC's Andrew Baker and Deidre Berger and the [[Community Security Trust]]'s Michael Whine, {{blockquote|the information provided by the EUMC's monitors was limited in some cases because there was scant data on antisemitic hate crimes and limited polling data on anti-Jewish attitudes. In its own internal review, the EUMC acknowledged that it was hampered by the lack of a common and comprehensive definition of antisemitism and challenged by a lack of clarity in understanding those "new forms and manifestations" of antisemitism as it relates to Israel. EUMC Director Beate Winkler and AJC Director of International Jewish Affairs Rabbi Andrew Baker agreed that summer to work together to develop such a definition.<ref name="q806"/>}}

During 2003–04, a large group of experts and organisations coordinated by Stern—together with Dina Porat; [[Holocaust]] scholars [[Yehuda Bauer]], [[Michael Berenbaum]] and [[Roni Stauber]]; Baker, Berger and Whine; human rights expert [[Felice D. Gaer]]; and others—drafted a proposed definition and set of examples.<ref>See: * {{harvnb|Porat |2011|pp=93–101}} * {{harvnb|Stern|2010}} * {{harvnb|Marcus|2015|pp=161–162}}</ref><ref>Dina Porat, [https://archive.today/20121218121748/http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2003-4/porat.htm "Defining Antisemitism"], in ''Anti-Semitism Worldwide 2003/4'', Tel Aviv University, 2005, pp. 5–17</ref> According to Baker, Berger and Whine, "Ken [Stern] played the vitally important but limited role of being the communications hub as various drafts and proposed language were circulated, slowly moving toward a consensus agreement where his role ended. All agreed the definition should include both a core paragraph defining the basic nature of antisemitism and clear examples of its traditional and more contemporary forms."<ref name="q806"/> The 2004 draft working definition said: {{Quote frame|Antisemitism is hatred toward Jews because they are Jews and is directed toward the Jewish religion and Jews individually or collectively. More recently, antisemitism has been manifested in the demonization of the State of Israel.

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. (It may also be manifested on people mistaken as Jews, or on non-Jews seen as sympathetic to Jews.){{sfn|Stern|2006}}{{sfn|Marcus|2015|p=161}}}} This was then followed by a list of illustrative examples, including five examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to Israel.{{sfn|Stern|2006}} According to both Marcus and [[Antony Lerman]], the novel element in this draft definition was identifying certain [[criticism of Israel]] and [[Zionism]] as antisemitic.{{sfn|Marcus|2015|p=161}}{{sfn|Lerman|2018a}} Marcus also highlights the "[[Praxeology|praxeological]]" nature of the definition and its examples—i.e. its focus on pragmatic identification rather than scholarly understanding.{{sfn|Marcus|2015|p=161}}

According to Stern, at the suggestion of the AJC the EUMC director organized a meeting of Jewish representatives to discuss the draft definition.{{sfn|Stern|2010}} The consultation involved representatives of the AJC and [[European Jewish Congress]], the EUMC director and head of research, and the ODIHR Tolerance and Non-Discrimination program director and antisemitism expert.{{sfn|Whine|2010a}} The outcome was negotiated between Andrew Baker, Stern's colleague at the AJC, and Beate Winkler, director of the EUMC.{{sfn|Stern|2010}} According to Michael Whine of the [[Community Security Trust]], the Director of the ODIHR Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Division and the Advisor on Antisemitism "played an active role in formulating the Working Definition".{{sfn|Whine|2010}} Baker, Berger and Whine say that Whine was responsible for the final drafting, working with ODIHR and the EUMC Director and her specialists.<ref name="q806"/> They note that "This was to be a guide for better understanding antisemitism, not a speech code etched in stone. To strike the necessary balance, we added the important, conditional phrase, 'depending on the context.' In a further measure to allay these concerns, the EUMC considered it important to state explicitly that criticism of Israel is not antisemitic."<ref name="q806"/>

On 28 January 2005, the EUMC published a working definition of antisemitism on its website that shared many features of Stern's earlier draft.{{sfn|Marcus|2015|pp=161–162}} {{Quote frame|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.<ref name="definition">[http://kantorcenter.tau.ac.il/sites/default/files/WORKING%20DEFINITION%20OF%20ANTISEMITISM.pdf "Working definition of Antisemitism"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151124202101/http://kantorcenter.tau.ac.il/sites/default/files/WORKING%20DEFINITION%20OF%20ANTISEMITISM.pdf |date=24 November 2015 }}. European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. 2004</ref>}} According to Marcus, Winkler published the definition "without formal review by her political overseers".{{sfn|Marcus|2015|pp=166–167}} Marcus writes that it was a "working definition" in two senses: a working guide to identifying antisemitism in practice, and a work-in-progress as opposed to a final statement to be approved by the EU's political leadership, and "for this reason, formal endorsement was neither sought nor obtained".{{sfn|Marcus|2015|pp=161-162}}

The stated purpose of the working definition was to "provide a guide for identifying incidents, collecting data and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism".<ref name="definition"/><ref name="Porat">{{cite web | last=Porat | first=Dina | title=EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism | website=Brandeis Center | url=https://brandeiscenter.com/tag/eumc-working-definition-of-antisemitism/ | access-date=2026-04-09}}</ref>

The definition added that "such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity."<ref name="definition"/><ref name="Porat"/> The EUMC illustrated the working definition with eleven examples, saying the list was non-exhaustive and that these might be antisemitic "taking into account the overall context." They were presented as two separate groups: the first six examples were introduced as "Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere". The remaining five examples were introduced as "Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel".<ref name="definition"/> The second group includes both [[Holocaust inversion]] ("Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis") and the application of double standards to Israel,{{sfn|Marcus|2015|pp=161–162}} although the definition also says that "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic".

The EUMC working definition was prominently referenced by the OSCE Cordoba conference in June that year.{{sfn | Porat | 2011 | pp=93–101}} According to Lerman, the definition was promoted by the AJC, other American Jewish organizations, national Jewish representative bodies, Jewish defence organizations, the [[Cabinet of Israel|Israeli government]], and pro-Israel advocacy groups. It was approved by the OSCE and other pan-European organizations.{{sfn|Lerman|2018a}} According to Lerman, the EUMC working definition was widely criticized and the organization was put under pressure by supporters and critics of the definition.{{sfn|Lerman|2018a}}

===Use of the EUMC definition=== In 2008, the European Forum on Antisemitism commissioned translations of the Working Definition into each of the 33 languages used by the OSCE states.{{sfn|Whine|2010}}

In 2010, Stern wrote: "In the last five years, the definition has been increasingly used, because it provides a workable, non-ideological approach to task of identifying antisemitism."{{sfn|Stern|2010}} The definition was used by monitoring agencies and law enforcement officials in some European countries. According to Stern:

{{blockquote|[By 2010, the definition had] been referenced or relied upon in or by courts (in Lithuanian and Germany), congressional hearings in the United States, online reference tools, newspapers, blogs, scholarly articles, legal articles, radio shows, student groups, museums, national inquiries of parliamentarians (most importantly in the UK), international meetings of parliamentarians, United States Department of State Reports, The United States Commission on Civil Rights, and in submissions to the United Nations Economic and Social Council Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights&nbsp;... It continues to be referenced more and more because of its clear utility.{{sfn|Stern|2010}}}}

For example, in [[Lithuania]], it was referred to in a successful criminal case against an editor of a [[Respublika (Lithuanian newspaper)|right-wing newspaper]] in 2005.<ref>Decision, Vilnius District 2 Court, Judge A. Cinnas, #A11-01087-497/2005, 7 July 2005. Cited in Porat, Dina, [http://www.tau.ac.il/AntSemitism/asw2003-4/porat.htm "Defining Antisemitism"], Stephen Roth Institute; Stern, Kenneth, "The Working Definition – A Reappraisal", [http://kantorcenter.tau.ac.il/sites/default/files/proceeding-all.pdf ''The Working Definition of Antisemitism – Six Years After''], {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140816042052/http://kantorcenter.tau.ac.il/sites/default/files/proceeding-all.pdf |date=16 August 2014 }}, p.3</ref> The definition was also used to some extent by certain intergovernmental and EU agencies. For example, the OSCE used the definition in a 2005 report ''Education on the Holocaust and Antisemitism: An Overview and Analysis of Educational Approaches''.{{sfn|Stern|2010}} By 2010, it was also recommended in the course leaders' Facilitators Guide in the OSCE OHDIR programme to assist law enforcement officials to understand and investigate [[hate crime]], and the 2010 OSCE High Level Conference on Tolerance and Non-Discrimination in Astana urged participating states to use and promote the Working Definition.{{sfn|Stern|2010}}{{sfn|Whine|2010}} In February 2009, the first conference of the [[Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism]], issued the [[London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism]], calling to governments to expand the use of the Working Definition.{{sfn|Whine|2010}}<ref name="UK Government Web Archive 2010 f012">{{cite web |title=The London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism |date=18 February 2009 |website=British Embassy, Israel |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100414014835/http://ukinisrael.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=PressS&id=13819255 |archive-date=14 April 2010 |url=http://ukinisrael.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=PressS&id=13819255 |access-date=2 November 2023 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The second annual conference, held in [[Ottawa]], [[Canada]], in association with the [[Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism]] and the Canadian Government on 7–9 November 2010, issued the [[Ottawa Protocol]], including a commitment to "reaffirm the EUMC – now Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) – working definition".<ref name="Google Docs r357">{{cite web | title=The 2010 Ottawa Protocol on Combating Antisemitism | website=B'nai B'rith Canada/League for Human Rights| url=https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nB70-Cc5tJz3mwVPfHQQLUwb2UPXQXuw | access-date=27 June 2023}}</ref>{{better source needed|reason=Not authenticated – anyone can host anything on Google Drive|date=November 2023}}

Canadian Members of Parliament adopted a resolution to combat antisemitism in 2007 that cited the EUMC definition, and the Australian [[Online Hate Prevention Institute]].{{sfn|Elman|2015a|p=}}{{sfn|Elman|2015b|p=}} According to Andrew Baker of the AJC, the definition is used by the Justice Ministers of [[Austria]] and [[Germany]] in training prosecutors and judges.<ref name="Baker 2017 Defining">{{cite web | last=Baker | first=Andrew | title=Defining Anti-Semitism Is The First Step Towards Stopping It | website=The Forward | date=10 November 2017 | url=https://forward.com/opinion/387390/defining-anti-semitism-is-the-first-step-towards-stopping-it/ | access-date=18 November 2018}}</ref>

====United Kingdom==== In 2006, the [[All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism]] recommended that the UK adopt the definition and that it be promoted by the Government and law enforcement agencies.{{sfn|Whine|2010}} The Government Response the following year recognised the "useful work being done by the EUMC in identifying antisemitic discourse", noted that the government accepted the definition of racism in the [[MacPherson Report]] on [[institutional racism]] and that this subsumed the EUMC and went further. It also noted that "from the EUMC's evidence to the Committee", the "definition is in fact a work in progress and has not been recommended to states for adoption". However, it undertook to re-examine this if the EUMC's successor body, the FRA, did recommend it for adoption,<ref name="inquiry"/> an undertaking it repeated the following year in its progress report on implementing the Inquiry's recommendations, noting this had been delayed by the process of transforming into the FRA delayed this.<ref>All-Party Inquiry into Antisemitism: Government Response – One year on Progress Report, p. 6, Cm 7351, 12 May 2008</ref>{{sfn|Whine|2010}} In 2009, the leaders of the Labour and Conservative parties signed the ''London Declaration'' endorsing the definition.{{sfn|Whine|2010}}

The [[National Union of Students (United Kingdom)|National Union of Students]] formally adopted the Working Definition at its 2007 Conference. Some individual [[students' union]]s followed suit, although motions to do so at other unions were defeated.{{sfn|Whine|2010}} In 2011, the [[University and College Union]] passed a resolution opposing the use of the definition, which led to the [[Jewish Leadership Council]] and [[Board of Deputies of British Jews]] describing the union as "institutionally antisemitic".{{sfn | Porat | 2011 | pp=93–101}}{{sfn | Cardaun | 2015 | p=79}}<ref name="Hirsh 2004">{{cite web | last=Hirsh | first=David | title=Defining antisemitism down | website=Fathom | date=31 March 2004 | url=http://fathomjournal.org/defining-antisemitism-down/ | access-date=17 November 2018}}</ref>

On 1 January 2015, Professor [[David Feldman (lawyer)|David Feldman]] stated in a Sub-Report for the Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism that the definition "largely has fallen out of favour" due to the criticisms it received.<ref>David Feldman (1 January 2015). [http://archive.jpr.org.uk/download?id=1582 "Sub-Report for the Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171031014143/http://archive.jpr.org.uk/download?id=1582 |date=31 October 2017 }}. p. 4. "However, the definition itself rapidly became a topic of controversy rather than consensus. The points at issue included what the status of a 'working definition' actually was, whether the working definition was an effective and coherent definition at all, and, finally, controversy dogged the application of the working definition to debate on the State of Israel and its policies. The criticisms have been damaging and the EUMC working definition largely has fallen out of favour."</ref><ref>[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/136/136.pdf "Antisemitism in the UK, Tenth Report of Session 2016–17"]. House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171009100043/https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/136/136.pdf |date=9 October 2017 }}. 16 October 2016</ref>

====United States==== According to Ken Marcus, the [[United States Commission on Civil Rights]], after investigating campus antisemitism, adopted the definition to help universities identify the lines between hateful and non-hateful incidents.<ref name="Marcus 2015">{{cite web | last=Marcus | first=Kenneth L. | title=Why universities need a definition of anti-Semitism | work=The Jerusalem Post | date=6 July 2015 | url=https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Why-universities-need-a-definition-of-anti-Semitism-408178 | access-date=18 November 2018 |ref=none}}</ref> According to the AJC, the EUMC definition was adopted in 2007 as "an initial guide" by the [[Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism|Office to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism]] within the U.S. Department of State, stating that it "should not be construed&nbsp;... as United States policy".<ref name="ajc.org">{{cite web|url=https://www.ajc.org/news/defining-anti-semitism-is-the-first-step-towards-stopping-it|title=Defining Anti-Semitism Is The First Step Towards Stopping It|last=Baker|first=Andrew|date=10 November 2017|publisher=American Jewish Committee|access-date=8 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180807114649/https://www.ajc.org/news/defining-anti-semitism-is-the-first-step-towards-stopping-it|archive-date=7 August 2018|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>[https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/56589.htm "Fact Sheet, Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, Washington, DC, 8 February 2007, 'Working Definition' of Anti-Semitism"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171117115543/https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/56589.htm |date=17 November 2017 }}. "In light of the longstanding commitment of the U.S. to free speech and other individual freedoms as demonstrated within our Constitution, the Office of the Special Envoy believes that this definition provides an adequate initial guide by which anti-Semitism can eventually both be defined and combated, and therefore presents this 'working definition' as a starting point in the fight against anti-Semitism. [Footnote:] The recitation of the EUMC 'working definition' of anti-Semitism should not be construed as an acceptance of that definition, or the statements and examples thereunder, as United States policy."</ref>

In 2008, the State Department again endorsed the Working Definition in their ''Contemporary Global Antisemitism'' report to Congress, noting: "a widely accepted definition of antisemitism can be useful in setting the parameters of the issue. Such a definition also helps to identify the statistics that are needed and focuses attention on the issues that policy initiatives should address&nbsp;... The EUMC's working definition provides a useful framework for identifying and understanding the problem and is adopted for the purposes of this report."{{sfn|Whine|2010}}<ref name="U.S. Department of State 2009">{{cite web | title=Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism: A Report Provided to the United States Congress | website=U.S. Department of State | date=20 January 2009 | url=http://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/102406.htm | access-date=17 November 2018}}</ref>

In June 2010, the State Department adopted a definition based on the EUMC definition.<ref>[https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/fs/2010/122352.htm "Defining Anti-Semitism"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180318120526/https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/fs/2010/122352.htm |date=18 March 2018 }}, 8 June 2010</ref><ref name="ajc.org"/> According to Marcus, the State Department definition was more important in determining U.S. government foreign policy while it was in effect than the EUMC definition since it represented an official policy position.{{sfn|Marcus|2015|p=23}}

In 2011, the AJC's Ken Stern and [[Cary Nelson]], President of the [[American Association of University Professors]], published a letter stating: "It is a perversion of the definition to use it, as some are doing, in an attempt to censor what a professor, student, or speaker can say."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aaup.org/news/cary-nelson-and-kenneth-stern-pen-open-letter-campus-antisemitism#.W3NSfqTTWaN|title=Cary Nelson and Kenneth Stern Pen Open Letter on Campus Antisemitism|work=AAUP |publisher=American Association of University Professors|date=20 April 2011|access-date=14 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180815024935/https://www.aaup.org/news/cary-nelson-and-kenneth-stern-pen-open-letter-campus-antisemitism#.W3NSfqTTWaN|archive-date=15 August 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> This generated significant controversy within the American Jewish community.{{sfn|Marcus|2015|p=21}}

