NEW YORK (Dispatches) – Over 100 human rights and civil rights organizations have warned the United Nations against using or endorsing a definition of “anti-Semitic” they say could be used to silence criticism of the Zionist regime and stifle advocacy for Palestinian rights.
The letter, signed by groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, raised concerns of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of “anti-Semitism”.
The signatories said anti-Semitism “poses real harm to Jewish communities around the world” but that the IHRA’s use of the word could “inadvertently embolden or endorse policies and laws that undermine... the right to speak and organize in favor of Palestinian rights and to criticize Israeli regime’s policies”.
They warned that if the UN adopts the IHRA definition, governments and courts could misuse it to restrict criticism of the Zionist regime policies, creating “a chilling effect on freedom of expression”.
The groups noted that Ken Stern, the main drafter of the IHRA definition, raised his own concerns about institutions adapting the terminology, which he said has been used as “a blunt instrument to label anyone an anti-Semite”.
The groups say the label relies on examples of anti-Semitism that could be open for distortion, such as “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” and “applying double standards by requiring of [the Zionist regime] a behavior not expected” of democratic nations.
Such wording “opens the door” to labeling as anti-Semitic criticism of Zionist regime policies and practices by human rights organizations that Zionist authorities are committing apartheid against Palestinians, the groups said.
“The UN should ensure that its vital efforts to combat anti-Semitism do not inadvertently embolden or endorse policies and laws that undermine fundamental human rights, including the right to speak and organize in support of Palestinian rights and to criticize Israeli regime policies,” the authors said.
The metric could also be used to label as anti-Semitic documentation showing that the occupying regime’s founding involved dispossessing Palestinians.
The “double standards” argument could also pave the way for anyone who focuses on the occupying regime’s abuses to be labeled “anti-Semitic” so long as worse abuses are deemed to be occurring elsewhere.
The authors provided recent examples they say underscore the fraught metrics used in the IHRA definition.
In 2017, after the British government adapted the IHRA definition on a national level, at least two universities in the country banned activities planned for “Israel Apartheid Week”, including a talk at the University of Central Lancashire on boycotts, divestment and sanctions.
In February 2020, Israeli advocacy groups in the U.S. attempted to disrupt a Palestinian film screening at Pitzer and Pomona College, citing “clear indicators of anti-Semitism under the examples listed by the IHRA.”