CUJF Board Adopts IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism

On 29 September 2024 the CUJF AS Committee voted 8 FOR to 2 AGAINST to recommend to the CUJF Board of Directors that CUJF adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism, with examples, as its policy.

On October 15th, 2024, the motion passed with the following results: 9 in favor, 1 against, 1 abstention.

The document is comprised of three parts, a preamble, the working definition, and examples that may serve as illustrations of antisemitism. The examples includes a paragraph of “manifestations of antisemitism”, a bulleted list of eleven “Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context,” and three clarification of terms.

 

The Preamble and Definition is as follows, and the entire document including contemporary examples that may serve as illustrations, may be found at <https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism>: 

In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by ...antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:

Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:

 

“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.”

 

Committee members supporting the recommendation note that this is a widely adopted, internationally-recognized framework. For example, in May 2024 Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) commended the U.S. House of Representatives for passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act (HR 6090), and recognized the importance of the IHRA definition.

 

“A clear definition of antisemitism is key to combating forms in which it is manifested…

 

“The purpose of this definition is to inform, not enforce, and calls for ‘taking into account the overall context’ of the situation. This definition does not encourage the punishment of speech, even antisemitic speech. Rather, it serves to help lawmakers and others determine when conduct is based on antisemitic bias….

 

“The IHRA definition of antisemitism has been adopted by more than 1,200 entities around the world and is the only definition of antisemitism that has been officially recognized and adopted by mainstream Jewish organizations, including the Jewish Federations of North America. It has also been formally adopted by 36 US states, 91 US cities and municipalities, the US State Department, and President Biden’s National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. 

 

“It has also been endorsed by over 160 Jewish communities and organizations from over sixty-five countries who believe it best describes the various forms of antisemitism and hatred encountered by Jewish people. Additionally, hundreds of universities, business enterprises, sports associations, civil society organizations, and other institutions have adopted it.”

 

Committee members against the recommendation said that the University of Illinois adopted a different definition (but did not name what this definition is) and said that academics took exception to the following four items in the IHRA section:

 

“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:”

 

  • 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.