On 12 January 2016, [[Peter Roskam]] and [[Tim Scott]] introduced a bipartisan bill in the [[United States House of Representatives|House]] and [[United States Senate|Senate]] on combating antisemitism on campus, under the title of The Antisemitism Awareness Act, to codify the working definition. It would require the [[US Department of Education]] to refer to the definition in deciding if educational institutions had violated Title VI of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] by tolerating antisemitic harassment. It was passed in the Senate,<ref name="JPost Jew v Jew"/> and on 22 December 2016 it was referred to the [[United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice]].<ref>{{USBill|114|h|6421}} and {{USBill|114|s|10}}</ref> This hearing was held on 7 November 2017;<ref>{{cite web|url=https://judiciary.house.gov/hearing/examining-anti-semitism-college-campuses/|title=Examining Anti-Semitism on College Campuses|work=House Judiciary Committee |access-date=14 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180815030207/https://judiciary.house.gov/hearing/examining-anti-semitism-college-campuses/|archive-date=15 August 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> it "took a heated turn" as four of the nine witnesses argued that the definition infringes on freedom of speech regarding Israel.<ref name="JPost Jew v Jew">{{cite news |url=https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Its-Jew-vs-Jew-as-Congress-weighs-a-new-definition-for-antisemitism-513941|title=It's Jew vs. Jew as Congress weighs a new definition for antisemitism|newspaper=Jerusalem Post|first=Ron|last=Kampeas|date=10 November 2017|access-date=24 June 2023}}</ref><ref name="Cohler-Esses 2017">{{cite web | last=Cohler-Esses | first=Larry | title=Congress Is Trying To Decide Who's An Anti-Semite | website=The Forward | date=9 November 2017 | url=https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/387245/congress-is-trying-to-decide-whos-an-anti-semite/ | access-date=19 November 2018}}</ref><ref name="Trachtenberg Trachtenberg 2018">{{cite web | last1=Trachtenberg | first1=Barry | title=Opinion – It Protects Israel | website=The Forward | date=3 July 2018 | url=https://forward.com/opinion/404591/the-anti-semitism-awareness-act-wouldnt-protect-jews-it-would-protect/ | access-date=19 November 2018}}</ref>

On 23 May 2018, the same bills were reintroduced with minor amendments.<ref name="Cortellessa Horovitz 2018">{{cite web | last1=Cortellessa | first1=Eric | last2=Horovitz | first2=David | title=New legislation seeks to define anti-Semitism in US education system | website=The Times of Israel | date=6 April 2018 | url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-legislation-seeks-to-define-anti-semitism-in-us-education-system/ | access-date=19 November 2018}}</ref><ref name="Anti-Defamation League 2018">{{cite web | title=What is the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act Really All About? | website=Anti-Defamation League | date=23 May 2018 | url=https://www.adl.org/blog/what-is-the-anti-semitism-awareness-act-really-all-about | access-date=19 November 2018}}</ref> On 24 July 2018, they were referred again to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.<ref>{{USBill|115|h|5924}} and {{USBill|115|s|2940}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/red-alert-politics/bill-to-fight-rising-anti-semitism-on-campus-introduced-in-congress|title=Bill to fight rising anti-Semitism on campus introduced in Congress|date=30 May 2018|magazine=Washington Examiner|access-date=14 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180815024327/https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/red-alert-politics/bill-to-fight-rising-anti-semitism-on-campus-introduced-in-congress|archive-date=15 August 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> The Bill was criticised as an attack on free speech, including by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (ACLU) and [[James Zogby]] of the [[Arab American Institute]].<ref name="American Civil Liberties Union 2018">{{cite web | title=ACLU Statement on Senate Introduction of 'Anti-Semitism Awareness Act' | website=American Civil Liberties Union | date=23 May 2018 | url=https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-statement-senate-introduction-anti-semitism-awareness-act | access-date=19 November 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pressreader.com/kuwait/kuwait-times/20180610/281891593974996|title=The anti-semitism awareness act is back: Free speech is at risk|date=10 June 2018|work=Kuwait Times|access-date=14 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180815055246/https://www.pressreader.com/kuwait/kuwait-times/20180610/281891593974996|archive-date=15 August 2018|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Newsweek 2018">{{cite web | title=The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act doesn't restrict free speech—it helps prevent bullying | website=Newsweek | date=1 June 2018 | url=https://www.newsweek.com/anti-semitism-awareness-act-doesnt-restrict-free-speech-helps-prevent-bullying-951190 | access-date=19 November 2018}}</ref>

===Removal under Fundamental Rights Agency=== The EUMC never granted any official status to the definition.{{sfn|Feldman|2016}} In 2007, the EU replaced the EUMC with the [[Fundamental Rights Agency]] (FRA), with a broader remit than racism and antisemitism. It has continued to deliver annual reports of antisemitic incidents in the EU countries, based on data from its national contact points.<ref name="Author 2017">{{cite web | last=Leviev-Sawyer| first=Clive | title=Bulgaria among 11 EU countries lacking official data on anti-Semitic incidents – European rights agency | website=The Sofia Globe | date=9 November 2017 | url=https://sofiaglobe.com/2017/11/09/bulgaria-among-11-eu-countries-lacking-official-data-on-anti-semitic-incidents-european-rights-agency/ | access-date=19 November 2018}}</ref>{{sfn|Whine|2017}}

[[Richard Kuper]] reported that the FRA told him around 2011 that: "Since its development we are not aware of any public authority in the EU that applies it [and the] FRA has no plans for any further development."<ref name="Kuper Hue">{{cite web | first=Richard| last=Kuper|title=Hue and cry over the UCU | website=openDemocracy | url=https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/hue-and-cry-over-ucu/ | date=1 June 2011|access-date=2021-06-14}}</ref> He noted that an August 2010 FRA publication on antisemitism did not mention the working definition.<ref name="Kuper 2011">{{cite web | first=Richard| last=Kuper|title=Why turning to Jewish exceptionalism to fight antisemitism is a failing project | website=openDemocracy | url=https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/why-turning-to-jewish-exceptionalism-to-fight-antisemitism-is-failing-project/ | date=1 June 2011|access-date=2020-08-26}}</ref>

Following on from the EUMC's 2004 report, the FRA's 2012 overview of antisemitic incident since 2001 equated "[[new antisemitism]]" with [[anti-Zionism]].<ref name="fra2012">{{cite report|title=Antisemitism Summary overview of the situation in the European Union 2001–2011 |url=http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/antisemitism-summary-overview-situation-european-union-2001-2011|publisher=European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights|pages=3–4|access-date=20 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180820235128/http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/antisemitism-summary-overview-situation-european-union-2001-2011|archive-date=20 August 2018|url-status=live|quote=The ongoing political conflict between Israel and Palestine has played an important role in the development and expression of antisemitism in the contemporary period, leading some to speak of a 'new antisemitism', sometimes also referred to as anti-Zionism. This form of antisemitism is expressed in a system of beliefs, convictions and political activities focused around the conflict in the Middle East... Drawing on older, openly antisemitic stereotypes, a typical claim of secondary antisemitism is, for example, that 'Jews' manipulate Germans or Austrians by exploiting their feelings of guilt about the Second World War. Characteristic of all forms of secondary antisemitism is that they relate directly to the Holocaust and that they allow speakers to avoid expressing open(ly) antisemitic sentiments.}}</ref> FRA also used the term "[[secondary antisemitism]]" to define similar accusations against Jews for using the Holocaust to manipulate non-Jews.<ref name="Martina">{{cite book |editor-first1=Martina |editor-last1=Topić |editor-first2=Srdjan|editor-last2=Sremac|title=Europe as a Multiple Modernity: Multiplicity of Religious Identities and Belonging|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nG8xBwAAQBAJ&q=secondary&pg=PA66 |date=2014 |publisher=Cambridge Scholars |page = 49|isbn=9781443857819}}</ref><ref name="fra2012"/>

In 2013, the FRA confirmed that it did not have the authority to "either set or repudiate any definitions" of antisemitism.<ref name="Levitt 2013">{{cite web | last=Levitt | first=Joshua | title=Report: The Independent Columnist Mira Bar Hillel Wrong on EU Anti-Semitism Definition Repudiation | website=[[Algemeiner]] | date=11 December 2013 | url=https://www.algemeiner.com/2013/12/11/report-the-independent-columnist-mira-bar-hillel-wrong-on-eu-anti-semitism-definition-repudiation/ | access-date=18 November 2018}}</ref> In November of that year, the FRA removed the definition from its website in "a clear-out of non-official documents"; a spokesperson stated at the time: "We are not aware of any official definition [of antisemitism]."<ref>{{harvnb|Marcus|2015|pp=166–167|ps=: "The European Union has not recently afforded the International Definition the respect that it has elsewhere received. Neither the EUMC nor its successor agency, the European Union's Fundamental Rights Agency, has ever formally endorsed the definition. Rather, the agency's Executive Director issued it without formal review by her political overseers. This gave the document a peculiar vulnerability to the winds of political change. In 2013, as we have seen, the Fundamental Rights Agency took the Working Definition down from its website during the course of renovations."}}</ref><ref name=JTA>[https://www.jta.org/2013/12/04/news-opinion/world/eu-anti-racism-agency-unable-to-define-anti-semitism-official-says "EU anti-racism agency unable to define anti-Semitism, official says"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180809122845/https://www.jta.org/2013/12/04/news-opinion/world/eu-anti-racism-agency-unable-to-define-anti-semitism-official-says |date=9 August 2018 }}, Jewish Telegraphic Agency. 4 December 2013.</ref><ref name=Wiesenthal>{{cite web |url=http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=8776547&ct=13381863 |title=SWC to EU Baroness Ashton: 'Return Anti-Semitism Definition Document to EU Fundamental Rights Agency Website' |publisher=Simon Wiesenthal Center |date=6 November 2013 |access-date=17 February 2016 |quote=In a letter to European Union Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Catherine Ashton, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre's Director for International Relations, Dr. Shimon Samuels, noted 'The Trust has now, apparently, reversed its ruling following the Definition's removal, claiming: "A press officer at the FRA has explained that this was a discussion paper and was never adopted by the EU as a working definition, although it has been on the FRA website until recently when it was removed during a clear-out of non-official documents. The link to the FRA site provided by the complainant in his appeal no longer works.{{"'}} |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160301080434/http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=8776547&ct=13381863 |archive-date=1 March 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> In April 2016, [[Middle East Monitor]] reported that, in response to a motion passed at the UK [[National Union of Students (United Kingdom)|National Union of Students]] annual conference endorsing the definition, the FRA stated that the working definition "is not an official EU definition and has not been adopted by FRA".<ref name="Middle East Monitor 2016">{{cite web | last=White| first=Ben|title=EU body disowns antisemitism 'definition' endorsed at NUS conference | website=Middle East Monitor | date=21 April 2016 | url=https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20160421-eu-body-disowns-antisemitism-definition-endorsed-at-nus-conference/ | access-date=18 November 2018}}</ref>

==IHRA publication== On 26 May 2016, IHRA adopted a non-legally-binding working definition of antisemitism, based on the EUMC's definition.{{sfn|Whine|2017}}{{sfn|OSCE|2016|p=12}}<ref name=":1">{{cite web |title=Statement by Experts of the UK Delegation to the IHRA on the Working Definition of Antisemitism |url=https://holocaustremembrance.com/news/from-the-archives |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240505055628/https://holocaustremembrance.com/news/from-the-archives |archive-date=5 May 2024 |access-date=19 November 2018 |website=IHRA}}</ref> Following the efforts of Mark Weitzman of the [[Simon Wiesenthal Center]],<ref name=MW>{{cite web |title=To fight anti-Semitism, you have to define it|date=3 May 2018 |url=http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/22096 |website=Israel National News |access-date=8 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180808140050/http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/22096|archive-date=8 August 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>{{sfn|OSCE|2016|p=12}} the IHRA's 31 member countries voted to adopt the [[#Text|two-sentence definition]] at its [[Bucharest]] plenary meeting on 30 May 2016.<ref name="Oryszczuk Frazer Ryan 2012">{{cite web | last1=Oryszczuk | first1=Stephen | last2=Frazer | first2=Jenni | last3=Ryan | first3=Joan | title=31 countries adopt broader anti-Semitism definition | website=Jewish News | date=5 November 2012 | url=http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/international-shoah-memorial-alliance-adopts-broader-anti-semitism-definition/ | access-date=19 November 2018}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{cite web |author=International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance |title=Working Definition of Antisemitism |website=IHRA |date=2016-05-26 |url=https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/news-archive/working-definition-antisemitism |access-date=2021-08-21}}</ref><ref name="Liphshiz 2016">{{cite web | last=Liphshiz | first=Cnaan | title=Comparing Israel to Nazis is anti-Semitic, 31 Western states declare | website=Jewish Telegraphic Agency | date=2016-06-02 | url=https://www.jta.org/2016/06/02/global/comparing-israel-to-nazis-is-anti-semitic-31-western-states-declare | access-date=2021-08-21}}</ref> Weitzman later said that the EUMC definition was used as there was "not enough time to invent a new one".<ref>{{harvnb|OSCE|2016|p=12|ps=: "Mr. Weitzman then provided the background to the adoption of the working definition on anti-Semitism during the IHRA Plenary meeting held in Bucharest on 26 May 2016. He explained that the definition is taken from the EUMC definition as there was not enough time to invent a new one."}}</ref>

The definition is followed by a list of 11 examples which the IRHA says "may serve as illustrations" to guide its work.<ref>According to IHRA, the adopted definition is the 38-word text quoted in the box beneath the resolution to adopt it. See: * {{Cite web|url=https://www.eccpalestine.org/the-ihra-working-definition-of-antisemitism-fact-sheet-and-recommendations-issued-by-eccp-and-free-speech-on-israel/|title=The 'IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism'. Fact-sheet and Recommendations issued by ECCP and Free Speech on Israel |date=7 December 2017}} In 2017, the IHRA Permanent Office in Berlin confirmed: "The Plenary of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted the working definition of antisemitism under the Romanian Chairmanship on 26 May 2016. The working definition, like all IHRA decision, is non-legally binding. The working definition is the text in the box." * {{Cite web |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/23/ihra-misrepresents-own-definition-of-anti-semitism-says-report |title=IHRA 'misrepresents' own definition of anti-Semitism, says report |first=James |last=Kleinfeld |website=Al Jazeera}} In 2021, [[Al Jazeera Media Network|Al-Jazeera]] reported that "the governing plenary decided to adopt only the two-sentence passage as its definition, excluding the controversial examples. The examples were not endorsed as part of the working definition but as "'illustrations' to 'guide IHRA in its work'." * {{Cite web |url=https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism |title=Working Definition of Antisemitism |website=IHRA |quote=To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations... Manifestations might include... 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...}} * {{harvnb|Lerman|2018b}} * {{Cite web |url=https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/about-ihra-working-definition-antisemitism |title=About the IHRA working definition of antisemitism |website=ADL |quote=Accompanying the IHRA Definition are 11 examples that 'may serve as illustrations' of how antisemitism manifests contemporaneously, ranging from age-old anti-Jewish tropes, to Holocaust denial, to certain expressions of animus toward the Jewish State of Israel that may cross the line into antisemitism}} * {{Cite web |url=https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/ |title=Defining Antisemitism |website=U.S. Department of State}}</ref><ref name=bbcihra>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44863606|title=New Labour anti-Semitism code criticised|date=17 July 2018|work=BBC News|access-date=8 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180730193702/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44863606|archive-date=30 July 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>{{sfn|Gould|2020}} According to [[Antony Lerman]], who took part in the plenary, the 38-word definition was adopted unanimously, although the examples that follow the definition were separated from it to achieve consensus. Lerman says:

{{Blockquote|The discussions, as I remember them, were quite intense and lengthy, both in the couloirs and in the plenary hall, until a decisive step was taken by the presidency, on the demand by some member states. Namely, the original draft text was cut into two, and only the first two-sentence part was to be the working-definition to be adopted, while the other part, the examples, remained what they were: examples to serve as illustrations, to guide the IHRA in its work. From then on, the plenary was able to move quickly on, and the non-legally binding working definition was unanimously adopted.{{sfn|Lerman|2018b}}}}

The first IHRA example says: "Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."<ref name=workdef>{{cite press release|author=IHRA|title=Working Definition press release |url=https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf|access-date=4 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180825032144/https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf|archive-date=25 August 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> After "taking into account the overall context", the examples of what might constitute antisemitism include claims of [[Antisemitic tropes#Dual loyalty|Jewish dual loyalty]],<ref>{{cite news |title=US House of Representatives votes to condemn antisemitism after Ilhan Omar's 'Israel loyalty' remarks |url=https://www.thejc.com/news/us-news/us-house-of-representatives-passes-motion-condemning-antisemitism-ilhan-omar-1.481185 |access-date=10 March 2019 |work=The Jewish Chronicle |date=8 March 2019 |quote=Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel than to their interests of their own nation is listed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance as an example of contemporary antisemitism in public life.}}</ref> and "claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Daniel |first1=Sugarman |title=What is the IHRA definition of antisemitism? And why has Labour outraged Jews by rejecting it? |url=https://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/what-is-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-and-why-has-labour-outraged-jews-by-rejecting-it-1.467511 |work=The Jewish Chronicle |access-date=30 July 2018 |date=20 July 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180728131356/https://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/what-is-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-and-why-has-labour-outraged-jews-by-rejecting-it-1.467511 |archive-date=28 July 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Adoption=== The IHRA working definition of antisemitism (IHRA-WDA) has been adopted for internal use by a number of government and political institutions. The United Kingdom was the first country to adopt the definition (12 December 2016),<ref name="GOV.UK 2016">{{cite web | title=Government leads the way in tackling anti-Semitism | author1-link=Theresa May |first1=Theresa|last1=May |author2-link=Sajid Javid|first2=Sajid |last2=Javid |website=GOV.UK | date=12 December 2016 | url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-leads-the-way-in-tackling-anti-semitism | access-date=19 November 2018}}</ref> followed by [[Israel]].<ref name="Zieve 2017" /> By 2018, according to Lerman, the IHRA-WDA had been formally adopted by 6 of the 31 governments whose countries are members of IHRA, though he notes that it is unclear whether those countries adopted the attached examples.{{sfn|Lerman|2018b}}

