Drafters dispute use of IHRA definition

IN the early 2000s a resurgence of antisemitic incidents, including violent attacks, swept through Europe, many in reaction to the 2001 UN World Conference on Racism in Durban at which Israel was widely denounced as an apartheid state and Zionism was equated with racism.

The inability of European nations to deal with the spike prompted the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) to release a report in 2004 which argued that data collectors needed a standard frame of reference for antisemitism.

Concluding that antisemitism was taking on new manifestations, a team of academic experts and representatives from major Jewish organisations came together to draft what is known today as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism. Among them was US antisemitism expert and lawyer, Kenneth Stern.

The definition included examples of where certain criticisms of Israel, such as holding it to higher standards than other countries or invoking the Holocaust or Nazism, could be construed as antisemitic.

In recent years, hailed by himself and others as “lead drafter” of the definition, Stern has outlined concerns over the definition being used to suppress academic freedoms and over its official adoption, claiming it is being ‘weaponised’ to restrict criticism of Israel.

His views – espoused as “lead drafter” – have been cited by many, including groups such as the New Israel Fund Australia to protest the Morrison government’s adoption of the IHRA definition.

But earlier this year, co-authors of the definition, Rabbi Andrew Baker, Deidre Berger and Michael Whine, contested Stern’s claim that he was “lead drafter”. And in an open letter, they shared a differing view of the use of the definition. They stated that while they firstly believed it would be a “useful tool for data collectors and diplomats to record antisemitic incidents,” in promoting and circulating the definition, “its use was neither defined or circumscribed”.

While they noted that it is primarily an “educational tool” to be used by “government, Jewish community, and other civil society monitors responsible for recording antisemitic incidents,” they added that they “are heartened by the Working Definition’s increased use and international recognition as the authoritative definition of antisemitism”.

Stern, however, argues that it should strictly retain its original purpose, telling The AJN this week that “it was never a question of let’s impose it in some places as a law,” rejecting any formal adoption of the definition.

In response to Scott Morrison announcing that the Australian government would adopt the definition – which is not expected to influence policy or law – Stern said, “When you give a particular definition a stamp of approval, even if it might not be fully adopted, it acts like a law.”

The government’s adoption of the definition was welcomed by Australian Jewish roof bodies, as well as the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, noting regular incidents of anti-Israel sentiment leading to antisemitic abuse and actions.

But while the stickler for free speech and academic freedom recognised the plight of Jewish students on campus, Stern insisted, “It doesn’t mean that we then decide that we’re going to jump on a bandwagon of trying to restrict speech.”

However, Rabbi Baker, Berger and Whine concluded, “While the threat of antisemitism in all its various forms is, sadly, as great as it was 15 years ago, this proper and comprehensive definition is now an essential element in our common fight against it.”

Australia/Israel Affairs Council director of international & community affairs Jeremy Jones, who worked on the definition, concurred, saying that while he respects Stern’s cautions against the “weaponisation” of the definition, its adoption has been widely supported in Australia.

Jones told The AJN, “The reality is that antisemitism is recognised as being wrong and deserving of sanction by a broad array of institutions and instrumentalities in Australia and the Working Definition is not only an appropriate, but the best available Working Definition to assist in determining whether particular actions, assertions and activities could be fairly regarded as having antisemitic intent or effect.”