Why We’re Still Fighting about Antisemitism Definitions

Post Reply New Topic

Look, I get it. We all want to fight antisemitism. Jewish communities face real threats—synagogue shootings, cemetery desecrations, harassment in schools and on the streets. The FBI documented nearly 2,000 antisemitic incidents in 2024 alone. This is serious. So why, after all these years, are we still stuck arguing about definitions?

New York City’s new Mayor Zohran Mamdani revoked every executive order issued after former Mayor Adams was indicted on federal bribery charges, including one adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism on his first day in office. Predictably, all hell broke loose. Jewish organizations issued emergency statements. Israel’s Foreign Ministry called him an Islamist. Civil liberties groups applauded. And here I am, once again, explaining why codifying a contested definition into law was always a bad idea—not because antisemitism isn’t real, but because there isn’t consensus on a single definition, and the definition some groups keep trying to enshrine has serious problems.

In practical terms, the order meant city agencies would use IHRA as a framework to assess discrimination complaints, potentially affecting everything from workplace policies to contract decisions.

Here’s the thing about IHRA: it describes itself as “non-legally binding.” The organization that created it never intended for it to be enshrined in law. The core definition is fairly anodyne—antisemitism is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”—but the controversy lies in its 11 “contemporary examples,” seven of which involve Israel. These include describing Israel’s founding as a “racist endeavor,” “applying double standards” to Israel, and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

Reasonable people disagree about whether these statements are antisemitic, offensive-but-protected-speech, or legitimate political commentary. Kenneth Stern, the original drafter of the IHRA definition, has testified to Congress that he never intended it to be codified into law and warned that doing so would suppress political speech rather than combat actual hatred. First Amendment defenders on both the right and the left agreed.

If you want proof that stemming criticism of Israel is the motive of IHRA’s key backers, look no further than how a Senate committee scuttled a federal bill codifying it for also noting that criticism of the Israeli government is not itself antisemitic.

The Antisemitism Awareness Act had sailed through the House with bipartisan support. An amendment seeking to protect legitimate criticism of Israeli policy passed 12-11 a Senate committee, with all Democrats and libertarian Republican Rand Paul voting yes.

The bill’s supporters were furious. Senator Bill Cassidy called the amendment “a poison pill.” That tells you everything. Even a modest marker against using an antisemitism definition to police legitimate criticism of Israel was enough for proponents to abandon what they’d called the most critical tool against antisemitism.

Senator Paul put it bluntly during the hearing: “Every example of antisemitism in that list is about words, not action. You can’t regulate speech.” The committee adjourned without voting on the bill, and it has gone nowhere since.

Mayor Mamdani’s sweeping action against the directives of an indicted former mayor has a sound rationale whether one supports it or not. And, credit where it’s due: Mamdani renewed the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism, continuing its strength and mandate established by Adams. Still, it drew immediate condemnation from seven major New York Jewish organizations. At a moment of genuine anxiety, their concerns are understandable. But their framing of this move as an affront to Jewish safety only heightens that anxiety.

Every decent American is struggling with why unprecedented policy tools, resources and public resolve to reverse the unrelenting rise of antisemitic hate doesn’t seem to be enough. . That’s a good reason for all of us to stop squandering precious energy and resources dividing and polarizing communities over a definition that was never meant to be law, while actual antisemites are more emboldened than ever. .

There are better ways to fight antisemitism. Fund security for vulnerable institutions. Empower and train law enforcement and other officials to prevent and respond to hate crimes against Jews and all targets of hate. Support education on antisemitism and bias. Enforce civil rights laws against actual discrimination and harassment.

Organizations should look to concrete measures like the Antisemitism Response and Prevention Act —which expands and resources material action and infrastructure for sustained efforts to prevent, investigate, and punish antisemitic acts —without the constitutional landmines.

Antisemitism is a serious danger to Jews and to the social fabric and we’re not going to defeat it with definitions or by arguing over them.

I will pose another question (sorry AS you won't like it) why is antisemitism not simply removed and replaced with "racism". I would also pose the same question with special dispensations for certain groups like "anti-Asian hate" or targeted hatred of immigrants (Hispanics) or native people or islamophobia (let's not kid ourselves, ppl in America who hate islam in all probability hate other different beliefs).

Definitions assume nuance, that antisemites (or hatred of other specific POC groupss) are somehow separate from racists. when infact they aren't. Racism is an overarching definition of intolerance of other groups and should be the only term used along with prejudice and discrimination.

So why are we fighting over definitions of antisemitism?.I would pose a different question, why do some groups get special terms as if Jews (or Asians) live in bubbles as if the universe only revolves around them. Call it what it is...racism.

Most forms of racism involve seeing the other as inferior. A form of Antisemitism posits that 1 or 2 percent of the population has hoodwinked the “rest of us” to control the world. These antisemites are Jewish supremacists in a way. Anti Asian hate has similarities in the this regard. Some antisemitism is not race based but religious based(“Jews killed Jesus”, “Jews are devils”.)

Since "Semite" also refers to many other groups, I feel that Judeophobia or Hebreophobia are more accurate terms to refer to anti-Jewish bigotry.

I will pose another question (sorry AS you won't like it) why is antisemitism not simply removed and replaced with "racism". I would also pose the same question with special dispensations for certain groups like "anti-Asian hate" or targeted hatred of immigrants (Hispanics) or native people or islamophobia (let's not kid ourselves, ppl in America who hate islam in all probability hate other different beliefs).

Definitions assume nuance, that antisemites (or hatred of other specific POC groupss) are somehow separate from racists. when infact they aren't.

Racism is an overarching definition of intolerance of other groups and should be the only term used along with prejudice and discrimination.

So why are we fighting over definitions of antisemitism?.I would pose a different question, why do some groups get special terms as if Jews (or Asians) live in bubbles as if the universe only revolves around them. Call it what it is...racism.

Since "Semite" also refers to many other groups, I feel that Judeophobia or Hebreophobia are more accurate terms to refer to anti-Jewish bigotry.

You're looking for a term that refers specifically to the opponents of Israeli actions in Gaza, such as the group IfNotNow

If you are talking specifically about how laws should be written, then I agree that anti-discrimination laws should be written as neutrally as possible, not referring to any specific group of people.

However, in other contexts, it is meaningful to speak of the different ways that bigotry typically manifests against specific groups of people, and to use group-specific terms accordingly.

If you are talking specifically about how laws should be written, then I agree that anti-discrimination laws should be written as neutrally as possible, not referring to any specific group of people.

Hmm, I don't think anyone in this thread was actually looking for such a term, but I think most of us here agree that they should not be categorically called "antisemites" or even "Judeophobes" Some critics of Israel are bigoted against Jews and others are not.

However, in other contexts, it is meaningful to speak of the different ways that bigotry typically manifests against specific groups of people, and to use group-specific terms accordingly.

You're looking for a term that refers specifically to the opponents of Israeli actions in Gaza, such as the group IfNotNow

Are these people phobic of Israel or Judaism? No, they don't feel fearful at all.
Are they racists? No, they might share the same race.
Are they against Israel's existence / anti-Zionist? Not necessarily. They might support Israel's existence.
Do they hate Jews? Not necessarily. They might hate certain individuals, but not because of their faith, only for their politics.

Getting rid of categorising group specific hate crimes might help make more alliances between oppressed minorities (that includes us NDs).

Plus "antisemitism" is outdated and actually antiquated.