Israel's Minister of Strategic Affairs wrote an op-ed in ''[[Newsweek]]'' in July 2020 calling for [[social media]] companies to fully adopt the working definition.<ref name="Farkash-Hacohen 2020">{{cite web | last=Farkash-Hacohen | first=Orit | title=Social media giants: free speech is not hate speech - Opinion | website=Newsweek | date=2020-07-22 | url=https://www.newsweek.com/hate-speech-social-media-pandemic-1519771 | access-date=2020-09-29}}</ref> The following month 120 organizations, led by [[StopAntisemitism.org]] sent a letter to [[Facebook]]'s Board of Directors, calling upon them to fully adopt the IHRA-WDA as the "cornerstone of Facebook's hate speech policy regarding antisemitism".<ref name="Stop Antisemitism 2019">{{cite web | title=Open Letter to Facebook | website=Stop Antisemitism | date=2019-05-29 | url=https://www.stopantisemitism.org/open-letter-to-fb | access-date=2020-09-29 | archive-date=4 July 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210704154604/https://www.stopantisemitism.org/open-letter-to-fb | url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="Jewish Currents 2020">{{cite web | first=Lara| last=Friedman|title=Israel-Advocacy Groups Urge Facebook to Label Criticism of Israel as Hate Speech | website=Jewish Currents | date=2020-08-19 | url=https://jewishcurrents.org/israel-advocacy-groups-urge-facebook-to-label-criticism-of-israel-as-hate-speech/ | access-date=2020-09-29}}</ref> According to [[Neve Gordon]], Facebook responded by saying its definition "draws on the spirit—and the text—of the IHRA" working definition but demonstrated reluctance to adopt the examples that relate to Israel, and critics of the IHRA-WDA also lobbied the company not to adopt it.<ref name="Gordon 2020">{{cite web | last=Gordon | first=Neve | title=Redefining anti-Semitism on Facebook | website=Al Jazeera | date=2020-09-22 | url=https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/9/22/redefining-anti-semitism-on-facebook/ | access-date=2020-09-29}}</ref>

In October 2020, [[Albania]] becoming the first Muslim-majority country to formally adopt the IHRA-WDA.<ref name="auto" /> As of September 2021, between 29 and 32 countries had adopted the IHRA-WDA, as well as the European Union, and numerous local governments and institutions around the world.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.ajc.org/adoption-of-the-working-definition|title=Adoption of the Working Definition|date=17 May 2019|publisher=American Jewish Committee}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/madrid-adopts-ihra-antisemitism-definition-680366|title=Madrid adopts IHRA antisemitism definition|work=The Jerusalem Post|date=26 September 2021 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Australia endorses IHRA definition of antisemitism |url=https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/australia-endorses-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-681971 |access-date=27 June 2022 |work=[[The Jerusalem Post]] |date=14 October 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220623134922/https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/australia-endorses-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-681971 |archive-date=23 June 2022}}</ref>

[[File:IHRA members Jan 2025.svg|thumb|right|350px| {{Legend table 2 |lang=en|title=Member, observer and liaison countries of the IHRA, and adoption of the IHRA-WDA at the national level |#000080ff|Member countries that have adopted the IHRA-WDA |#800080ff|Member countries that haven't adopt the IHRA-WDA |#55ddffff|Observer and liaison countries that have adopted the IHRA-WDA |#ff2ad4ff|Observer and liaison countries that haven't adopted the IHRA-WDA |#00d400ff|Countries which have adopted the IHRA-WDA but aren't member, observer or liaison countries}}]]

{| class="wikitable sortable" |+Adoption of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism by country<ref>{{cite web | url=https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism | title=What is antisemitism? | work=IHRA }}</ref> !Country !Status !Date of adoption |- |{{flagcountry|Albania}} | |22 October 2020<ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/albania-becomes-first-muslim-country-to-adopt-anti-semitism-definition/|title=Albania becomes first Muslim country to adopt anti-Semitism definition|website=The Times of Israel |date=22 October 2020 }}</ref> |- |{{flagcountry|Argentina}} |Member |4 June 2020<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/argentina-adopts-ihra-definition-of-anti-semitism/ |title=Argentina adopts IHRA definition of anti-Semitism |website=The Times of Israel |date=9 June 2020 }}</ref> |- |{{flagcountry|Australia}} |Member |13 October 2021<ref name="Australia 2021" /> |- |{{flagcountry|Austria}} |Member |25 April 2017<ref name="Zieve 2017">{{cite web | last=Zieve | first=Tamara | title=Jewish groups urge EU Parliament to adopt antisemitism definition | work=The Jerusalem Post | date=30 May 2017 | url=https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Ahead-of-vote-Jewish-groups-urge-European-Parliament-to-adopt-antisemitism-definition-494347 | access-date=19 November 2018}}</ref> |- |{{flagcountry|Belgium}} |Member |14 December 2018 |- |{{flagicon|Bosnia and Herzegovina}} [[Bosnia and Herzegovina]] |Observer |22 July 2022 |- |{{flagcountry|Bulgaria}} |Member |18 October 2017<ref name=BulAdoptn>{{Cite web|url=https://eurojewcong.org/news/communities-news/bulgaria/bulgaria-appoints-national-coordinator-fight-antisemitism/|title=Bulgaria appoints national coordinator for fight against antisemitism|date=19 October 2017|website=European Jewish Congress}}</ref> |- |{{flagcountry|Canada}} |Member |27 June 2019<ref name="Romania Canada 2019">{{Cite web|url=https://ipolitics.ca/2019/06/25/new-office-will-tackle-racism-in-federal-institutions-as-part-of-45m-national-plan|title=New office will tackle racism in federal institutions as part of $45M national plan|date=25 June 2019}}</ref> |- |{{flagcountry|Colombia}} | |2 June 2022 |- |{{flagcountry|Croatia}} |Member |20 January 2023 |- |{{flagcountry|Cyprus}} |Observer |18 December 2019<ref name="CyprusAdopts">{{cite web | last=Wolf | first=Rachel | title=Cyprus adopts IHRA definition of antisemitism | work=The Jerusalem Post | date=2019-12-19 | url=https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/cyprus-adopts-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-611376 | access-date=2021-06-16}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://cyprus-mail.com/2019/12/18/cabinet-approves-anti-semitism-definition/|title=Cabinet approves anti-semitism definition|work=[[Cyprus Mail]]|first=George|last=Psyllides}}</ref> |- |{{flagcountry|Czech Republic}} |Member |25 January 2019 |- |{{flagcountry|Denmark}} |Member |January 2022 |- |{{flagcountry|Estonia}} |Member |29 April 2021 |- |{{flagcountry|Finland}} |Member |17 February 2022 |- |{{flagcountry|France}} |Member |3 December 2019 |- |{{flagcountry|Germany}} |Member |20 September 2017<ref name="Blas 2017">{{cite web | last=Blas | first=Howard | title=Germany adopts international definition of antisemitism | work=The Jerusalem Post | date=21 September 2017 | url=https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Germany-adopts-international-definition-of-antisemitism-505653 | access-date=19 November 2018}}</ref> |- |{{flagcountry|Greece}} |Member |8 November 2019<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/greece-to-officially-adopt-broad-definition-of-anti-semitism/|title=Greece to officially adopt broad definition of anti-Semitism|first=Marcy|last=Oster|website=The Times of Israel |date=10 November 2019 }}</ref> |- |{{flagcountry|Guatemala}} | |27 January 2021 |- |{{flagcountry|Hungary}} |Member |18 February 2019 |- |{{flagcountry|Ireland}} |Member |16 January 2025 |- |{{flagcountry|Israel}} |Member |22 January 2017<ref name="Zieve 2017" /> |- |{{flagcountry|Italy}} |Member |17 January 2020<ref name=ItalAdopt>{{Cite web|url=https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/italy-adopts-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-614655|title=Italy adopts IHRA definition of antisemitism|work=The Jerusalem Post|date=19 January 2020 }}</ref> |- |{{flagcountry|Kosovo}}<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.jpost.com/international/article-745743 | title=Kosovo adopts IHRA antisemitism definition | date=9 June 2023 }}</ref> | |8 June 2023 |- |{{flagcountry|Latvia}} |Member |11 April 2023 |- |{{flagcountry|Lithuania}} |Member |24 January 2018<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://ministraspirmininkas.lrv.lt/en/news/lithuania-to-apply-the-uniform-working-definition-of-antisemitism |title=Lithuania to apply the uniform working definition of antisemitism |date=24 January 2018 |work=Government of the Republic of Lithuania |access-date=2 July 2019}}</ref> |- |{{flagcountry|Luxembourg}} |Member |10 July 2019 |- |{{flagcountry|Moldova}} |Observer |18 January 2019<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/01/20/moldova-endorses-accepted-definition-of-antisemitism/|title=Moldova Endorses Accepted Definition of Antisemitism|date=20 January 2019|work=Algemeiner|access-date=29 May 2019}}</ref> |- |{{flagcountry|Netherlands}} |Member |27 November 2018 |- |{{flagcountry|North Macedonia}} |Member |6 March 2018<ref name=Factsheet/> |- |{{flagcountry|Panama}} | |10 May 2023 |- |{{flagcountry|Philippines}} | |18 February 2022 |- |{{flagcountry|Poland}} |Member |13 October 2021 |- |{{flagcountry|Portugal}} |Member |28 July 2021 |- |{{flagcountry|Romania}} |Member |25 May 2017<ref name="Romania Canada 2019" /> |- |{{flagcountry|Scotland}} | |27 April 2017 |- |{{flagcountry|Serbia}} |Member |26 February 2020<ref name=SerbiaAdopt>[https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/serbia-adopts-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-630192 "Serbia adopts IHRA definition of antisemitism"]. ''Jerusalem Post''.</ref> |- |{{flagcountry|Slovakia}} |Member |28 November 2018 |- |{{flagcountry|Slovenia}} |Member |20 December 2018 |- |{{flagcountry|South Korea}} | |4 August 2021 |- |{{flagcountry|Spain}} |Member |22 July 2020 |- |{{flagcountry|Sweden}} |Member |21 January 2020 |- |{{flagcountry|Switzerland}} |Member |4 June 2021 |- |{{flagcountry|United Kingdom}} |Member |12 December 2016 |- |{{flagcountry|USA}} |Member |11 December 2019 |- |{{flagcountry|Uruguay}} |Observer |27 January 2020 |}

====Europe==== In late 2016, [[Russia]] blocked the [[Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe]]'s adoption of the IHRA-WDA.<ref>[https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-rare-criticism-israeli-envoy-raps-russia-for-blocking-anti-semitism-definition/ "Israeli Envoy Raps Russia"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180815025059/https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-rare-criticism-israeli-envoy-raps-russia-for-blocking-anti-semitism-definition/ |date=15 August 2018 }} ''Times of Israel'': "Koren's statement came as confirmation to reports, including by the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, [[Jonathan Arkush]], that Russia was the only country blocking the adoption of the definition, which is controversial because it lists some forms of hate speech on Israel as an example of anti-Semitism."</ref> The European Parliament called for member states to adopt the IHRA-WDA on 1 June 2017<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/EU-Parliament-votes-in-favor-of-adopting-antisemitism-definition-494479|title=EU Parliament votes in favor of adopting antisemitism definition|date=June 2017 |access-date=8 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180718001345/https://www.jpost.com//Diaspora/EU-Parliament-votes-in-favor-of-adopting-antisemitism-definition-494479|archive-date=18 July 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=Factsheet>{{cite web|url=http://holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/fcat_sheet_working_definition_of_antisemitism.pdf|title=IHRA Factsheet|access-date=8 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180416200314/http://holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/fcat_sheet_working_definition_of_antisemitism.pdf|archive-date=16 April 2018|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.momentmag.com/defining-anti-semitism-conversation-eu-coordinator-combating-anti-semitism/|title=Defining Anti-Semitism: A Conversation With the EU Coordinator on Combating Anti-Semitism|date=28 June 2017 |access-date=8 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180618025721/https://www.momentmag.com/defining-anti-semitism-conversation-eu-coordinator-combating-anti-semitism/|archive-date=18 June 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> – although Lerman notes that this is without explicitly quoting the examples.{{sfn|Lerman|2018b}}

=====United Kingdom===== In March 2016, [[Eric Pickles]], then [[Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government]], recommended the working definition of antisemitism, as used by the UK's [[College of Policing]].<ref>Foreign & Commonwealth Office and The Rt Hon Lord Pickles (30 March 2016). [https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/a-definition-of-antisemitism "A definition of antisemitism"]. The article cites [http://www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/Support/Equality/Documents/Hate-Crime-Operational-Guidance.pdf#search=antisemitism "Hate Crime Operational Guidance"], College of Policing 2014, section 3.2.3 pp.35–28.</ref> In October 2016, the cross-party Commons [[Home Affairs Select Committee]] published a report on antisemitism in the UK, noting that the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews gave evidence describing the IHRA-WDA as "helpful, comprehensive and fit for purpose", as well as some of the criticisms of the definition. The committee recommended official adoption of the IHRA-WDA with some "additional caveats".<ref name="BBC News 2016">{{cite web | title=Jeremy Corbyn's response to anti-Semitism in Labour criticised by MPs | website=BBC News | date=2016-10-16 | url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37656197 | access-date=2021-06-16}}</ref><ref name="HAC">Home Affairs Committee. ''[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/136/13602.htm 10th Report – Antisemitism in the UK]''. October 2016. Cf [https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/inquiry2/publications/ report, oral and written evidence and government response on the HAC website].</ref><ref name="CARJ 2018">{{cite web | title=CARJ Briefing – Defining Antisemitism | website=CARJ | date=2018-08-22 | url=https://www.carj.org.uk/2018/08/22/carj-briefing-defining-antisemitism/ | access-date=2021-06-16}}</ref> The caveats were two additional clarifications designed to protect [[freedom of speech]] in discussion of Israel/Palestine: {{blockquote|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.<ref name="HAC"/><ref name="Watson 2018">{{cite web | last=Watson | first=Iain | title=Can Labour detoxify the anti-Semitism row? | website=BBC News | date=30 August 2018 | url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45349885 | access-date=8 November 2018}}</ref><ref name="Sugarman 2018">{{cite news| last=Sugarman | first=Daniel| title=Jeremy Corbyn supporters on NEC call for Labour members to be disciplined for 'vexatious' antisemitism claims | newspaper=Jewish Chronicle | date=30 August 2018 | url=https://www.thejc.com/jeremy-corbyn-supporters-call-for-labour-members-to-be-disciplined-for-vexatious-antisemitism-1.469021 | access-date=8 November 2018}}</ref>}}

In December 2016, the UK government said it would adopt the IHRA-WDA, but that the caveats were unnecessary because the definition's clause "criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic" was sufficient to ensure freedom of speech.<ref>See: * {{harvnb|Sedley|Janner-Klausner|Bindman|Rose|2018}} * {{harvnb|Feldman|2016}} * [[Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government|Javid, Sajid]]. [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/576792/CM9386_-_Select_Comittee_Response_-_Antisemitism_in_UK.pdf "Government Response to Home Affairs Committee Report: 'Anti-Semitism in the UK{{'"}}]. December 2016.</ref><ref name="Walker 2016 UK adopts">{{cite news |last=Walker |first=Peter |title=UK adopts antisemitism definition to combat hate crime against Jews |newspaper=The Guardian |date=12 December 2016 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/12/antisemitism-definition-government-combat-hate-crime-jews-israel |access-date=17 November 2018}}</ref> Subsequently, the definition has been adopted by some 120 UK councils,<ref name=MW/><ref name="Hackney Citizen 2018">{{cite web | title=Hackney votes to adopt anti-semitism definition at Town Hall meeting | website=Hackney Citizen | date=22 February 2018 | url=https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2018/02/22/hackney-votes-adopt-anti-semitism-definition-town-hall-meeting/ | access-date=16 November 2018|quote=[Hackney councillor Harvey] Odze, speaking at the 21 February council meeting, said:&nbsp;... 'This definition is supported by over 30 governments, including the UK, the Scottish and Welsh parliaments. Over 120 councils have adopted it, including 18 London boroughs. In fact, the only inner London boroughs that have not adopted it yet are Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and as yet Hackney.'}}</ref> as well as the [[Welsh Government|Welsh]] and [[Scottish Government]]s, the [[Greater Manchester Combined Authority]], and the [[London Assembly]] and [[Mayor of London]].<ref name="UK Parliament 2011" /><ref name="London City Hall 2017">{{cite web | title=Assembly backs international anti-Semitism guidelines | website=London City Hall | date=8 February 2017 | url=https://www.london.gov.uk//press-releases/assembly/assembly-backs-anti-semitism-guidelines | access-date=17 November 2018}}{{pb}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.london.gov.uk//motions/definition-antisemitism|title=Definition of Antisemitism|date=27 February 2017|website=London City Hall}}{{pb}}[http://questions.london.gov.uk/QuestionSearch/searchclient/questions/question_294832 Mayor of London's Question Time, 10 August 2017, Question 2017/3115]. "I am therefore pleased to confirm that I have adopted the IHRA's working definition"</ref> In July 2018, an [[Early Day Motion]] proposed by Labour Party MP [[Luciana Berger]] was signed by 39 mainly Labour MPs who welcomed the UK's formal adoption of the definition.<ref name="UK Parliament 2011">{{cite web | title=Early day motion 1493 | website=UK Parliament | date=9 March 2011 | url=https://www.parliament.uk/edm/print/2017-19/1493 | access-date=17 November 2018}}</ref>

