opinion
FIRE Misfires on the IHRA
Definition of Antisemitism
BY DAVID M. LITMAN
tzahiV / iStock / Getty Images Plus
E arlier this year, the Foundation for Individual
Rights and Expression published a piece
explaining its opposition to the legislative adoption
of the International Holocaust Remembrance
Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism.

Unfortunately, FIRE’s position appears to be
based on an understanding of the IHRA definition
that is directly contradicted by what the definition
actually says.

Writing in the context of the American
Association of University Professors’ statement
opposing the adoption of the definition by the
state of Florida, FIRE states, “While the AAUP
consistently opposes legislation restricting how
race and sex can be taught on college campuses,
its opposition to legislation that defines anti-Sem-
itism to include any criticism of Israel is a new and
welcome development” (emphasis original).

The claim that any criticism of Israel is consid-
ered antisemitic under the IHRA definition is false.

The definition itself makes this very clear. In part,
it reads, “Manifestations might include the target-
ing 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 anti-Semitic” (emphasis added). The
Florida law adopting the definition includes virtu-
ally identical language.

As the IHRA further explains, the “overall con-
text” of a statement about Israel must be taken
into consideration when assessing whether it
crosses into the realm of antisemitism.

This is simple common sense. For example, a
2006 Supreme Court case, Ash v. Tyson Foods,
Inc., involved the question of whether a decision-
maker’s reference to two Black employees as
“boy” was evidence of discriminatory intent. The
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit wrote,
“While the use of ‘boy’ when modified by a racial
classification like ‘black’ or ‘white’ is evidence of
discriminatory intent, the use of ‘boy’ alone is not
evidence of discrimination.”
The Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh
Circuit, holding, “Although it is true the disputed
word will not always be evidence of racial animus,
it does not follow that the term, standing alone,
is always benign. The speaker’s meaning may
depend on various factors, including context,
inflection, tone of voice, local custom and histor-
ical usage. Insofar as the Court of Appeals held
that modifiers or qualifications are necessary in all
FIRE has played an important and admirable role in
American society, standing up for one of our most
important democratic values. It’s perplexing that
the group’s position on the IHRA definition rests on
an obvious factual error.

instances to render the disputed term probative of
bias, the court’s decision is erroneous.”
Similarly, under the IHRA definition, references
to Israel are not always evidence of antisemitism,
but it does not follow that references to Israel will
always be benign. This is what the definition rec-
ognizes and addresses.

For example, when “criticism” of Israel takes the
form of typical antisemitic tropes, like depicting
Israeli soldiers drinking the blood of non-Jews or
harvesting their organs, that is not legitimate crit-
icism. It’s simply repackaging the blood libel and
applying it to the Jewish collective that is Israel.

When “criticism” of Israel holds that a Jewish
state shouldn’t exist, but no objection is made
to the existence of any other nation-state in the
world, that is not legitimate criticism. It’s apply-
ing a double standard on the basis of Israel’s
Jewish character.

The IHRA definition recognizes that antisem-
itism has evolved over many centuries. As the
late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks once said, “In the
Middle Ages, Jews were hated because of their
religion. In the 19th and early 20th century they
were hated because of their race. Today they are
hated because of their nation-state, the State of
Israel. It takes different forms, but it remains the
same thing: The view that Jews have no right to
exist as free and equal human beings.”
FIRE has played an important and admirable
role in American society, standing up for one of
our most important democratic values. It’s per-
plexing that the group’s position on the IHRA defi-
nition rests on an obvious factual error.

Hopefully, the organization will issue a correc-
tion. Efforts to protect our freedom of speech and
expression should be based on an honest discus-
sion of what is and isn’t at stake. JE
David M. Litman is a media and education
research analyst at the Committee for Accuracy in
Middle East Reporting and Analysis, or CAMERA.

JEWISHEXPONENT.COM 15