What you need to know
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism is a widely adopted tool for recognising antisemitism in words or actions.
It is a tool to help recognise antisemitism. It is not legally binding and does not restrict free speech or prevent criticism of the Israeli government.
It has been adopted by many governments and organisations in Australia and around the world. ECAJ encourages all Australian institutions to adopt and apply it.
Also useful to know
A non-binding tool
The intergovernmental International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism (often simply “the IHRA definition”) is a non-binding tool to help educators, policymakers, law‑enforcement and civil society recognise antisemitism in words or actions.
IHRA adopted it as a tool to help guide the organization’s work on combating antisemitism, as “combating antisemitism requires international cooperation among experts, governments, and civil society, which meant a mutual starting point for discussion and action was needed”.
Origin
It was adopted by IHRA in 2016 following a resurgence in antisemitic incidents around the world, including violent attacks on Jewish individuals and institutions, in the wake of the second intifada.
It was based on an earlier definition adopted in 2005 by the European Union Monitoring Commission (EUMC), now called the European Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).
Widely adopted
The IHRA definition the most widely accepted and used definition of antisemitism by western governments, including Australia, and non-government organisations.
It has been adopted by over 1,000 entities and 45 governments by 2025, including here in Australia:
- Australian government: October 2021
- NSW state government: December 2021
- Waverley Council, in Sydney: November 2021
- Glen Eira City Council, in Melbourne: April 2022
- NSW state parliament’s Legislative Council: March 2022
- Victorian state government and parliament: May 2022
- South Australian state parliament’s Legislative Council: July 2022
ECAJ’s position
ECAJ endorses the IHRA working definition as a practical, internationally-recognised tool to identify and combat antisemitism. We encourage all Australian institutions to adopt and apply it.
For the wording of ECAJ’s policy, see paragraphs 48.8, 48.9, and 49.10 in section 4 of our ECAJ policy platform.
Questions and answers
What is IHRA?
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) is an intergovernmental body composed of over 30 member countries including Australia. It is the only intergovernmental organisation mandated to focus solely on Holocaust-related issues.
IHRA was founded to deliver on the 2000 Stockholm Declaration and the 2020 Ministerial Declaration to combat growing Holocaust distortion and antisemitism, and protect the memory of the Holocaust and genocide of the Roma.
For more information about IHRA see its website: https://holocaustremembrance.com/
Is the definition legally binding?
No. It is a non‑binding guideline that individual countries or organisations choose whether and how to adopt it into laws or policies.
Is the definition the best definition of antisemitism?
Antisemitism takes many forms and evolves over time, making a single perfect definition impossible. The IHRA definition has become the most widely accepted and used tool for understanding manifestations of antisemitism today.
How can an organisation adopt it?
ECAJ recommends organisations adopt the definition by:
- Endorsing it with a formal resolution of the organisation’s governing body or leadership group.
- Incorporating it in policies relating to conduct, discrimination, training, and complaints processes.
- Educating staff, officeholders, and volunters about it using real-world examples.
- Using it to recognise antisemitism when assessing incidents or behaviour is antisemitic.
When adopting and using the definition, the complete definition and examples (reproduced above) should be used, linked to the IHRA working definition.
Addressing misinformation
The IHRA definition is not being forced on anyone
The IHRA definition is not legally-binding. No country or organisation is forced to adopt it, but many choose to, to better identify and monitor antisemitism.
The IHRA definition does not restrict free speech
The IHRA definition clarifies when speech becomes hateful and discriminatory but does not ban legitimate criticism of governments or policies. The right to freedom of speech does not extend to hate speech. The IHRA definition does not prevent reasonable speech, including criticism of Israel, unless it is antisemitic.
The IHRA definition does not prevent criticism of Israel
The IHRA definition itself says “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. However, it recognises that antisemitism can manifest as “the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity” and includes several contemporary examples of antisemitism.
Not all criticism of Israel or Zionism is antisemitic, but it can be
Context and content is critical. Not all criticism of Israel or Zionism is antisemitic, but antisemitism can manifest as targeting of Israel conceived as a Jewish collectivity or applying double standards to Israel or Zionism as the expression of Jewish aspiration for a national home.
Full text of the IHRA working definition
The working definition consists of a paragraph ‘core definition’ followed by 11 examples to “serve as illustrations” of the kinds of conduct and discourse which, in context, can be considered to be antisemitic. The following is the full original text of the working definition and uses American spelling.
Core definition
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
Examples
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
- Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
- Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.
Source: IHRA.
Further reading
- International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism
- For a comprehensive and accurate account of the origins of the IHRA Definition, read a 2021 open letter from three of the other authors of the IHRA Definition