It has also been adopted by religious and educational institutions such as the [[Church of Scotland]] and [[King's College London]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Naysmith |first=Stephen |date=22 May 2019 |title=Church adopts antisemitism definition and backs Holy Land work |work=The Herald |url=https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17657882.church-adopts-anti-semitism-definition-and-backs-holy-land-work/}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Frazer |first1=Jenni |title=King's College London adopts international definition of anti-Semitism |website=Jewish News |date=30 May 2018 |url=https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/students-kings-college-london-adopts-international-definition-of-anti-semitism/ |access-date=2 May 2021}}</ref> In 2017, a resolution to the [[University and College Union]] called for the union to formally reject the definition.<ref name="Zieve 2017"/><ref>{{cite web |last1=Frazer |first1=Jenni |title=Four universities reject UK's definition of anti-Semitism |website=Jewish News |date=21 April 2017 |url=http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/four-universities-reject-uks-definition-of-anti-semitism/ |access-date=2 May 2021}}</ref>

In August 2019, [[Tower Hamlets London Borough Council]] refused to host the fifth annual charity bike ride event in aid of Palestinian children in Gaza called BigRide4Palestine due to concerns that included the possibility that how it criticised Israel would violate the IHRA-WDA adopted by the council.<ref>{{cite news|last=Gayle|first=Damien |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/03/uk-council-refused-to-host-palestinian-event-over-antisemitism-fears|title=UK council refused to host Palestinian event over antisemitism fears|newspaper=The Guardian |date=3 August 2019|access-date=14 August 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Cock|first=Sybil |title=The BigRide4Palestine v the IHRA|newspaper=[[Morning Star (British newspaper)|Morning Star]]|date=5 August 2019 |url=https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/bigride4palestine-vs-ihra |access-date=14 August 2019}}</ref> [[Antony Lerman]] concluded that the IHRA-WDA was an obstacle to constructive criticism of Israel.{{sfn|Lerman|2019}} 23 signatories of an open letter to ''[[The Guardian]]'' stated that the council's refusal to host the charity event vindicated concerns raised about the definition.<ref>{{cite news|title=Freedom of expression on Palestine is being suppressed|department=Letters |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/13/freedom-of-expression-on-palestine-is-being-suppressed |newspaper=The Guardian |date=13 August 2019 |access-date=14 August 2019}}</ref>

In September 2019, [[Robert Jenrick]], the newly appointed [[Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government]], said it was "unacceptable that places receiving public money, such as universities and local authorities, choose not to accept our IHRA definition of antisemitism and use it when considering matters such as disciplinary procedures". He said he would write to such organisations and that failure to comply would also be "unacceptable".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/communities-minister-robert-jenrick-vows-to-tackle-parts-of-local-government-corrupted-by-antisemi-1.488598|title=Communities minister Robert Jenrick vows to tackle parts of local Government 'corrupted' by antisemitism|last=Harpin|first=Lee|date=15 September 2019|access-date=15 September 2019|work=The Jewish Chronicle}}</ref>

======Labour Party====== {{See also|Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party}} In December 2016, Labour adopted the IHRA-WDA.<ref name="SabSep18"/> It was formally accepted at the 2017 [[Labour Party Conference (UK)|Labour Party Conference]].<ref name="Sugarman">{{cite news |last=Sugarman |first=Daniel |url=https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/new-jewish-group-launched-in-labour-1.443348 |title=New Jewish group launched in Labour |work=[[The Jewish Chronicle]] |date=25 August 2017 |access-date=18 May 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180701031211/https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/new-jewish-group-launched-in-labour-1.443348 |archive-date=1 July 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref> In July 2018, the [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]]'s [[National Executive Committee of the Labour Party|National Executive Committee]] (NEC) adopted a version of the IHRA-WDA without a vote,<ref name="Jewish Chronicle">{{cite web|url=https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/labour-rejects-ihra-definition-antisemitism-nec-1.467291|title=Labour Rejects IHRA Definition|work=Jewish Chronicle|date=17 July 2018 |access-date=16 September 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180917105109/https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/labour-rejects-ihra-definition-antisemitism-nec-1.467291|archive-date=17 September 2018|url-status=live}}</ref> although it removed or amended four of the IHRA's 11 examples, added three more, and amended points illustrating how criticising Israel could be antisemitic.<ref name="Sabbagh 2018 tussles">{{cite web | last=Sabbagh | first=Dan | title=Antisemitism: Labour's tussle with definition | website=the Guardian | date=2018-09-04 | url=http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/04/antisemitism-labours-tussle-with-definition | access-date=2021-06-16}}</ref><ref name="Lee 2019">{{cite web | last=Lee | first=Georgina | title=FactCheck: Labour rulebook doesn't mention IHRA antisemitism definition or examples | website=Channel 4 News | date=2019-05-29 | url=https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-labour-rulebook-doesnt-mention-ihra-antisemitism-definition-or-examples | access-date=2021-06-16}}</ref><ref name="BBC News 2018 Chief Rabbi">{{cite web | title=Chief rabbi: Labour should toughen up anti-Semitism code | website=BBC News | date=2018-07-17 | url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44853391 | access-date=2021-06-16}}</ref><ref name="Rodgers 2018 slam">{{cite web | last=Rodgers | first=Sienna | title=Jewish groups slam Labour's new antisemitism guidelines | website=LabourList | date=2018-07-05 | url=https://labourlist.org/2018/07/jewish-groups-slam-labours-new-antisemitism-guidelines/ | access-date=2021-06-16}}</ref> Labour said the wording in the code of conduct "expands on and contextualises" the IHRA examples. The Shadow Solicitor-General, [[Nick Thomas-Symonds]], said many of IHRA-WDA's examples were "adopted word for word" in the code of conduct while "the ground is covered" for others. He said: "We should be going further than the IHRA definition and the language of the code is at times much stronger. We need to expand on a lot of the examples to ensure that we have a legally enforceable code so that we can enforce discipline as everyone wants to."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-44923669|title=Labour rejects anti-Semitism claims|work=BBC News|date=23 July 2018|access-date=27 September 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181023074833/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-44923669/labour-rejects-anti-semitism-claims |archive-date=23 October 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

The NEC's modified examples sparked criticism amid allegations of antisemitism in the party, leading the NEC to announce that it would review the decision in consultation with the UK Jewish community.<ref>Harpin, Lee. [https://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/jeremy-corbyn-labour-definition-antisemitism-1.466626 "Read Labour's new definition of antisemitism"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180811062301/https://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/jeremy-corbyn-labour-definition-antisemitism-1.466626 |date=11 August 2018 }}. ''The Jewish Chronicle''</ref><ref name="Jewish Chronicle" /> The UK Delegation to the IHRA said that modifying the IHRA-WDA or not including all 11 examples would mean it "is no longer the IHRA definition", would remove the consistency of having a single definition, and "undermines the months of international diplomacy and academic rigour that enabled this definition to exist".<ref>See: * [https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/ihra-warns-labour-against-undermining-its-antisemitism-definition-1.468105 "IHRA warns Labour against undermining its antisemitism definition"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180825074243/https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/ihra-warns-labour-against-undermining-its-antisemitism-definition-1.468105 |date=25 August 2018 }}. ''The Jewish Chronicle''. * {{cite web |url=https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/index.php/news-archive/statement-experts-uk-delegation-ihra-working-definition-antisemitism |title=Statement by Experts of the UK Delegation to the IHRA on the Working Definition of Antisemitism |website=IHRA |access-date=25 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180825110328/https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/index.php/news-archive/statement-experts-uk-delegation-ihra-working-definition-antisemitism |archive-date=25 August 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref>

In September 2018, the NEC decided to add all 11 unamended examples to the definition of antisemitism; the IHRA-WDA was subsequently added to the party's standing orders by a majority vote of 205 by the [[Parliamentary Labour Party]].<ref name="SabSep18">{{Cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/04/labour-adopts-ihra-antisemitism-definition-in-full |title=Labour adopts IHRA antisemitism definition in full |last=Sabbagh |first=Dan |date=4 September 2018 |newspaper=The Guardian |access-date=16 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180916081456/https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/04/labour-adopts-ihra-antisemitism-definition-in-full |archive-date=16 September 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://labourlist.org/2018/09/leaks-antisemitism-and-democracy-review-alice-perrys-latest-nec-report/ |title=Leaks, antisemitism and democracy review – Alice Perry's latest NEC report |date=5 September 2018 |work=LabourList |access-date=16 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180917071357/https://labourlist.org/2018/09/leaks-antisemitism-and-democracy-review-alice-perrys-latest-nec-report/ |archive-date=17 September 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/05/labour-votes-full-antisemitism-ihra-terms-party-standing-orders |title=Labour votes for full antisemitism terms in standing orders |last=Sabbagh |first=Dan |date=5 September 2018 |newspaper=The Guardian |access-date=16 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180917181607/https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/05/labour-votes-full-antisemitism-ihra-terms-party-standing-orders |archive-date=17 September 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Later in the month, a report by the [[Media Reform Coalition]] examined over 250 articles and broadcast news segments of coverage of Labour's revised code of conduct on antisemitism, and found over 90 examples of misleading or inaccurate reporting. The research found evidence of "overwhelming source imbalance" in which coverage often omitted critical discussion of the IHRA-WDA and wrongly presented it as universally adopted, whilst few news reports stated that mainstream academic and legal opinion was critical of the IHRA working definition, including formal opinions from four leading UK barristers.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2018-09-27 |title=New MRC research finds inaccuracies and distortions in media coverage of antisemitism and the Labour Party |url=https://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/new-mrc-research-finds-inaccuracies-and-distortions-in-media-coverage-of-antisemitism-and-the-labour-party |access-date=2022-10-11 |website=Media Reform Coalition |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref name="MRC">{{cite web |author=Noam Chomsky |display-authors=et al|title=Letters: Flawed reporting on antisemitism claims against the Labour party |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/30/flawed-reporting-on-antisemitism-claims-against-the-labour-party |access-date=30 September 2018 |work=The Guardian |date=5 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180930200257/https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/30/flawed-reporting-on-antisemitism-claims-against-the-labour-party |archive-date=30 September 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=June 2021}}

======Other political parties====== In July 2018, the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] said it had adopted the definition in full, although their code of conduct, approved in December 2017, did not mention antisemitism or specify a definition of it. Since then their code has been amended to include an interpretive annexe on discrimination, which does refer to the IHRA-WDA and says it was adopted in December 2016 (the date the Conservative ''government'' adopted the definition).<ref name="Weaver">{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/05/the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-where-uk-parties-stand|title=The IHRA definition of antisemitism: where UK parties stand|last=Weaver|first=Matthew|date=5 September 2018 |work=The Guardian|access-date=17 October 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181001232613/https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/05/the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-where-uk-parties-stand|archive-date=1 October 2018|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.conservatives.com/code-of-conduct|title=Code of Conduct |publisher=The Conservative Party}}</ref><ref name="Lee 2018">{{cite web | last=Lee | first=Georgina | title=FactCheck: Conservative party rulebook doesn't mention antisemitism | website=Channel 4 News | date=20 July 2018 | url=https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-conservative-party-rulebook-doesnt-mention-antisemitism | access-date=8 November 2018}}</ref>

In September 2018, the [[Liberal Democrats (UK)|Liberal Democrats]] formally adopted the IHRA definition with the working examples.<ref name="Weaver"/> In October 2018, [[Green Party of England and Wales]] did not adopt the definition. Their home affairs spokesman and former deputy leader, [[Shahrar Ali]], told their annual conference the definition was "politically engineered to restrict criticism of Israel's heinous crimes upon the Palestinian people".<ref name="Harpin">{{cite news|last=Harpin|first=Lee|url=https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/green-party-fails-to-adopt-ihra-antisemitism-definition-at-conference-1.470718|title=Green Party fails to adopt IHRA antisemitism definition at Conference|work=The Jewish Chronicle|date=10 October 2018|access-date=17 October 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181017123738/https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/green-party-fails-to-adopt-ihra-antisemitism-definition-at-conference-1.470718|archive-date=17 October 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

======Universities====== According to the results of a Freedom of Information request filed in 2020 by the [[Union of Jewish Students]] (UJS), 29 of 133 UK universities had adopted the definition, with a further 80 institutions having no plans to do.<ref>{{cite report |title=Higher Education Institution Adoption Date |url=https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ujs/pages/1358/attachments/original/1601632621/IHRA_Freedom_of_Information_responses.pdf?1601632621 |access-date=22 August 2021}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/20174 |title=University formally adopts the IHRA definition of antisemitism |website=Varsity Online}}</ref> Subsequently, U.K. education secretary [[Gavin Williamson]] accused institutions of "dragging their feet" and warned that funding streams could be suspended.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-he-government-education-2020-10-universities-threatened-with-defunding-over-antisemitism/|title=Universities threatened with defunding over antisemitism|date=9 October 2020}}</ref> Following the letter, the UJS said that the number of adoptees rose to 48 while an open letter from a group of lawyers accused the education secretary of "improper interference" with universities' autonomy and right to free expression.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/jan/07/antisemitism-definition-is-undermining-free-speech |title=Antisemitism definition is undermining free speech &#124; Letter |date=7 January 2021 |website=The Guardian}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/07/williamson-wrong-to-force-universities-to-abide-by-antisemitism-definition-say-lawyers|title=Williamson wrong to force universities to abide by antisemitism definition, say lawyers |date=7 January 2021 |website=The Guardian}}</ref> In a July 2021 opinion piece for the activist ''[[Labour Briefing]]'', [[Jonathan Rosenhead]] stated that the government pressure "didn't go down well with university administrations" and that the arrival of the new [[Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism]] has affected campus debate.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://labourbriefing.org/blog/2021/7/7/universities-the-new-battlefield-in-the-antisemitism-wars |title=Universities – the new battlefield in the antisemitism wars |website=Labour Briefing}}</ref>

In February 2021, [[University College London]]'s governing body, having previously adopted the IHRA definition, said that it would reconsider the matter following rejection by an internal academic board which called on the university to "retract and replace IHRA working definition with a more precise definition of antisemitism".<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/feb/12/ucl-board-rejects-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism |title=UCL board rejects IHRA definition of antisemitism |date=12 February 2021 |website=The Guardian}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ucu/campaigns/faqs-16-questions-ucl-and-ihra-definition-anti-semitism/can-ihra-working-definition-be |title=Can the IHRA working definition be implemented? |website=University College London |date=4 February 2021}} UCL said it could not adopt the definition, saying: "Our conclusion is that the IHRA working definition is so worded with caveats that it is of limited practical use in determining guilt in cases where allegations are made, and to determine guilt using it as an instrument or reference point would place the university at risk of litigation. By contrast the Equality Act 2010 is the law, and provides a much safer basis for determinations."</ref>

==== Italy ==== In early February 2026, the Italian Senate's Constitutional Affairs Committee approved the draft text of a bill that would allow authorities to ban rallies that promote antisemitism by incorporating the IHRA definition of antisemitism into Italian law, potentially making Italy one of the first countries to use the IHRA definition as a legal basis for prohibiting certain gatherings deemed hateful and dangerous.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Lidor |first=Canaan |date=2026-02-03 |title=Italian Senate panel backs bill to ban antisemitic rallies |url=https://www.jns.org/italian-senate-panel-backs-bill-to-ban-antisemitic-rallies/ |access-date=2026-02-08 |website=JNS.org |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-02-04 |title=Italian Senate advances bill to ban antisemitic rallies |url=https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-885625 |access-date=2026-02-08 |website=[[The Jerusalem Post]] |language=en |issn=0792-822X }}</ref> The draft text, presented by Senator [[Massimiliano Romeo]] of the Lega party in late January and approved by the committee by 3 February 2026, will proceed to an amendments phase before full readings in both chambers of [[Parliament of Italy|Parliament]]. Supporters contend the measure is necessary to combat rising antisemitism, while critics argue it raises concerns about free speech and the scope of public assembly restrictions.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=Italy's Antisemitism Bill and the Fine Line Between Hate and Criticism {{!}} Feed-O-Matic {{!}} Services {{!}} Roma -O- Matic 3.0 |url=https://www.roma-o-matic.com/en/refeed/700269 |access-date=2026-02-08 |website=www.roma-o-matic.com |language=en}}</ref>

==== Oceania ====

=====Australia===== On 14 October 2021, [[Prime Minister of Australia|Australian Prime Minister]] [[Scott Morrison]] announced that Australia would formally adopt the IHRA-WDA. While the announcement was welcomed by Zionist advocacy groups including [[AIJAC]] (the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council) and the [[Zionist Federation of Australia]], the [[New Israel Fund]] Australia and [[Australia Palestine Advocacy Network]] expressed concerns that the IHRA definition could be used to silence criticism of Israeli policies and actions.<ref name="Australia 2021">{{cite news |last1=Doherty |first1=Ben |title=Australian government to adopt international group's definition of antisemitism |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/15/australian-government-to-adopt-international-groups-definition-of-antisemitism |access-date=27 June 2022 |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=15 October 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220531182345/https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/15/australian-government-to-adopt-international-groups-definition-of-antisemitism |archive-date=31 May 2022|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2022, the sole [[Pauline Hanson's One Nation|One Nation]] MP in the [[Parliament of South Australia]], [[Sarah Game]], introduced a motion to adopt the definition, which was passed in July 2022 after amendments were voted down. The move was welcomed by [[Jewish Community Council of South Australia]], and brought [[South Australia]] into line with the federal government, as well as the [[NSW government|NSW]] and [[Victoria State Government|Victorian government]]s.<ref name=kohn2022>{{cite web | last=Kohn | first=Peter | title=JCCSA welcomes recognition | website=The [[Australian Jewish News]] | date=14 July 2022 | url=https://www.australianjewishnews.com/jccsa-welcomes-recognition/ | access-date=10 January 2026}}</ref>

