The IHRA definition, which was formally created in 2016 by dozens of countries, with the support of mainstream Jewish communities around the world, seeks to clarify what antisemitism is, so it can be effectively countered. It has been adopted by dozens of countries around the world, including Canada, as well as a number of provincial governments, including Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, and New Brunswick.

In response, critics have attempted to portray the definition as a threat to free expression and an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel. Following the widespread adoption of the IHRA definition, there have been a flurry of commentaries and critiques of the definition, much of it based on a misunderstanding of what the adoption represents.

And while certainly reasonable minds may disagree on the best strategies to combat antisemitism, the first basis must be the truth.

The goal of the IHRA working definition is to clearly define antisemitism, to help authorities such as governments and police services, for instance, delineate the difference between Jew-hatred and criticism of Israel. This issue has become particularly acute in recent years as anti-Israel activists often claim their views are not necessarily antisemitic, but merely critical of Israel.

Thus, the IHRA definition is aimed, not at attacking critics of Israel, but at clarifying where criticism ends and anti-Jewish hate begins.

One common criticism of the IHRA definition is that it conflates legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Critics often cite one of the illustrative examples used by IHRA to demonstrate contemporary examples of antisemitism – that claiming the existence of Israel is a racist endeavour – and attempt to demonstrate that it seeks to clamp down on anti-Israel views.

However, this is absolutely not the case. As explicitly stated in the IHRA definition, “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

This clear and unambiguous statement, freely available on IHRA’s website – that criticism of Israel does not constitute antisemitism – nevertheless has not stopped critics from attacking the definition baselessly.

What the IHRA definition seeks to address is not criticism of Israel, but the delegitimization of the Jewish People’s right to exist, and enjoy self-determination in their historical and ancestral homeland. To deny that right goes far beyond any simple critique of the State of Israel; it is a denial of the collective rights of the Jewish People to determine their own future.

The IHRA definition, as it makes abundantly clear, does not seek to clamp down on criticism of Israel, even if it’s factually inaccurate.

Another common criticism of the IHRA definition is that by adopting it, governments are all but criminalizing pro-Palestinian activists, and opening the door up for them to be censored due to their views.

Such an accusation has no basis in what the IHRA definitions stands for, or seeks to achieve, and the definition’s growing acceptance, both in the international arena, and within Canada, demonstrates its mainstream bona fides.

The IHRA definition seeks to make clear that in contemporary times, much of antisemitism has found a way to masquerade itself as being anti-Zionist; in other words, by allowing Jews as individuals to have rights, but by denying the Jewish People as a collective entity the right those same rights that are provided to everyone else.

Despite attempts by critics to conflate the attempts to delegitimize the Jewish People’s collective rights with simple criticism of Israel, they remain very much two separate issues. And that is precisely why the IHRA definition is so critically important in helping to distinguish criticism from delegitimization.

According to Statistics Canada, Canadian Jews remain the country’s single largest target of religiously-motivated hate crimes, and as such, it is imperative that they – like all groups – define for themselves what constitutes hatred. The IHRA definition has achieved widespread acceptance among both governments and Jewish communities across Canada, and because it helps to clearly delineate between legitimate criticism of Israel and Jew-hatred, it will help authorities to better focus their energies on combatting antisemitism in society.