What is the controversial definition of antisemitism that institutions are being told to adopt?

Antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal released a plan last week with 49 steps to tackle rising discrimination against Jewish Australians. At the core of the report is a definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which has become a lightning rod for criticism.

Segal’s recommendation to embed the alliance’s definition in all public institutions last week came after a host of antisemitic attacks across Australia this year, including the doors of the East Melbourne synagogue being set alight earlier this month, and children at Jewish schools in Sydney being harassed with calls of “Heil Hitler”.

Special envoy to combat antisemitism Jillian Segal has urged all Australian public institutions to adopt the IHRA definition.Credit: Dylan Coker

However, pro-Palestinian and some human rights organisations fear the definition may stifle legitimate criticism of Israel and its government by tying antisemitism to anti-Zionism, limiting free speech.

So what is the definition? How widely used is it? And why has it become controversial?

What is the IHRA, and its definition of antisemitism?

The alliance was established by the Stockholm International Forum, a series of conferences held between 2000 and 2004, and convened by then-Swedish prime minister Göran Persson.

The conferences were held to combat “the growth of extreme right-wing groups” that were spreading propaganda in schools, and to address a survey of Swedish young people that found knowledge of the Holocaust “was deficient and that a large number of teenagers were not even certain that it had taken place”, according to the Swedish government.

There are now 35 member states of IHRA, including Australia, Israel, the UK and the US, all of which adopted a “non-legally binding working definition” of antisemitism in May 2016.

The definition adopted by the alliance states:

“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.”

While the definition itself has largely been viewed as uncontroversial, subsequent “examples of antisemitism in public life” published alongside the definition have been criticised as limiting freedom of speech.

Among the 11 examples provided by IHRA are “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination ... by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”, “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”, and “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel”.

Where is the definition already used?

In February, following recommendations from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, 39 universities represented by Universities Australia “unanimously endorsed” a definition of antisemitism that, while different, drew heavily from the IHRA definition. However, some universities have not yet adopted the definition.

The Universities Australia definition states that criticism of Israel is not “in and of itself antisemitic”, but that “criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes”.

Almost every nation in Europe has adopted the definition, with the UK taking it on as a non-legally binding “tool” in 2016. They were followed by France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Switzerland. The United States has also adopted the definition in a similar capacity.

What is the government’s definition of antisemitism?

Australia does not have a codified definition of antisemitism. However, in 2021, the Morrison government and Labor, under then-opposition leader Anthony Albanese, endorsed the definition.

During a Zoom meeting hosted by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry in 2021, Albanese said the IHRA definition “is one that we have reaffirmed”.

“The Labor Party has [endorsed the definition] and that is our view. It is critical that there be leadership on those issues. Leadership against any form of racism,” he said.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his government was considering the recommendations in the special envoys report.Credit: Dylan Coker

Defence industry minister Pat Conroy, speaking on ABC’s Insiders on Sunday, reaffirmed the government’s support for the definition.

But the government has largely avoided questions about how it would apply the definition to examples. Conroy said he “wouldn’t get into” conversations regarding whether it was racist to call for a one-state solution.

A one-state solution would see the unification of Israel and Palestinian territories into a single nation. What form that would take is contested by various groups.

Calls for a one-state solution could be seen to be antisemitic through an interpretation of the examples provided in the IHRA definition, which include “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.”

Who supports and opposes the definition?

Both the Zionist Federation of Australia and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry support Segal’s recommendations, with the co-CEO of the latter, Alex Ryvchin, saying the IHRA definition was “a very useful guide”.

“The definition recognises the fact that antisemitism comes in various forms, that historically it’s been directed to Jews as a people or a religious group, and that the same sort of conspiracies and stereotypes can now be redirected towards Israel, and the way that the Jewish people as a collective are spoken about,” Ryvchin said.

Ryvchin called framing of the definition as one that stifles free speech “a nonsense”, pointing to an example provided alongside the definition which says that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”.

Alex Ryvchin, the Co-CEO of The Executive Council of Australian Jewry.Credit: James Brickwood

“It’s protecting people who want to legitimately criticise a government, government policies, politicians, and it says that cannot be considered antisemitic,” said Ryvchin. “But it also recognises the fact that things are said, when it comes to Israel, that are said about no other country on Earth.”

He claimed pushback against the definition’s adoption was part of a “deliberate campaign” to undermine the “fight against antisemitism”.

The Jewish Council of Australia released a statement rejecting Segal’s plan, with specific reference to IHRA’s definition, which it described as “widely discredited” and said “has been used to silence legitimate criticism of Israel and Zionism”.

Amnesty International Australia released a statement last week calling the IHRA definition “deeply flawed”, while condemning recent attacks on the Jewish community.

The human rights organisation said the definition’s adoption would embolden governments to “stifle growing opposition to Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza” and that the broader plan could be “weaponised to censor protest and dissent”.

Why are people concerned about the weaponisation of the definition?

Kenneth Stern, the lead drafter of the definition, who has subsequently become a vocal critic of its formalised adoption, described the Australian government’s perceived adoption of the definition as a “disaster”.

“When you make things a free-speech fight, that’s a problem. What I started seeing, back around 2010 in the United States, is the definition was being weaponised to go after pro-Palestinian speech,” Stern said on ABC’s RN Breakfast on Monday morning.

“When you start having official definitions of what is a particular type of hatred that leads to, you know, problems that are, in my country at least, the United States, reminiscent of McCarthyism.”

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said that Stern was “probably right that any definition will be weaponised”.

“But I think it’s also true that in the current climate, even if there were no definition, it would be weaponised in different ways.”

Speaking on ABC’s 7.30 on Monday, Burke said that he found the definition helpful as a tool to ensure decisions taken by his department were “in no way involving antisemitism”, particularly when it came to the application of double standards.

Responding to earlier criticism from Stern, Segal told ABC RN Breakfast last week that “Kenneth Stern has been left behind”.

“That definition is the globally accepted definition of antisemitism. Of course, there are always criticisms, but there are criticisms of everything,” Segal said, adding that she had not sought views from Stern on adopting the definition.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.