On 10 July 2025, the first report of Australia's [[List of combating antisemitism envoys#Australia|Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aseca.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-07/2025-aseca-plan.pdf|title=Special Envoy's Plan to Combat Antisemitism. A policy-oriented framework for government and the Australian community|location=Canberra|publisher=ASECA|date=July 2025|access-date=11 July 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.abc.net.au/religion/jillian-segal-special-enjoy-australia-plan-combat-antisemitism/105522902|last=Oboler|first=Andre|title=The Special Envoy's plan to stem the antisemitic tide is a critical development at a pivotal moment|website=Australian Broadcasting Corporation|date=11 July 2025|access-date=13 July 2025}}</ref> urged adoption of the IHRA working definition and its examples throughout Australian government and society "as best practice for identifying antisemitism". It proposed that failure to conform to that standard should result in withdrawal or denial of government funding, or of charitable status, for any organisation, including universities. A "supplementary guide" to applying the definition is promised. The report was welcomed by some Jewish organizations but criticized by others.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jul/11/australia-antisemitism-plan-recommendations-and-why-some-are-causing-concern-ntwnfb|last=Butler|first=Josh|title=Explainer: What is Australia's proposed antisemitism plan{{mdash}}and why are some parts causing concern?|work=The Guardian|date=11 July 2025|access-date=14 July 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/what-is-the-controversial-definition-of-antisemitism-that-institutions-are-being-told-to-adopt-20250711-p5mecu.html|last=Newling|first=Nick|title=What is the controversial definition of antisemitism that institutions are being told to adopt?|work=Sydney Morning Herald|date=15 July 2025|access-date=15 July 2025}} Neither the IHRA definition nor its illustrative examples are quoted in the special envoy's report.</ref> It was criticized in several quarters for a chilling of free speech particularly as to Israeli Government policies, and a [[Trumpism|Trumpian]] threat to the independence of universities and arts organisations.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/landmark-antisemitism-report-demands-change-from-universities-media-20250710-p5mdve.html|last1=Ireland|first1=Olivia|last2=McSweeney|first2=Jessica|title= Funding threats for unis, school curriculum changes in bid to change 'dangerous trajectory'|work=Sydney Morning Herald|date=10 July 2025|access-date=13 July 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2025/jul/12/albanese-must-be-careful-that-tackling-antisemitism-doesnt-curb-free-speech|last=McIlroy|first=Tom|title=Albanese must be careful that tackling antisemitism doesn't curb free speech|work=The Guardian|date=12 July 2025|access-date=12 July 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/12/the-special-envoys-plan-is-the-latest-push-to-weaponise-antisemitism-as-a-relentless-campaign-pays-off-ntwnfb|last=Adler|first=Louise|title=The special envoy's plan is the latest push to weaponise antisemitism in Australia, as a relentless campaign pays off|work=The Guardian|date=12 July 2025|access-date=12 July 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.smh.com.au/national/to-defend-our-democracy-pm-must-disavow-and-abandon-segal-report-20250717-p5mfpd.html|last=Flanagan|first=Richard|author-link=Richard Flanagan|title=To defend our democracy, PM must disavow and abandon Segal report|work=Sydney Morning Herald|date=18 July 2025|access-date=18 July 2025}}</ref> Kenneth Stern, the definition's lead drafter, said that it would be a "disaster" for Australia to adopt the proposal to deal with antisemitism mainly by restricting speech.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2025/jul/14/australia-news-live-anthony-albanese-china-nsw-koala-deaths-greens-ntwnfb?page=with%3Ablock-68742e698f08a97237f2e1a9#block-68742e698f08a97237f2e1a9|title=Adopting antisemitism definition would be 'disaster', says author who helped draft it|work=The Guardian|date=14 July 2025|access-date=14 July 2025}}</ref>

The federal government said in July 2025 that it would respond to the report after receiving a report from the special envoy on [[Islamophobia]], due in August, and a final report on racism in universities from the [[Australian Human Rights Commission]], due in October.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jul/16/labor-to-wait-for-university-discrimination-review-before-antisemitism-response-ntwnfb|last1=Cassidy|first1=Caitlin|last2=Butler|first2=Josh|title='Tackle racism in whatever form': Labor defers response to contentious antisemitism proposals for universities|work=The Guardian|date=16 July 2025|access-date=16 July 2025}}</ref>

National broadcasters [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation|ABC]] and [[Special Broadcasting Service|SBS]] have declined to use the IHRA definition, each preferring their own.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/abc-sbs-reject-federal-government-special-envoy-s-definition-of-antisemitism-20260518-p5zy2i.html|last=Jaspan|first=Calum|title=ABC, SBS reject federal government, special envoy's definition of antisemitism|work=Sydney Morning Herald|date=19 May 2026|access-date=19 May 2026}}</ref>

=====New Zealand===== On 24 June 2022, [[New Zealand]] formally became an observer of the IHRA.<ref>{{cite web |title=New Zealand becomes an Observer of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance |url=https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/media-and-resources/new-zealand-becomes-an-observer-of-the-international-holocaust-remembrance-alliance/ |publisher=[[Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (New Zealand)|New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade]] |access-date=27 June 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220627012347/https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/media-and-resources/new-zealand-becomes-an-observer-of-the-international-holocaust-remembrance-alliance/ |archive-date=27 June 2022 |date=23 June 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> The announcement was welcomed by the [[New Zealand Jewish Council]] and the [[Holocaust Centre of New Zealand]] as a means of combating racism and antisemitism. [[Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa]] chairman [[John Minto]] claimed that adopting the IHRA-WDA would silence criticism of Israeli human rights abuses against the Palestinians.<ref name="NZ 2022">{{cite news |title=Govt decision to join International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance welcomed |url=https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/469745/govt-decision-to-join-international-holocaust-remembrance-alliance-welcomed |access-date=27 June 2022 |work=[[Radio New Zealand]] |date=25 June 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220627012958/https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/469745/govt-decision-to-join-international-holocaust-remembrance-alliance-welcomed|archive-date=27 June 2022|url-status=live}}</ref>

====North America==== =====United States===== On 11 December 2019, President [[Donald Trump]] signed [[Executive Order 13899]] on combatting antisemitism. The order specifies that agencies responsible for enforcement of [[Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964|Title VI]] of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] must take into consideration the IHRA-WDA, as well as the IHRA list of contemporary examples of antisemitism, "to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent", when investigating complaints, expanding Title VI to protect against discrimination based on antisemitism.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism |publisher=The White House |url=https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-anti-semitism/ |access-date=2022-07-18 }}</ref>{{sfn|Wamsley|2019}}

On May 25, 2023, the Biden administration did not fully embrace the IHRA-WDA when it launched the [[U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism]] despite significant pressure to do so, but noted it alongside the [[Nexus Document]].<ref>{{Citation |title=Launch of U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism | date=25 May 2023 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPt8ZWreEjE |access-date=2023-08-01 |language=en}}</ref>{{primary inline|date=May 2026}}

An attempt{{by whom|date=May 2026}} to enshrine the definition in US federal law in 2024 encountered strong opposition, with 1,200 Jewish academics opposing the move as a dangerous conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism that would threaten freedom of speech. Their open letter said: "Criticism of the state of Israel, the Israeli government, policies of the Israeli government, or Zionist ideology is not — in and of itself — antisemitic."{{cn|date=May 2026}}

In March 2025, the city of [[El Cajon, California]] unanimously voted to approve a resolution adopting the definition.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Pearlman |first=Karen |date=2025-04-03 |title=EL CAJON COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTS ANTISEMITISM RESOLUTION {{!}} East County Magazine |url=https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/el-cajon-council-unanimously-adopts-antisemitism-resolution |access-date=2025-04-03 |website=www.eastcountymagazine.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Warth |first=Gary |date=2025-03-31 |title=Why is El Cajon council weighing in on federal and state issues? |url=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/03/31/why-is-el-cajon-council-weighing-in-on-federal-and-state-issues/ |access-date=2025-04-03 |website=[[San Diego Union-Tribune]] |language=en-US}}</ref>

On 1 May 2024, amidst the ongoing [[Gaza war protests at universities]], the [[Antisemitism Awareness Act]], which was intended to add the [[International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance]]'s approved [[working definition of antisemitism]] to [[title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]], which prohibits "exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color, or national origin",<ref>{{Cite web |last=Foran |first=Clare |date=1 May 2024 |title=House passes antisemitism bill as Johnson highlights campus protests {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics/house-vote-antisemitism-awareness-act/index.html |access-date=13 May 2024 |website=CNN |language=en |archive-date=3 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240503181837/https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics/house-vote-antisemitism-awareness-act/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref> was passed in the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] by a margin of 320 to 91.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Foran |first=Clare |date=2024-05-01 |title=House passes antisemitism bill as Johnson highlights campus protests |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics/house-vote-antisemitism-awareness-act/index.html |access-date=2024-05-14 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref> but not introduced in the Senate.

In addition, at a sub-national or institutional level, the US state of [[South Carolina]], the [[United States Department of Education]],<ref>{{cite web |title=Use of the Working Definition in the U.S. {{!}} AJC |url=https://www.ajc.org/use-of-the-working-definition-in-the-us |website=www.ajc.org |language=en |date=30 April 2020}}</ref> the city of [[Bal Harbour]] in [[Florida]], the Greek [[Ministry of Education, Research and Religious Affairs]],<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/02/14/jewish-community-applauds-first-greek-ministry-to-adopt-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism/ |title=Jewish Community Applauds First Greek Ministry to Adopt IHRA Definition of Antisemitism |last=Moshe|first=Shiri|date=14 February 2019 |work=The Algemeiner |access-date=29 May 2019}}</ref> and [[Western Washington University]] have adopted the IHRA-WDA.<ref name=MW/>

In June 2025, [[Mayor of New York City|New York City Mayor]] [[Eric Adams]] signed an [[executive order]] adopting the IHRA definition. On 1 January 2026, on his first day of office, [[Zohran Mamdani]] revoked this along with all other executive orders Adams made since 26 September 2024, which included several related to antisemitism and Israel.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Staff |first=The Media Line |date=2026-01-02 |title=Mamdani Removes Antisemitism Definition on First Day in Office as NYC Mayor |url=https://themedialine.org/headlines/mamdani-removes-antisemitism-definition-on-first-day-in-office-as-nyc-mayor/ |access-date=2026-01-02 |website=[[The Media Line]] |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Staff |first=J. N. S. |date=2026-01-02 |title=Mamdani axes all Adams executive orders in past 15 months, including those defending Jews |url=https://www.jns.org/mamdani-axes-all-adams-executive-orders-in-past-15-months-including-those-defending-jews/ |access-date=2026-01-02 |website=JNS.org |language=en-US}}</ref>

On April 9 2026, the Missouri Senate unanimously (30-0) passed House Bill 2061 that incorporates the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism into state education policy to address antisemitism in public schools and higher education. As of April 13, the bill awaits approval by Governor Mike Kehoe.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rainwater |first=Leah |date=2026-04-09 |title=Bill aiming to prohibit antisemitic actions in public schools heads to Governor's desk |url=https://www.kq2.com/news/2026/04/09/bill-aiming-to-prohibit-antisemitic-actions-in-public-schools-heads-to-governors-desk/ |access-date=2026-04-13 |website=KQ2 {{!}} St. Joseph, Missouri News, Weather & Sports |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Hanshaw |first=Annelise |date=2026-02-17 |title=Bill requiring state investigation of antisemitic discrimination heads to Missouri Senate • Missouri Independent |url=https://missouriindependent.com/2026/02/16/bill-requiring-state-investigation-of-antisemitic-discrimination-heads-to-missouri-senate/ |access-date=2026-04-13 |website=Missouri Independent |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2026-04-10 |title=Missouri legislature approves bill adopting Jew-hatred definition for public schools |url=https://www.jns.org/news/u-s-news/missouri-legislature-approves-bill-adopting-jew-hatred-definition-for-public-schools |access-date=2026-04-13 |website=JNS.org - Jewish News Syndicate |language=en-US}}</ref>

=====U.S. campuses===== {{As of|May 2021}}, the student governments at 30 universities in the United States had adopted the definition.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-01-11 |title=U.S. Campus Adoption of the Working Definition |url=https://www.ajc.org/us-campus-adoption-of-the-working-definition |access-date=2022-07-19 |publisher=American Jewish Committee |language=en}}</ref> In January 2025, [[Harvard University]] adopted the IHRA Working Definition as part of a settlement resolving a lawsuit filed by the [[Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law]]. The lawsuit alleged that Harvard inadequately addressed antisemitic harassment and discrimination on campus. Alongside adopting the definition, Harvard agreed to implement new disciplinary protocols for antisemitic incidents and enhance educational programming for students and faculty. The settlement signified Harvard's commitment to combating antisemitism using a globally recognized standard.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gershman |first=Jacob |title=Harvard University Reaches Campus Antisemitism Settlements |url=https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/harvard-university-antisemitism-settlements-c0c9c1ed |access-date=2025-02-20 |website=WSJ |date=21 January 2025 |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Relations |first1=Media |last2=Rodriguez |first2=Laurie |date=2025-01-21 |title=The Brandeis Center and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education Agree with Harvard to Settle Title VI Litigation |url=https://www.harvard.edu/media-relations/2025/01/21/press-release-settlement-harvard-brandeis-ctr-jafe/ |access-date=2025-02-20 |website=Media Relations |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Patel |first=Vimal |date=2025-01-22 |title=Harvard Adopts a Definition of Antisemitism for Discipline Cases |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/21/us/harvard-antisemitism-definition-discipline.html |access-date=2025-02-20 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

{{Multiple image | align = | direction = | total_width = 300 | image1 = Trump administration list of demands to Columbia University 01.jpg | alt1 = | caption1 = | image2 = Trump administration list of demands to Columbia University 02.jpg | caption2 = | footer = In March 2025, the Trump administration [[Columbia University's settlement with the Trump administration#Demands of the Trump administration|demanded]] that Columbia "formalize, adopt, and promulgate a definition of antisemitism," specifying that "President Trump's Executive Order 13899 uses the IHRA definition. Anti-"Zionist" discrimination against Jews in areas unrelated to Israel or Middle East must be addressed." On July 15, Columbia [[Columbia University's settlement with the Trump administration#July 15, 2025: Shipman announces Columbia will adopt IHRA definition and partner with the ADL|announced]] it would adopt the IHRA definition. }}

[[Columbia University]] adopted the IHRA definition in 2025 in its [[Columbia University's settlement with the Trump administration|settlement with the Trump administration]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Press |first=Eyal |date=2025-08-18 |title=The Troubling Lines That Columbia Is Drawing |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/the-troubling-lines-that-columbia-is-drawing |access-date=2026-02-13 |work=The New Yorker |language=en-US |issn=0028-792X}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=What the Columbia Settlement Really Means |url=http://knightcolumbia.org/blog/what-the-columbia-settlement-really-means |access-date=2026-02-13 |website=Knight First Amendment Institute |language=en}}</ref> Critics of the decision, including the Knight First Amendment Institute and the [[American Association of University Professors]], condemned the decision for its infringements upon [[academic freedom]] and [[Freedom of speech|freedom of expression]].<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |title=A Bad Deal: By Adopting the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism, Universities are Sacrificing Academic Freedom |url=http://knightcolumbia.org/content/a-bad-deal-why-using-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-on-campus-is-incompatible-with-academic-freedom-and-students-right-to-open-inquiry |access-date=2026-05-12 |website=Knight First Amendment Institute |language=en|last=Stern|first=Kenneth S.|author-link=Kenneth S. Stern}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=American Association of University Professors |title=On Title VI, Discrimination, and Academic Freedom |date=August 2025 |url=https://www.aaup.org/reports-publications/aaup-policies-reports/topical-reports/title-vi-discrimination-and-academic |author-link=American Association of University Professors}}</ref> Columbia professors [[Marianne Hirsch]], a scholar of genocide and memory, and [[Rashid Khalidi]], Palestinian historian and former Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies, have said that the definition would restrict their ability to do their work.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Hirsch |first=Marianne |last2=Gessen |first2=M. |last3=Weinberger |first3=Jillian |date=2025-10-31 |title=Opinion {{!}} We Need to Rethink How We Think About the Holocaust |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/31/opinion/holocaust-gaza-marianne-hirsch.html |access-date=2026-05-12 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref name="ReferenceA">{{Cite web |last=Davis |first=Spencer |title=Rashid Khalidi on why he left Columbia |url=https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2025/09/17/rashid-khalidi-on-why-he-left-columbia/ |access-date=2025-09-23 |website=Columbia Daily Spectator}}</ref><ref name="Khalidi">{{Cite news |last=Khalidi |first=Rashid |date=2025-08-01 |title=I spent decades at Columbia. I'm withdrawing my fall course due to its deal with Trump |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/01/columbia-historian-rashid-khalidi-open-letter |access-date=2025-09-23 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref>

==== United Nations ==== In early 2022, on the occasion of International Holocaust Remembrance Day, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres reiterated a previous position, acknowledging "the efforts of countries that have agreed on the common definition of antisemitism" while at the same time avoiding any mention of adoption by the UN as demanded by supporters. Guterres recited the definition itself but not the examples.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-head-skirts-adoption-of-ihra-antisemitism-definition-in-holocaust-memorial-speech/|title=UN head skirts adoption of IHRA antisemitism definition in Holocaust memorial speech|first=Jacob|last=Magid|website=The Times of Israel |date=27 January 2022 }}</ref> On 31 October 2022, [[E. Tendayi Achiume]], the special rapporteur on contemporary racism, delivered a report that said the IHRA-WDA was both ineffective and had "an impact on the human rights of minorities and vulnerable groups, including Jews", calling the definition "controversial" and "divisive". The United States envoy said he was "disappointed" that the report "politicized the IHRA definition" and [[Gilad Erdan]], the Israeli ambassador, criticised Achiume for making "unfounded recommendations" that "clearly demonstrate a political agenda". In recent years, criticism of the definition has grown with critics arguing that it "primarily targets criticism of Israel and that it has been weaponized against Palestinian activists".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://forward.com/fast-forward/523337/united-nations-antisemitism-definition-ihra/|title=UN advisor cites 'human rights concerns' in call to reject popular antisemitism definition|date=1 November 2022|website=The Forward}}</ref>

