January 19, 2021

Dr. Kathrin Meyer, Secretary General, IHRA
Ms. Katharina von Schnurbein, EC Coordin­at­or on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life

Dear Kathrin and Katharina,

As adoption of the IHRA Working Defin­i­tion of Antisemitism increases in both Europe and the United States, opponents of the defin­i­tion have fre­quently cited the critical views of one of the early drafters to claim that it is being mis­ap­plied or used in ways that were not ori­gin­ally intended.

Since we were among that small group involved in the original devel­op­ment and drafting of the defin­i­tion, we want to set the record straight.

The IHRA Working Defin­i­tion (adopted in May 2016) is based on an earlier version developed in 2004 – 2005 and issued by the European Mon­it­or­ing Centre on Racism and Xeno­pho­bia (EUMC) in March 2005. (The EUMC was replaced by the EU Agency for Fun­da­ment­al Rights in 2009.) The drafting and devel­op­ment of the EUMC Working Defin­i­tion of Antisemitism was a months long col­lab­or­at­ive process, involving a score of indi­vidu­als. We were among those who were part of this from the very beginning. This group included our colleague at the time, Kenneth Stern, who has since iden­ti­fied himself — or is described by others — as the “author” or “primary drafter” of the Working Defin­i­tion. This is simply not true. But most troubling is the fact that this mythical elevated status is primarily touted because he is a vocal critic of using the Working Defin­i­tion and thus a helpful (witting or unwitting) ally for those who today seek to discredit the IHRA Working Defin­i­tion. Virtually all others who were involved in its devel­op­ment believed then and continue to believe now that the adoption and use of the Working Defin­i­tion is an essential component in the fight against antisemitism.

Let us summarize for the record how the Working Defin­i­tion came to be.

In 2001 – 2002, we witnessed a resur­gence in antisemitic incidents in Europe including violent attacks on Jewish targets. Most occurred in Western Europe, and many were iden­ti­fied as coming from parts of local Arab and Muslim com­munit­ies. This coincided with the breakdown of the Middle East peace process and was reflected in the anti-Israel and antisemitic activ­it­ies that were an unfor­tu­nate con­sequence of the UN World Con­fer­ence on Racism in Durban in 2001. European gov­ern­ments were slow to recognize these attacks or to identify them as antisemitic in nature. As they continued, there were calls for regional security and human rights organ­iz­a­tions to address them. This resulted in the Organ­iz­a­tion for Security and Cooper­a­tion in Europe (OSCE) organ­iz­ing its first con­fer­ence on antisemitism in 2003, and the EUMC com­mis­sion­ing its first study of antisemitism in the EU that same year.

In 2004, the OSCE organized a second, high level con­fer­ence in Berlin, which resulted in the Berlin Declar­a­tion on Antisemitism, supported by all 55 OSCE par­ti­cip­at­ing States. It declared that antisemitism had taken on “new forms and mani­fest­a­tions” and stated that events in Israel and the Middle East, “can never justify antisemitism.” Also, in 2004, the EUMC (having concluded that the report it com­mis­sioned the previous year was inad­equate) conducted its own study, relying on data from its own monitors in EU Member States and in person inter­views with Jewish leaders in Europe.

The new EUMC report presented in the spring of 2004 revealed that European Jews had a high level of concern and anxiety in reaction to their firsthand obser­va­tions of growing antisemitic incidents. 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.

Baker turned to his AJC col­leagues, including Deidre Berger in Berlin and Ken Stern in New York, and to other longtime col­lab­or­at­ors, including Michael Whine of the CST in London. Academic experts, including Dina Porat and Yehuda Bauer in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were brought in, along with leaders and rep­res­ent­at­ives of several major Jewish organ­iz­a­tions. Ken 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.

Mike Whine took over the final drafting job and, with this in hand, the focus turned to Vienna. The three of us were joined by the lead­er­ship team of the recently estab­lished Tolerance and Non-Dis­crim­in­a­tion Unit at OSCE’s Office of Demo­crat­ic Insti­tu­tions and Human Rights (ODIHR), which had respons­ib­il­ity for imple­ment­ing the com­mit­ments spelled out in the OSCE Berlin Declar­a­tion. Together we worked with the EUMC Director and her spe­cial­ists, as further changes and revisions were made. We were well-aware that with the inclusion of examples relating to Israel, there would be chal­lenges, and some would say that they could be used to label critics of Israel as antisemitic. But we also recog­nized how egregious some of these attacks had become and the import­ance of including this section. 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.

In January 2005, we concluded the final drafting of what became known as the EUMC Working Defin­i­tion of Antisemitism, and in March 2005 it was formally released. In promoting and cir­cu­lat­ing the Working Defin­i­tion, its use was neither defined nor cir­cum­scribed. We under­stood then — as we do today — that it is first and foremost an edu­ca­tion­al tool for those who need to know what antisemitism is. This includes gov­ern­ment, Jewish community, and other civil society monitors respons­ible for recording antisemitic incidents. It includes those in authority who are respons­ible for identi­fy­ing and respond­ing to antisemitic hate crimes and other antisemitic events, such as police, pro­sec­utors, and judges, among others. And it includes the public, whose under­stand­ing of the problem is essential to marshal the full force necessary to combat it.

It was called a working defin­i­tion for a reason. This was not meant to be a tool for academic research­ers, but for those, briefly iden­ti­fied above, who would put it to use. They would be the ones to determine its value and its longevity.

In 2007, the US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, a newly appointed Con­gres­sion­ally mandated position, applied the EUMC Working Defin­i­tion to his work and posted it on the State Depart­ment website. It was endorsed by Par­lia­ment­ari­ans at the 2009 Inter-par­lia­ment­ary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism (ICCA) London Con­fer­ence, and at suc­cess­ive ICCA Con­fer­ences in Ottawa (2011) and in Berlin (2015). It was recom­men­ded for use by the OSCE Chair­per­son-in-Office in 2014.

Over fifteen years have passed since the EUMC issued its working defin­i­tion. It has been slightly modified and further amplified as the IHRA Working Defin­i­tion of Antisemitism. It has been endorsed by leaders of the European Union, the United Nations, the OSCE, and other inter­na­tion­al bodies. It has been formally adopted by over thirty countries, including most EU Member States. It has become an essential, edu­ca­tion­al tool for law enforce­ment.

We are heartened by the Working Definition’s increased use and inter­na­tion­al recog­ni­tion as the author­it­at­ive defin­i­tion of antisemitism. While the threat of antisemitism in all its various forms is, sadly, as great as it was fifteen years ago, this proper and com­pre­hens­ive defin­i­tion is now an essential element in our common fight against it.

Rabbi Andrew Baker
Deidre Berger
Michael Whine, MBE

Rabbi Andrew Baker is Director of Inter­na­tion­al Jewish Affairs at the American Jewish Committee and since 2009 the Personal Rep­res­ent­at­ive of the OSCE Chair­per­son-in-Office on Combating Anti-Semitism.

Deidre Berger is a con­sult­ant and former Director of the AJC Berlin Ramer Institute for German-Jewish Relations.

Michael Whine is the former Gov­ern­ment and Inter­na­tion­al Affairs Director of the Community Security Trust, Senior Con­sult­ant World Jewish Congress, and UK Member of ECRI Council of Europe.