The IHRA definition is politically motivated and has been weaponised to suppress legitimate criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights. Seven of its eleven “examples” explicitly conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism—most notably, defining as antisemitic the description of Israel as a “racist endeavour.”
This attempts to silence opposition to the Israeli state’s ethnonationalist structure, its apartheid policies, and the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Israel quite clearly is a racist state founded on supremacist policies, and the IHRA definition attempts to obscure this reality.

Promoted actively by the Israeli government, the IHRA definition serves to shield Israel from accountability while attacking free speech, protest, and human rights advocacy. It has enabled false accusations against students, academics, activists, and anti-Zionist Jews. It has been condemned by over 100 human rights organisations—including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B’Tselem, and the ACLU—and even by its original author, Kenneth Stern, who has publicly opposed its institutional adoption on the grounds that it endangers free speech.

Far from combatting antisemitism, the IHRA definition distorts the meaning of the term, undermining the fight against genuine anti-Jewish hate and fosters a dangerous hierarchy of racism. It is discriminatory against Arabs who are also Semitic people, marginalises Palestinian voices, delegitimises anti-Zionist Jewish perspectives, and violates fundamental freedoms protected under the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, and international law.