In a statement published on 3 November 2022, 128 scholars, including leading Jewish academics at Israeli, European, United Kingdom and United States universities, said the definition has been "hijacked" and urged the United Nations not to adopt the definition due to its "divisive and polarising" effect.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/3/128-scholars-ask-un-not-to-adopt-ihra-definition-of-anti-semitism|title=128 scholars ask UN not to adopt IHRA definition of anti-Semitism|website=Al Jazeera}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://euobserver.com/world/156375|title=Scholars to UN: Don't adopt 'weaponised' antisemitism definition|date=3 November 2022|website=EUobserver}}</ref> As of 20 April 2023, 104 human and civil rights organisations, including [[Human Rights Watch]] and the ACLU, also urged the United Nations not to adopt the definition saying in a letter that "The IHRA definition has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism, including in the US and Europe."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/4/4/rights-groups-urge-un-not-to-adopt-ihra-anti-semitism-definition|title=Rights groups urge UN not to adopt IHRA anti-Semitism definition|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->|website=Al Jazeera}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/04/04/human-rights-and-other-civil-society-groups-urge-united-nations-respect-human|title=Human Rights and other Civil Society Groups Urge United Nations to Respect Human Rights in the Fight Against Antisemitism|date=4 April 2023}}</ref>

==Analysis== ===Academic=== In March 2005, [[Brian Klug]] argued that the definition's examples proscribed legitimate criticism of the human rights record of the Israeli Government by attempting to bring [[criticism of Israel]], and criticism of Israeli actions and criticism of Zionism as a political ideology into the category of antisemitism and racially based violence towards, discrimination against, or abuse of, Jews.<ref>{{cite journal| last = Klug|first=Brian| title = Is Europe a lost cause? The European debate on antisemitism and the Middle East conflict| journal = [[Patterns of Prejudice]]| date = March 2005| volume = 39| issue = 1| pages = 46–59| doi=10.1080/00313220500045253|s2cid=144601300}}</ref>

In December 2016, [[David Feldman (historian)|David Feldman]] wrote: "I fear this definition is imprecise, and isolates antisemitism from other forms of bigotry." He also said: "The text also carries dangers. It trails a list of 11 examples. Seven deal with criticism of Israel. Some of the points are sensible, some are not." He added: "Crucially, there is a danger that the overall effect will place the onus on Israel's critics to demonstrate they are not antisemitic."{{sfn|Feldman|2016}}

In February 2017, a letter signed by 243 British academics, who asserted that the "violation of the rights of Palestinians for more than 50 years" should not be silenced, contends "this definition seeks to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism" and raised concerns about muddying the definition of antisemitism and restricting free debate on Israel.<ref name="academics">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/27/university-wrong-to-ban-israeli-apartheid-week-event?CMP=aff_1432&awc=5795_1535379208_84e0651c18ba3094cf091db61fa54078|title=Free speech on Israel under attack in universities|newspaper=The Guardian|date=27 February 2017|access-date=27 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180827174139/https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/27/university-wrong-to-ban-israeli-apartheid-week-event?CMP=aff_1432&awc=5795_1535379208_84e0651c18ba3094cf091db61fa54078 |archive-date=27 August 2018|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Weale |first1=Sally |last2=Morris |first2=Steven |date=2017-02-27 |title=Universities spark free speech row after halting pro-Palestinian events |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/27/universities-free-speech-row-halting-pro-palestinian-events |access-date=2025-04-10 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref>

In July 2018, [[Antony Lerman]] wrote: "investing all in the IHRA working definition of antisemitism is just making matters worse."{{sfn|Lerman|2018a}} He later stated that "the case against IHRA is so strong" that "the fundamental principle [is] that IHRA is so flawed it should be abandoned".{{sfn|Lerman|2018b}} In August 2019, he wrote: "The vagueness of the 'working definition' of antisemitism has licensed a free-for-all of interpretation, delighting opponents of Palestinian demands for equal rights."{{sfn|Lerman|2019}}

In the same month, Klug wrote: "critics maintain that Labour (or anyone else) has to adopt the IHRA document 'in full'. But the text is not written in stone. It is a working definition with working examples. It is a living document, subject to revision and constantly needing to be adapted to the different contexts in which people apply its definition ... But people of goodwill who genuinely want to solve the conundrum – combating antisemitism while protecting free political speech – should welcome the code as a constructive initiative, and criticise it constructively ... For this to happen, the seas of language are going to have to subside and critics must stop treating the IHRA document as immutable. In the Judaism in which I was nurtured and educated, there is only one text whose status is sacred; and it was not written by a committee of the IHRA."{{sfn|Klug|2018b}}

In August 2018, [[Rebecca Ruth Gould]], Professor of Islamic world and comparative literature at the [[University of Birmingham]], published the first extended scholarly critique of the IHRA definition: "Legal Form and Legal Legitimacy: The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism as a Case Study in Censored Speech" in the journal ''[[Law, Culture and the Humanities]]''. Gould described "the IHRA definition as a quasi-law" and documents the meaning of the IHRA document's self-description as "legally non-binding," the history of its application, and the legal dynamics bearing on its deployment in university contexts.{{sfn|Gould|2018a}} In a later opinion piece, Gould stated that "These dimensions are made all the more contentious by its imprecise content and the significant ambiguity around its legal status. On the basis of the many ways in which the IHRA definition has been used to censor speech, particularly on university campuses" and "that the definition's proponents have not paid enough attention to the harms of censoring Israel-critical speech."{{sfn|Gould|2018b}} In the journal article, she also noted that since the adoption of the IHRA definition "at least five universities [in the UK], and likely many more, have had planned events cancelled or otherwise censored due to a perceived need to comply with this definition, even in the absence of its legal ratification."{{sfn|Gould|2018a}}

In July 2019, [[Geoffrey Alderman]] wrote: "those who framed the IHRA's Working Definition of antisemitism were well-intentioned, and the definition itself has commendable features. But it's merely a work-in-progress."{{sfn|Alderman|2019a}} He later wrote "endorsements have endowed the IHRA definition with almost sacrosanct status. But that does not mean that it is either perfect or even fit for purpose. It is – in fact – neither" and that it is "deeply-flawed and much misunderstood".{{sfn|Alderman|2019b}}

Discourse scholar Sue Blackwell described as an example of a [[persuasive definition]], and as a "prime example of language being both the site of, and stake in, struggles for power".<ref>{{cite book | editor-last=Chiluwa | editor-first=Innocent | title=Discourse and Conflict: Analysing Text and Talk of Conflict, Hate and Peace-building | date=2021-09-22 | isbn=978-3-030-76485-2 | last=Blackwell | first=Susan | chapter=Language in the Service of Lawfare: The 'Working Definition of Antisemitism' of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance | publisher=Springer International Publishing | doi=10.1007/978-3-030-76485-2_3 | chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-76485-2_3 |page=77 |ref={{harvid|Chiluwa|2021}} |quote=The controversy over the IHRA definition is a prime example of language being both the 'site of, and stake in, struggles for power'. I hope that my application of Critical Discourse Analysis to this highly controversial text will give the reader some insights into the ideological assumptions underlying its, at first sight, bewilderingly vague and inappropriate language, and that those concerned with deconstructing 'common sense in the service of power' will ask themselves who is empowered, and who is disempowered, by the adoption of 'persuasive definitions' such as this one.}}</ref>

Medical ethicist [[Jan Deckers (academic)|Jan Deckers]] and independent scholar [[Jonathan Coulter]] argued in a 2022 journal article that "the definition and its list of examples ought to be rejected," due to the fact that "pro-Israel activists can and have mobilised the IHRA document for political goals unrelated to tackling antisemitism, notably to stigmatise and silence critics of the Israeli government," in addition to "intrinsic problems in the way the definition refers to criticism of Israel similar 'to that leveled against any other country', ambiguous wording about 'the power of Jews as a collective', lack of clarity as to the Jewish people's 'right to self-determination', and its denial of obvious racism."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Deckers |first=Jan |last2=Coulter |first2=Jonathan |date=2022-05-11 |title=What Is Wrong with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's Definition of Antisemitism? |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-022-09553-4 |journal=Res Publica |volume=28 |issue=4 |pages=733–752 |doi=10.1007/s11158-022-09553-4 |issn=1356-4765}}</ref>

[[Joshua Shanes]] wrote in 2022 in the journal [[Shofar (journal)|''Shofar'']] that the IHRA definition has been "effectively weaponized in North America and Europe in debates over Israel and Zionism" and that foundational to its worldview is "the assumption that Palestinians do not constitute a nation grounded in this land, or at least one that needs to be considered like the Jewish nation, and that even individual rights are subject to review by Jewish security needs, as Israel perceives them."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Shanes |first=Joshua |date=2022 |title=The Politics of Defining Antisemitism |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/27368760 |journal=Shofar |volume=40 |issue=3 |pages=188–198 |doi=10.2307/27368760 |issn=0882-8539}}</ref>

A 6 June 2023 report from the [[European Legal Support Center]],<ref>{{cite report|title=Suppressing Palestinian Rights Advocacy through the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism|url=https://res.cloudinary.com/elsc/images/v1685978238/The-Practice-of-Suppressing-Palestinian-Rights-Advocacy-FINAL-PP/The-Practice-of-Suppressing-Palestinian-Rights-Advocacy-FINAL-PP.pdf?_i=AA|publisher=European Legal Support Center|date=6 June 2023}}</ref> an activist defender of Palestinian rights in Europe, analyzes dozens of case studies and the report authors say that they show the IHRA definition being used to restrict freedom of expression and assembly.<ref>{{cite web|title=Weaponizing the Antisemitism Accusation|author=Michael Young|url=https://carnegie-mec.org/diwan/89880|publisher = Diwan|date= 6 June 2023}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://theintercept.com/2023/06/06/antisemitism-definition-israel-palestine/|title=Biden Embraces Antisemitism Definition That Has Upended Free Speech in Europe|first=Alice|last=Speri|date=6 June 2023|website=The Intercept}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/7/adoption-of-anti-semitism-definition-curbs-free-speech-report|title=Adoption of anti-Semitism definition curbs free speech: Report|author=Al Jazeera Staff|website=www.aljazeera.com}}</ref>

[[Dave Rich]] wrote in 2023 that among the "common themes" of the "campaign against the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism" are "repeated misrepresentation of what the definition does, and does not, say about Israel and antisemitism; unevidenced claims about the definition's alleged impact on free speech; confusion over its legal status and power; and an appeal to authority by quoting others from within this same campaign."<ref>{{Citation |last=Rich |first=Dave |chapter=On Misrepresentations of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism |date=2023-08-16 |title=Mapping the New Left Antisemitism |pages=241–247 |chapter-url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781003322320/chapters/10.4324/9781003322320-33 |access-date=2026-05-09 |edition=1 |place=London |publisher=Routledge |language=en |doi=10.4324/9781003322320-33 |isbn=978-1-003-32232-0 |author-link=Dave Rich}}</ref>

According to [[Neve Gordon]] in September 2025, the IHRA definition functions as "a counterinsurgency tool aimed at shielding Israel from resistance to its oppressive form of racial governance and, following its recent war on Gaza, from accusations of genocidal violence," doing this by affectively "interpolating people who identify as Jews to also identify with Israel and Zionism," "t[ying] the right to Jewish difference with a Jewish State and Jewish sovereignty," and "provid[ing] a defence of a regime [Gordon] call[s] 'democratic apartheid.'"<ref>{{Citation |last=Gordon |first=Neve |chapter=Antisemitism and Zionism: The Internal Operations of the IHRA Definition |date=2025-09-26 |title=Palestine and the Western Academe |pages=53–68 |chapter-url=https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003610120-4 |access-date=2026-05-09 |place=London |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-003-61012-0}}</ref>

===Legal=== In March 2017, human rights lawyer [[Hugh Tomlinson]] QC, who had been asked to give an opinion on the definition by [[Free Speech on Israel]], [[Independent Jewish Voices]], [[Jews for Justice for Palestinians]] and the [[Palestine Solidarity Campaign]],<ref name="jewishnews1"/> criticised the IHRA definition as "unclear and confusing", saying it did not have "the clarity which would be required" from a legal definition of antisemitism.{{sfn|Tomlinson|2017}} He addressed concerns that the definition conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel and could be misused to curtail campaigning on behalf of Palestinians. He stated:{{sfn|Tomlinson|2017|p=10}} {{blockquote|text=Properly understood in its own terms the IHRA Definition does not mean that activities such as describing Israel as a state enacting a [[Israeli apartheid|policy of apartheid]], as practising settler [[colonialism]] or calling for policies of boycott divestment or sanctions against Israel can properly be characterized as antisemitic. A public authority which sought to apply the IHRA Definition to prohibit or sanction such activities would be acting unlawfully.}} He presented his legal opinion on the new working definition at the [[House of Lords]].<ref name="jewishnews1">{{cite news |url=https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/hugh-tomlinson-ihra/ |title=Leading lawyer rounds on 'unclear and confusing' IHRA anti-Semitism definition |newspaper=[[Jewish News]] |date=3 April 2017 |access-date=19 May 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180501183827/http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/hugh-tomlinson-ihra/ |archive-date=1 May 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref>

In May 2017, former [[Court of Appeal (England and Wales)|Court of Appeal]] judge [[Stephen Sedley]] wrote an opinion piece in the ''[[London Review of Books]]'' arguing: "Shorn of philosophical and political refinements, antisemitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews. Where it manifests itself in discriminatory acts or inflammatory speech it is generally illegal, lying beyond the bounds of freedom of speech and of action. By contrast, criticism (and equally defence) of Israel or of Zionism is not only generally lawful: it is affirmatively protected by law. Endeavours to conflate the two by characterising everything other than anodyne criticism of Israel as antisemitic are not new. What is new is the adoption by the UK government (and the Labour Party) of a definition of antisemitism which endorses the conflation."{{sfn|Sedley|2017}} In July 2018, Sedley wrote a letter to ''[[The Guardian]]'' sayingthe examples "point to the underlying purpose of the text: to neutralise serious criticism of Israel by stigmatising it as a form of antisemitism."{{sfn|Sedley2018}}

In July 2018, human rights solicitor [[Geoffrey Bindman]] wrote: "Unfortunately, the definition and the examples are poorly drafted, misleading, and in practice have led to the suppression of legitimate debate and freedom of expression. Nevertheless, clumsily worded as it is, the definition does describe the essence of antisemitism: irrational hostility towards Jews. The 11 examples are another matter. Seven of them refer to the state of Israel. This is where the problem arises. Some of them at least are not necessarily antisemitic. Whether they are or not depends on the context and on additional evidence of antisemitic intent."{{sfn|Sedley|Janner-Klausner|Bindman|Rose|2018}}

In August 2018, [[Geoffrey Robertson]] QC, an expert on freedom of speech and human rights, said that the working definition fails to cover the most prevalent forms of antisemitism to Jewish people, requiring "hatred" but not "hostility". He said that several of the examples are so loosely drafted they are likely to limit free speech, legitimate criticisms of the Israeli Government, and coverage of human rights abuses against Palestinians. He said the definition was not intended to be binding and was not drafted as a comprehensible legal definition, and said the British government's adoption of the working definition had "no legal effect". He recommended that public bodies and organizations adopting the definition follow the Home Affairs Committee recommendation and add the clarification that "it is not anti-Semitic to criticise the Government of Israel without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent." He concluded that it is "imprecise, confusing and open to misinterpretation and even manipulation", that it is "not fit for any purpose that seeks to use it as an adjudicative standard", and that political action against Israel cannot properly be characterized as antisemitic unless the action is intended to promote hatred or hostility against Jews in general.{{sfn|Robertson|2018}}<ref name="thetimes">{{cite news |url=https://www.thetimes.com/article/government-definition-of-antisemitism-not-fit-says-geoffrey-robertson-qc-htx6trnmq|title=Government definition of antisemitism not fit, says Geoffrey Robertson, QC|newspaper=[[The Times]]|date=31 August 2018|access-date=1 September 2018}}</ref>

====Kenneth Stern==== Between 2003 and 2004, as the [[American Jewish Committee]]'s antisemitism expert, [[Kenneth S. Stern]] coordinated the drafting of the original working definition and its examples.<ref>{{harvnb|Stern|2019}}; {{harvnb|Stern|2010}}; {{harvnb|Porat|2011|pp=93–101}}; {{harvnb|Marcus|2015|pp=161–162}}; {{harvnb|Johnson|2021|p=8}}</ref> Stern has condemned the use of the IHRA definition to attack the [[Freedom of speech|freedom of expression]] and [[academic freedom]], particularly with regard to the [[Palestine exception|restriction of speech regarding Palestine]], and has spoken against its adoption as official policy.<ref name=":3" />

