Understanding Antisemitism and the IHRA Working Definition

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism is the world’s most widely recognized standard for identifying antisemitism. It defines antisemitism as:

“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.”

The definition is accompanied by practical, real-world examples that help clarify how antisemitism appears today, particularly in education, public life, and online spaces.

IHRA provides a straightforward, practical framework to help institutions identify, understand, and respond to antisemitism. It gives decision-makers clarity, defines common modern forms of antisemitism, promotes education and human rights, and protects freedom of speech by explicitly allowing legitimate criticism of Israel’s government. Together, this tool helps policymakers, schools, and community leaders prevent antisemitism while safeguarding civil liberties.

A consistent definition is essential to effectively address rising antisemitism. IHRA provides a shared framework that helps:

• Identify antisemitic incidents
• Distinguish antisemitism from legitimate political discourse
• Respond consistently and appropriately
• Track and report incidents accurately
• Protect civil rights

The IHRA definition was developed through decades of international collaboration among scholars, diplomats, and human-rights experts. It was first adopted by the European Union’s racism monitoring center, later refined through the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and formally adopted by IHRA’s 35 member nations in 2016. Though other definitions, such as the Jerusalem Doctrine, exist and are promoted as alternatives, they have never been adopted for use or put into broad practice by any state or nation to date.

In the United States, the IHRA definition has been recognized under all administrations since Obama, reflecting strong bipartisan support. The Obama administration first incorporated it into federal civil-rights guidance, the Trump administration expanded its use through a 2019 executive order, and the Biden administration reaffirmed it in the National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. Across the country, 37 U.S. states and numerous Democratic- and Republican-led cities and localities have adopted or endorsed the IHRA definition in their own policies, demonstrating its broad, nonpartisan acceptance.

Without a reliable definition:

• Antisemitic incidents are underreported
• Schools and institutions lack clarity about what constitutes discrimination and struggle to respond consistently
• Victims face inconsistent and at times inadequate protection

IHRA helps ensure that antisemitism is recognized and addressed with the same seriousness as other forms of hate.

No. The IHRA definition is explicitly non-legally binding and does not infringe on First Amendment rights. It clearly states that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country is not antisemitic. IHRA helps distinguish between:

• Legitimate political criticism, which is protected speech
• Antisemitic expression, which targets Jews as Jews or holds Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions

IHRA helps protect free expression while ensuring antisemitic bias is recognized and addressed fairly, just like other forms of discrimination.

No. Criticism of Israeli policy, including strong criticism, is not antisemitic. What matters is context and intent. When rhetoric employs antisemitic stereotypes, denies Israel’s right to exist, or targets Jews collectively for the actions of Israel, it crosses into antisemitism. The IHRA definition helps distinguish between legitimate political disagreement and prejudice directed toward Jews.

Disagreement alone does not equal antisemitism. What matters is context, intent, and impact. The examples below help illustrate that distinction.

Examples of statements that are antisemitic
These statements target Jews as Jews, promote conspiracy theories, deny Jewish self-determination, or hold Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions:

• “I don’t trust Jews; they control the media, banks, and government.” (Promotes classic antisemitic conspiracy theories.)
• “You’re Jewish, so you must support everything Israel does.” (Holds Jews collectively accountable for the actions of a foreign government.)
• “Israel should not exist; Jews do not deserve their own country.” (Denies Jewish self-determination while granting it to others.)
• “Hitler should have finished the job.” (Glorifies genocide and violence against Jews.)
• “Israel is doing exactly what the Nazis did.” (Uses Holocaust imagery to demonize Jews and trivialize historical atrocities.)

Examples of free speech or political protest (not antisemitic)
These statements express political viewpoints, criticism of government policies, or advocacy for peace and humanitarian causes, without targeting Jews or invoking antisemitic tropes:

• “I disagree with Israel’s military strategy and believe they have caused unnecessary harm in Gaza.”
• “I support humanitarian aid and protections for civilians in Gaza.”
• “I support Palestinian self-determination and believe Palestinians deserve their own state.”
• “The Israeli government should change its approach to settlements.”

No. In fact, IHRA protects free speech by providing clarity that helps institutions distinguish protected expression from discriminatory harassment. Without a clear framework, schools often struggle to respond consistently, leading either to under-enforcement of civil rights protections or overcorrection that confuses free speech boundaries.

No. IHRA is non-legally binding and does not create criminal penalties, civil liability, or new enforcement mechanisms. It does not change existing laws or limit free expression. Instead, it provides guidance to help institutions recognize antisemitic discrimination when evaluating complaints under existing civil rights protections.

No. IHRA is valued specifically because it includes 11 contemporary examples that illustrate how antisemitism manifests today, giving educators, administrators, and investigators practical tools rather than abstract theory. This clarity helps ensure fair, consistent, and evidence-based decision-making.

Critics sometimes inaccurately claim that codifying the IHRA definition limits political activism or criticism of Israel. IHRA does not restrict First Amendment rights. IHRA ensures antisemitic bias is recognized on par with other protected classes by identifying when it violates Jews’ civil rights. In fact, the IHRA definition explicitly differentiates between antisemitism and legitimate political criticism, helping decision makers distinguish between the two.

Jewish Federation of St. Louis is committed to educating our community, advocating for safety and dignity, and partnering with civic leaders to combat and prevent antisemitism. If you would like more information, advocacy resources, or guidance on engaging with lawmakers or other audiences, please contact PublicAffairs@jfedstl.org.