In 2015, he re-affirmed his belief in its efficacy: "No definition of something as complex as antisemitism can be perfect, but this one, ten years after its creation, remains a very good one."{{sfn|Stern|2015}} As well as for its original purpose "as a tool for data collectors" in Europe, Stern also encouraged the United States' first [[Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism|Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism]] to "promote the definition as an important tool", and said that he used it effectively as the framework for a report on global antisemitism.<ref name="Stern 2017">{{Cite web |date=7 November 2017 |title=Written Testimony of Kenneth S. Stern; Executive Director, Justus & Karin Rosenberg Foundation |website=docs.house.gov |url=http://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20171107/106610/HHRG-115-JU00-Wstate-SternK-20171107.pdf}}</ref>

Stern has opposed efforts to require universities to adopt the working definition in their policies, whether voluntarily or by legal instrument, saying: "It was never intended to be a campus hate speech code."{{sfn|Stern|2019}}{{sfn|Stern|2016}}{{sfn|Stern|2015}} He says the working definition has been abused in [[Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964|Title VI]] cases in an attempt to "restrict academic freedom and punish political speech."<ref name="Stern 2017"/> He has also written to members of the US Congress to warn that giving the definition legal status would be "unconstitutional and unwise".{{sfn|Stern|2016}} He has further questioned whether definitions created by minority groups should be legislatively enshrined, giving as one of several examples: <blockquote>Imagine a definition designed for Palestinians. If 'Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist' is antisemitism, then shouldn't 'Denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination, and denying Palestine the right to exist' be anti-Palestinianism? Would they then ask administrators to police and possibly punish campus events by pro-Israel groups who oppose the two state solution, or claim the Palestinian people are a myth?<ref name="Stern 2017"/></blockquote>

In December 2019, Stern suggested that approaches to anti-antisemitism that "endorse and promote academic freedom" were more likely to succeed, in part because they may "underscore the academy's goal of increasing knowledge and promoting critical thinking". He said that approaches which "harm" academic freedom will instead exacerbate antisemitism on campuses.<ref name="Stern 2017" />

In September 2025, following Columbia's adoption of the definition in relation to its [[Columbia University's settlement with the Trump administration|settlement with the Trump administration]], Stern wrote:<blockquote>If the proponents of the IHRA definition were completely honest, they would tell you that the debate about the definition is really about how to treat pro-Palestinian speech, not antisemitism writ large. The history of the abuse of the IHRA definition demonstrates the desire is largely political—it is not so much a desire to identify antisemitism, but rather to label certain speech about Israel as antisemitic. And this effort harms our ability to identify actual antisemitism. When I ran AJC's desk I jealously guarded the term and when it wasn't a clear case, although I might have criticized the expression at hand, I wouldn't use the "A" word. I wanted the word to sting. But when the pump is primed to overclassify political expressions as antisemitic, the word loses not only its bite but its meaning.<ref name=":3" /></blockquote>

==Criticism== In August 2017, [[Jewish Voice for Labour]] (JVL) saw the working definition as "attempts to widen the definition of antisemitism beyond its meaning of hostility towards, or discrimination against, Jews as Jews".<ref name="Sugarman"/> In August 2018, JVL thought the IHRA examples of antisemitism fell short of providing "a clear and unambiguous statement based on attitudes to Jews as Jews, not attitudes to a country, Israel".<ref name="bbc">{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45402036|title=Labour's ruling body holds crunch anti-Semitism talks|work=[[BBC News]]|date=4 September 2018|access-date=21 November 2018}}</ref>

In May 2018, the members' conference of the British civil liberties advocacy group [[Liberty (advocacy group)|Liberty]] passed a motion resolving that the definition could constitute a threat to freedom of expression by "conflating anti-semitism with criticism of Israel and legitimate defense of the rights of Palestinians."<ref>[https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/resolutions%20passed%202018.pdf Resolutions Passed] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180824101810/https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/resolutions%20passed%202018.pdf |date=24 August 2018 }}, Liberty, May 2018</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Zeffman|first=Henry|title=Liberty members warn against IHRA's definition of anti-semitism|url=https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/article/liberty-members-warn-against-ihras-definition-anti-semitism|access-date=5 September 2018 |work=The Times|date=1 June 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180906195433/https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/liberty-members-warn-against-ihras-definition-anti-semitism|archive-date=6 September 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>

In July 2018, a statement signed by 39 left-wing Jewish organizations in 15 countries, including six based in the UK, was released criticising the working definition, declaring that it was "worded in such a way as to be easily adopted or considered by western governments to intentionally equate legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, as a means to suppress the former" and that "this conflation undermines both the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality and the global struggle against antisemitism. It also serves to shield Israel from being held accountable to universal standards of human rights and international law." The statement went on to urge governments, municipalities, universities and other institutions to reject the IHRA definition.<ref name="jewishorganisations">{{cite web |last=Chernick |first=Ilanit |date=18 July 2018 |url=https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/39-Jewish-left-wing-groups-pen-letter-supporting-BDS-562843 |title=39 Jewish left-wing groups pen letter supporting BDS |work=[[The Jerusalem Post]] |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180719173818/https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/39-Jewish-left-wing-groups-pen-letter-supporting-BDS-562843 |archive-date=19 July 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/far-left-jewish-groups-slam-false-accusations-of-anti-semitism-against-them/ |title=Far-left Jewish groups slam 'false accusations of anti-Semitism' against them |newspaper=Times of Israel|access-date=18 July 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180718104849/https://www.timesofisrael.com/far-left-jewish-groups-slam-false-accusations-of-anti-semitism-against-them/ |archive-date=18 July 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Jewish Voice for Peace|title=First-ever: 40+ Jewish groups worldwide oppose equating antisemitism with criticism of Israel|url=https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/first-ever-40-jewish-groups-worldwide-oppose-equating-antisemitism-with-criticism-of-israel/|access-date=2 September 2018|publisher=Jewish Voice for Peace|date=17 July 2018}}</ref>

In November 2020, the leaders of [[Americans for Peace Now]] (APN) wrote to the [[Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations]] (CoP) that APN "will not adopt the full version of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism (with the accompanying examples)". They clarified that "The problem is not with the definition itself but rather with the accompanying examples, which CoP members are requested to endorse as an integral part of the definition. Some of these examples go far beyond what can reasonably be regarded as antisemitism. They cross the line into the realm of politics and are already being used to score political points in the United States, and to quash legitimate criticism of deplorable Israeli government policies."<ref>{{Cite web|date=25 November 2020|title=APN Letter to CoP Regarding the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism|url=https://peacenow.org/entry.php?id=37124#.X8q79C2l3UI|access-date=4 December 2020|website=Americans for Peace Now}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|date=4 December 2020|title=Americans for Peace Now Refuses to Adopt 'Weaponized' Definition of Antisemitism|work=Haaretz |url=https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2020-12-04/ty-article/.highlight/americans-for-peace-no-refuses-to-adopt-weaponized-definition-of-antisemitism/0000017f-db45-df9c-a17f-ff5dbd670000|access-date=4 December 2020}}</ref>

In December 2020, an updated list of individuals and organizations opposed to the adoption of the Working Definition, including [[Independent Jewish Voices (Canada)]], was posted in the [[Times of Israel]] blogs by the National Coordinator of Independent Jewish Voices Canada.<ref name="Inhofe Danon 2020">{{cite web | first=Corey| last=Balsam| title=Who's against adopting the IHRA antisemitism definition? | website=The Blogs, Times of Israel | date=2020-12-09 | url=https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/whos-against-adopting-the-ihra-antisemitism-definition/ | access-date=2021-06-16}}</ref>

In January 2021, 66 UK Israeli academics wrote an open letter to Vice Chancellors, Members of Academic Senates, all other UK Academics and Students, calling on "all academic senates to reject governmental decrees to adopt it, or, where adopted already, act to revoke it", in response to Education Secretary [[Gavin Williamson]]'s attempt to force universities to adopt it, stating that it "inhibits free speech and academic freedom; it deprives Palestinians of their own legitimate voice within the UK public space; and, finally, it inhibits us, as Israeli nationals, from exercising our democratic right to challenge our own government."<ref>{{cite web |title=Call to reject the IHRA's 'working definition of antisemitism' |publisher=Israeli Academics - UK |url=https://www.israeliacademicsuk.org/the-letter |access-date=23 February 2021 |archive-date=23 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210223104202/https://www.israeliacademicsuk.org/the-letter |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Leading British academics and Israeli citizens call on universities to reject the IHRA definition of antisemitism: The 66 scholars join a broadening coalition of left-to-moderate Jews across the world who oppose the controversial definition. | work=Vashti | url=https://vashtimedia.com/2021/02/04/leading-british-academics-and-israeli-citizens-call-on-universities-to-reject-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism/ |publisher=Vashti Media | date=2021-02-04 | access-date=2021-06-04 |archive-date=2021-03-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308121822/https://vashtimedia.com/2021/02/04/leading-british-academics-and-israeli-citizens-call-on-universities-to-reject-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism/}}</ref> In February 2021, the lead signatory of that letter, [[Hagit Borer]], opposed the Working Definition in the [[Times Higher Education Supplement]], affirming that "It contradicts universities' commitment to free speech and academic freedom, and it undermines the ongoing fight against racism, including antisemitism, in all its ugly forms."<ref>{{cite web |first=Hagit|last=Borer|title=Imposing an antisemitism definition on academics undermines freedom |date=9 February 2021 |url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/imposing-antisemitism-definition-academics-undermines-freedom |publisher=Times Higher Education |url-access=registration}}</ref>

In Spring 2021, [[Independent Jewish Voices (Canada)]] (IJV) launched an academic petition and a petition for Jewish-Canadian academics against the working definition, initially signed by more than 500 and more than 150 scholars respectively<ref name="Bakan Paz Zalik Cowen 2021">{{cite web | last1=Bakan | first1=Abigail B. | last2=Paz | first2=Alejandro I. | last3=Zalik | first3=Anna | last4=Cowen | first4=Deborah | title=Jewish scholars defend the right to academic freedom on Israel/Palestine | website=The Conversation | date=2021-04-11 | url=http://theconversation.com/jewish-scholars-defend-the-right-to-academic-freedom-on-israel-palestine-157674 | access-date=2022-03-03}}</ref> (the former reaching over 600 as of early 2022<ref name="No IHRA 2020">{{cite web | title=Academic campaign | website=No IHRA | date=2020-10-25 | url=https://www.noihra.ca/academic-campaign | access-date=2022-03-03}}</ref>). According to IJV, 32 faculty associations and academic unions in Canada have taken positions against it.<ref name="Independent Jewish Voices Canada">{{cite web | title=Canadian Association of University Teachers Says No to Academic Censorship on Palestine | website=Independent Jewish Voices Canada | url=https://www.ijvcanada.org/canadian-association-of-university-teachers-says-no-to-academic-censorship-on-palestine/ | access-date=2022-03-03}}</ref> Following its participation in the Malmö International Forum on Holocaust Remembrance and Combating Antisemitism in October 2021, the Canadian government pledged to "continue to enhance the adoption and implementation of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism". Subsequently, according to IJV and [[Middle East Monitor]], in November 2021, the [[Canadian Association of University Teachers]] (CAUT), representing 72,000 academic faculty and staff at some 125 universities and colleges, passed a motion opposing the adoption of the IHRA definition by Canadian academic institutions.<ref name="Independent Jewish Voices Canada"/><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20211202-canada-academics-vote-to-reject-ihra-definition-of-anti-semitism/|title=Canada: academics vote to reject IHRA definition of anti-Semitism|date=2 December 2021|website=Middle East Monitor}}</ref>

In February 2024, the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] wrote a letter to [[United States Secretary of Education|U.S. Education Secretary]] [[Miguel Cardona]], warning that the IHRA definition of antisemitism could limit free speech about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at U.S. colleges and universities.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Alonso |first=Johanna |date=2024-02-08 |title=ACLU Warns Against Adopting Antisemitism Definition |url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/02/08/aclu-urges-education-dept-reject-antisemitism-definition |access-date=2024-02-15 |website=[[Inside Higher Ed]] |language=en}}</ref>

==Other definitions of antisemitism==

===Sharansky's three Ds=== {{main|Three Ds of antisemitism}}

In 2003, Israeli politician [[Natan Sharansky]] developed what he called the "three D" test to distinguish antisemitism from criticism of Israel, giving [[Legitimacy of the State of Israel|delegitimization]], demonization, and double standards as a litmus test for the former, elements of which were incorporated into the EUMC working definition.<ref>{{bulleted list| |{{cite journal |title=So what's new? Rethinking the 'new antisemitism' in a global age |first=Jonathan |last=Judaken |journal=[[Patterns of Prejudice]] |volume=42 |issue=4–5 |pages=531–560 |year=2008 |doi=10.1080/00313220802377453 |url=https://umdrive.memphis.edu/jjudaken/public/publications/PoP%20New%20Antisemitism.pdf?uniq=-5aa3 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100618033045/https://umdrive.memphis.edu/jjudaken/public/publications/PoP%20New%20Antisemitism.pdf?uniq=-5aa3 |archive-date=18 June 2010|quote=The criteria for distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Zionism that masks Judaeophobia are hardly self-evident and present philosophical and political quandaries. Efforts to delineate some standards focus on the language used to describe Israel and the selectivity with which Israel is constituted within the new world order. The most well known of these is Natan Sharansky's '3-D test' in which he stipulates that double standards applied to Israel, delegitimization of the state of Israel and demonization of Israel each contain the kernel of antisemitism. These criteria are still somewhat loose, but are clarified through examples, and they were incorporated into international juridical forums like the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (now the FRA).}} |{{cite journal |last=Younes |first=Anna-Esther |title=Fighting Anti-Semitism in Contemporary Germany |journal=Islamophobia Studies Journal |volume=5 |issue=2 |date=1 October 2020|issn=2325-8381 |doi=10.13169/islastudj.5.2.0249 |doi-access=free|quote=The definitions of anti-Semitism prevalent in most policy definitions, as well as on a German policy level or within the EU in 2003 when the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) developed a "working definition" of anti-Semitism, bore many resemblances to Sharansky's definition—sometimes differently worded, sometimes directly invoking the words of "double-standards," "demonization" and "delegitimization," usually, however, geared toward de-Judeofying and universalizing the experience of anti-Semitism and weaving it into a general European imperial politics and experience.}} |{{cite web |title=The Louis D. Brandeis Center FAQs About Defining Anti-Semitism |website=Brandeis Center - Advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all |date=14 March 2022 |url=https://brandeiscenter.com/the-louis-d-brandeis-center-faqs-about-defining-anti-semitism-2/ |access-date=16 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250106075541/https://brandeiscenter.com/the-louis-d-brandeis-center-faqs-about-defining-anti-semitism-2/ |archive-date=6 January 2025|quote=The IHRA Definition incorporates the classic "3 Ds" test developed by Natan Sharansky to determine when criticism of Israel crosses the line into antiSemitism. Sharansky's test recognizes that while any country may be subject to criticism, purported criticism of Israel is likely to be anti-Semitic if it Delegitimizes Israel by denying its "fundamental right to exist," applies a Double standard that singles out Israel for conduct which is accepted or praised when carried out by other countries, or while excusing countries alleged to have committed significant human rights abuses, or Demonizes Israel, for instance by paralleling traditional anti-Semitic caricatures and blood libels or blowing criticism "out of all sensible proportion."...}} }}</ref>

=== Nexus Document === {{main|Nexus Project}}

The Nexus Task Force, created in November 2019, analyzes issues at the intersection of Israel and antisemitism.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nexus Task Force |title=Nexus Task Force |url=https://israelandantisemitism.com/nexus-task-force/ |access-date=2023-01-18 |website=Israel & Antisemitism |language=en-US}}</ref> The task force has published "Israel and Antisemitism: Policy at the Nexus of Two Critical Issues",<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nexus Task Force |date=2021-02-24 |title=The Nexus Document |url=https://israelandantisemitism.com/the-nexus-document/ |access-date=2023-05-25 |website=Israel & Antisemitism |language=en-US}}</ref> described as "a resource designed for policymakers and community leaders, aiming to enhance their understanding of the issues that intersect at the nexus of antisemitism, Israel, and Zionism".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Israel & Antisemitism |url=https://israelandantisemitism.com |access-date=2023-05-29 |website=Israel & Antisemitism}}</ref> It has also published the Nexus White Paper, titled "Understanding Antisemitism at its Nexus with Israel and Zionism",<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nexus Task force |date=2020-11-22 |title=Understanding Antisemitism at its Nexus with Israel and Zionism |url=https://israelandantisemitism.com/understanding-antisemitism-at-its-nexus-with-israel-and-zionism-white-paper/ |access-date=2023-01-18 |website=Israel & Antisemitism |language=en-US}}</ref> and the Nexus "Guide to Identifying Antisemitism in Debates about Israel".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nexus Task Force |title=Guide to Identifying Antisemitism in Debates about Israel |url=https://israelandantisemitism.com/guide-to-identifying-antisemitism-in-debates-about-israel/ |access-date=2023-01-18 |website=Israel & Antisemitism |language=en-US}}</ref> [[Kenneth S. Stern]], who contributed to the drafting of the working definition and its examples, is an ex officio member of the Nexus Task Force. The "U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism", released on 25 May 2023, states that "the Administration welcomes and appreciates the Nexus Document".<ref name="auto1">{{Cite web |date=2023-05-25 |title=The U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism |url=https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/U.S.-National-Strategy-to-Counter-Antisemitism.pdf |access-date=2023-05-25 |website=The White House}}</ref>

=== Independent Jewish Voices Canada === In 2020, [[Independent Jewish Voices Canada]] published a definition of antisemitism which equates it with all other forms of discrimination, saying: "antisemitism is not an exceptional form of bigotry. People who hate, discriminate and/or attack Jews, will also hate, discriminate and/or attack other protected groups—including racialized people, Muslims, LGBTQ2+, women, [and] Indigenous peoples." They explicitly limit their definition of antisemitism to behaviour "most often associated with white supremacy".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Our definition of antisemitism |url=https://www.noihra.ca/our-definition |access-date=2023-01-17 |website=No IHRA |language=en-US}}</ref>{{sfn|Gould|2020}}

=== Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism === {{main|Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism}}

Objections to the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism motivated the creation of the [[Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism]], released in March 2021.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Kampeas|first=Ron|author-link=Ron Kampeas|date=25 March 2021|title=Over 200 scholars create new anti-Semitism definition that excludes backing Israel boycotts|url=https://www.jta.org/quick-reads/new-anti-semitism-definition-excludes-backing-israel-boycotts|access-date=2021-03-30|website=[[Jewish Telegraphic Agency]]|language=en-US}}</ref> This document, signed by some 200 international scholars, is intended to be used instead of the IHRA definition, or as a supplement to guide interpretation of the IHRA definition for groups that have already adopted it.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Wendenburg|first=Valerie|date=26 March 2021|title=Antisemitismus neu und klar definiert|trans-title=Anti-Semitism clearly redefined|url=https://www.tachles.ch/artikel/international/antisemitismus-neu-und-klar-definiert|access-date=30 March 2021|website=tachles|language=de |url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref name="j664">{{cite web | last=Kampeas | first=Ron | title=Over 200 scholars create new anti-Semitism definition that excludes backing Israel boycotts | website=Jewish Telegraphic Agency | date=27 March 2021 | url=https://www.jta.org/quick-reads/new-anti-semitism-definition-excludes-backing-israel-boycotts | access-date=15 January 2025|quote="Because the IHRA Definition is unclear in key respects and widely open to different interpretations, it has caused confusion and generated controversy, hence weakening the fight against antisemitism," the declaration says.}}</ref>

It gives a brief definition: "Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)." This is followed by fifteen guidelines, including examples relating to Israel/Palestine that, "on the face of it" either are or aren't antisemitic.<ref name="n248">{{cite web | title=Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism | website=Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism | url=https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/ | access-date=15 January 2025}}</ref>

=== U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism === The [[U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism]], issued in May 2023, states: "Antisemitism is a stereotypical and negative perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred of Jews. It is prejudice, bias, hostility, discrimination, or violence against Jews for being Jews or Jewish institutions or property for being Jewish or perceived as Jewish. Antisemitism can manifest as a form of racial, religious, national origin, and/or ethnic discrimination, bias, or hatred; or, a combination thereof. However, antisemitism is not simply a form of prejudice or hate. It is also a pernicious conspiracy theory that often features myths about Jewish power and control."<ref name="auto1"/>

== See also ==

* [[New antisemitism]] * [[Livingstone Formulation]]

== Notes == {{Notelist}}

== References == === Citations === {{Reflist}}

=== Sources === {{refbegin|35em}} * {{cite news |last=Alderman |first=Geoffrey |title=Why the antisemitism definition is flawed |url=https://www.jewishtelegraph.com/alderman.html |access-date=25 July 2019 |newspaper=[[Jewish Telegraph]] |date=12 July 2019a }} * {{cite news |last=Alderman |first=Geoffrey |title=This Labour Party row will not be settled by relying on a flawed and faulty definition of antisemitism |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-antisemitism-tom-watson-blood-libel-jewish-conspiracy-ihra-a9029081.html |access-date=31 July 2019 |newspaper=[[The Independent]] |date=31 July 2019b }} * {{cite web |title=Summary Report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001 |url=http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/Synthesis-report_en.pdf |last1=Allen |first1=Christopher |author1-link=Chris Allen (author) |last2=Nielsen |first2=Jørgen S. |author2-link=Jørgen S. Nielsen |publisher=[[European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia]] |location=Vienna |date=May 2002 |access-date=24 July 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090730071933/http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/Synthesis-report_en.pdf |archive-date=30 July 2009 |url-status=live }} * {{cite news| title = 'Anti-antisemitism' was meant to unite American Jews. Why is it backfiring?| last1 = Brown| first1 = Nathan J.| last2 = Nerenberg| first2 = Daniel| publisher = [[+972 magazine]]| date = 13 June 2023| url = https://www.972mag.com/antisemitism-american-jews-israel-ihra/}} * {{cite book |last=Cardaun |first=Sarah K. |title=Countering Contemporary Antisemitism in Britain: Government and Civil Society Responses between Universalism and Particularism |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5_XjCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA79 |date=19 June 2015 |publisher=Brill |isbn=978-90-04-30089-7 |pages=79– }} * {{cite book |title=The European Union, Antisemitism, and the Politics of Denial |last=Elman |first=R. Amy |year=2015a |publisher=[[University of Nebraska Press]] |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=O-MoDwAAQBAJ |isbn=978-0-803-25541-8 }} * {{cite book |title=Sidestepping Lethal Antisemitism – The EU's Response in the Aftermath of Terror |last=Elman |first=R. Amy |date=March 2015b |url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/154939623.pdf }} * {{Cite web |date=11 December 2019 |title=Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism |url=https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-anti-semitism/ |access-date=18 July 2022 |website=Trump White House Archives }} *{{cite news |last=Feldman |first=David |title=Will Britain's new definition of antisemitism help Jewish people? I'm sceptical |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/28/britain-definition-antisemitism-british-jews-jewish-people |access-date=14 August 2018 |newspaper=The Guardian |date=28 December 2016 }} * {{cite news |title=Database: Challenging the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism |last=Friedman |first=Lara |publisher=Foundation for Middle East Peace |date=9 August 2021 |pages=1–49 |url=https://fmep.org/resource/challenging-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-expert-views-resources/ }} * {{cite journal |last=Gould |first=Rebecca Ruth |year=2018a |title=Legal Form and Legal Legitimacy: The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism as a Case Study in Censored Speech |journal=Law, Culture and the Humanities |volume=18 |pages=1–34 |url=https://philpapers.org/archive/GOULFA.pdf |access-date=22 August 2018 |doi=10.1177/1743872118780660 |s2cid=149909747 }} * {{cite web |last=Gould |first=Rebecca Ruth |title=We need principles, not rules, to fight antisemitism: the IHRA definition and the politics of defining racism |url=https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/rebecca-ruth-gould/we-need-principles-more-than-rules-in-fight-against-antisemitism-on-ihra-definiti |access-date=20 November 2018 |publisher=[[openDemocracy]] |date=19 November 2018b }} * {{cite journal |last=Gould |first=Rebecca Ruth |author-link=Rebecca Gould |title=The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism: Defining Antisemitism by Erasing Palestinians |journal=[[The Political Quarterly]] |publisher=Wiley |date=28 July 2020 |volume=91 |issue=4 |pages=825–831 |issn=0032-3179 |doi=10.1111/1467-923x.12883 |doi-access=free}} * {{cite journal |last1=Johnson |first1=Alan |title=In Defense of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism |journal=Fathom |date=February 2021 |pages=8–11 |url=https://fathomjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Fathom-eBook-In-Defence-of-the-IHRA-Working-Definition-of-Antisemitism.pdf |access-date=3 May 2024 }} * {{cite web |last=Klaff |first=Lesley |title=Why all Labour members need to read parliament's antisemitism report |website=The Conversation |date=18 October 2016 |url=http://theconversation.com/why-all-labour-members-need-to-read-parliaments-antisemitism-report-67252 |access-date=18 November 2018 }} * {{cite web |last=Klug |first=Brian |title=The Code of Conduct for Antisemitism: a tale of two texts |url=https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brian-klug/code-of-conduct-for-antisemitism-tale-of-two-texts |access-date=14 August 2018 |publisher=[[openDemocracy]] |date=17 July 2018a }} * {{cite news |last=Klug |first=Brian |title=Labour's code of conduct isn't antisemitic – it's a constructive initiative |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/labour-code-of-conduct-not-antisemitic |access-date=14 August 2018 |newspaper=The Guardian |date=20 July 2018b }} * {{cite web |last=Lerman |first=Antony |title=Why turning to Jewish exceptionalism to fight antisemitism is a failing project |url=https://www.opendemocracy.net/antony-lerman/why-turning-to-jewish-exceptionalism-to-fight-antisemitism-is-failing-project |access-date=14 August 2018 |publisher=[[openDemocracy]] |date=16 July 2018a }} * {{cite web |title=Labour should ditch the IHRA working definition of antisemitism altogether |last=Lerman |first=Antony |author-link=Anthony Lerman |publisher=[[openDemocracy]] |date=4 September 2018b |url=https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/antony-lerman/labour-should-ditch-ihra-working-definition-of-antisemitism-altogether |access-date=20 August 2021 }} * {{cite news |last=Lerman |first=Antony |title=I warned that adopting the IHRA would shut down Palestinian protest – I've been proved right |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-antisemitism-israel-palestine-ihra-a9051401.html |access-date=10 August 2019 |newspaper=[[The Independent]] |date=10 August 2019 }} * {{cite web |last=Liphshiz |first=Cnaan |title=Switzerland adopts IHRA definition of anti-Semitism |website=[[The Jerusalem Post]] |publisher=[[Jewish Telegraphic Agency]] |date=5 June 2021 |url=https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/switzerland-adopts-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-670164 }} * {{Citation |title=Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002-2003 |url=http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/AS-Main-report.pdf |date=May 2004 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091229152718/http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/AS-Main-report.pdf |archive-date=29 December 2009 |access-date=24 July 2010 |publisher=European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia |ref={{harvid|EUMC|2004}} }} * {{cite book |last=Marcus |first=Kenneth L. |author-link=Kenneth L. Marcus |date=17 July 2015 |title=The Definition of Anti-Semitism |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-937565-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=767fCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA161 |pages=161– }} * {{Cite journal |last=Marcus |first=Kenneth L. |date=1 July 2023 |title=The Legally Binding Character of The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Anti-Semitism |url=https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/35736-8marcuspdf |journal=Lewis & Clark Law Review |volume=27 |issue=4 |pages=1265–1291 }} * {{cite web |ref={{sfnref|OSCE|2016}} |title=Seminar: Turning words into action to address anti-Semitism, intolerance and discrimination |date=16–17 June 2016 |publisher=Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE) |url=https://www.osce.org/odihr/254346?download=true }} * {{cite web |last=Perryman |first=Mark |title=How to break the impasse on Labour's anti-semitism mess |url=https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/mark-perryman/how-to-break-impasse-on-labour-s-anti-semitism-scandal |access-date=11 September 2018 |publisher=[[openDemocracy]] |date=15 August 2018 }} * {{cite journal |last=Porat |first=Dina |year=2011 |title=The International Working Definition of Antisemitism and Its Detractors |journal=Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs |publisher=Informa UK Limited |volume=5 |issue=3 |pages=93–101 |issn=2373-9770 |doi=10.1080/23739770.2011.11446474 |s2cid=147328841 }} * {{cite web |last=Robertson |first=Geoffrey |title=IHRA definition of antisemitism is not fit for purpose |url=https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/article/ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-is-not-fit-for-purpose |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180929191213/https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/article/ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-is-not-fit-for-purpose |url-status=dead |archive-date=29 September 2018 |access-date=12 July 2019 |publisher=Doughty Street |date=31 August 2018 }} * {{cite magazine |last=Sedley |first=Stephen |title=Defining Anti-Semitism |magazine=[[London Review of Books]] |volume=39 |number=9 |page=8 |date=4 May 2017 |url=https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n09/stephen-sedley/defining-anti-semitism |access-date=14 August 2018 }} * {{cite news |last=Sedley |first=Stephen |title=Debate continues over Labour's code on antisemitism |url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/18/debate-continues-over-labours-code-on-antisemitism |access-date=14 August 2018 |newspaper=The Guardian |date=17 July 2018 }} * {{cite news |last1=Sedley |first1=Stephen |last2=Janner-Klausner |first2=Laura |last3=Bindman |first3=Geoffrey |last4=Rose |first4=Jacqueline |last5=Kahn-Harris |first5=Keith |title=How should antisemitism be defined? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/27/antisemitism-ihra-definition-jewish-writers |access-date=14 August 2018 |newspaper=The Guardian |date=27 July 2018 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180808115400/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/27/antisemitism-ihra-definition-jewish-writers |archive-date=8 August 2018 }} * {{cite book |last=Stern |first=Kenneth S. |title=Antisemitism Today: How It Is the Same, How It Is Different, and How to Fight It |publisher=[[American Jewish Committee]] |year=2006 |url=http://jkrfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ANTISEMITISMTODAY.pdf |access-date=13 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180913150420/https://www.jkrfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ANTISEMITISMTODAY.pdf |archive-date=13 September 2018 |url-status=dead }} * {{cite book |chapter=The Working Definition of Antisemitism – A Reappraisal |last=Stern |first=Kenneth |author-link=Kenneth S. Stern |title=The Working Definition of Antisemitism – Six Years After |publisher=[[Tel Aviv University|The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism]] |year=2010 |url=https://en-humanities.tau.ac.il/sites/humanities_en.tau.ac.il/files/media_server/0001/unedited.pdf |pages=1–8 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200922090905/https://en-humanities.tau.ac.il/sites/humanities_en.tau.ac.il/files/media_server/0001/unedited.pdf |archive-date=22 September 2020}} * {{cite web |last=Stern |first=Kenneth S. |title=Should a major university system have a particular definition of anti-Semitism? |url=http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/175207/ |access-date=9 September 2018 |publisher=[[The Jewish Journal (Boston North)|The Jewish Journal]] |date=22 June 2015 }} * {{cite web |last=Stern |first=Kenneth S. |title=RE: Oppose H.R. 6421/S. 10 The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016. |url=http://jkrfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Stern-Letter-links-corrected.pdf |access-date=9 September 2018 |publisher=The JKR Foundation |date=6 December 2016 |archive-date=8 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181008124315/http://jkrfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Stern-Letter-links-corrected.pdf |url-status=dead }} * {{cite news |last=Stern |first=Kenneth |title=I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/13/antisemitism-executive-order-trump-chilling-effect |access-date=4 June 2020 |newspaper=The Guardian |date=13 December 2019 }} * {{cite web |last=Tomlinson |first=Hugh |date=8 March 2017 |title=In the Matter of the Adoption and Potential Application of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Anti-Semitism |publisher=Matrix Chambers |url=http://www.freespeechonisrael.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/TomlinsonGuidanceIHRA.pdf |access-date=14 August 2018 }} * {{cite journal |title=Expert Opinion of the "Working Definition of Antisemitism" of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance |journal=International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance |last=Ullrich |first=Peter |publisher=[[Rosa Luxemburg Foundation|Rosa Luxemburg Foundation papers]] |date=September 2019 |url=https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/rls_papers/Papers_3-2019_Antisemitism.pdf }} *{{Cite news |last=Wamsley |first=Laurel |date=11 December 2019 |title=Trump Signs Order Against Anti-Semitism At Colleges, Worrying Free Speech Advocates |work=National Public Radio |url=https://www.npr.org/2019/12/11/787176743/trump-to-sign-order-against-anti-semitism-at-colleges-worrying-free-speech-advoc |access-date=19 July 2022 }} * {{cite book |last=Whine |first=Michael |title=The Working Definition of Antisemitism – Six Years After |publisher=The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism |year=2010 |chapter=Short History of the Definition}} * {{cite journal |last=Whine |first=Michael |date=2010a |title=Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: Diplomatic Progress in Combating Antisemitism The antisemitism |journal=Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs |volume=IV |issue=3 |pages=91–102 |doi=10.1080/23739770.2010.11446617 |url=https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/0/d/Two%20Steps%20Forward%20-%20MichaelWhine.pdf }} * {{cite magazine |last=Whine |first=Michael |date=Spring–Summer 2017 |title=Improving Legal and Other Protections for Europe's Jews |magazine=JUSTICE |number=59 |pages=7–12 |url=https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/1/2/legal%20protections%20for%20jews.pdf <!--http://intjewishlawyers.org/justice/no59/#6--> }} {{refend}}

==Further reading== * {{cite web | last=Byford | first=Jovan | title=Understanding the IHRA definition of antisemitism | website=Wonkhe | date=10 January 2021| url=https://wonkhe.com/blogs/understanding-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism/ | access-date=10 June 2022}} *Feldman, David. [http://archive.jpr.org.uk/download?id=1582 Sub-Report commissioned to assist the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism]. Institute for Jewish Policy Research. 1 January 2015 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171031014143/http://archive.jpr.org.uk/download?id=1582 |date=31 October 2017 }} * {{cite book |last=Iganski |first=Paul |year=2009 |chapter=Conceptualizing Anti-Jewish Hate Crime |editor-first=Barbara A.|editor-last=Perry|editor-link=Barbara A. Perry |title=Hate Crimes |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |isbn=978-0-275-99569-0 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=M7p6TDR1zwcC&pg=RA2-PA107}} * {{cite news|url=https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-710172|last=Klein |first=Zivka|title=Knesset finally adopts IHRA definition of antisemitism|work=The Jerusalem Post|date=23 June 2022|access-date=13 July 2025}} * {{cite magazine |last=Whine|first=Michael|title=Applying the Working Definition of Antisemitism |magazine=Justice|date=Fall 2018 |issue=61 |pages=9–16 |url=http://intjewishlawyers.org/justice/no61/#8 |access-date=31 July 2019}}

==External links== *{{Official website|https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism}}

[[Category:2005 documents]] [[Category:2005 in Judaism]] [[Category:2005 in politics]] [[Category:2005 in the European Union]] [[Category:January 2005 in Europe]] [[Category:Opposition to antisemitism in Europe]] [[Category:Definition of antisemitism controversy]] [[Category:Freedom of speech]] [[Category:New antisemitism]]