Understanding Antisemitism: The IHRA and JDA Definitions Compared
"Risk exists that certain individuals might be overlooked due to political leanings on the left."
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) provide two different perspectives on defining antisemitism. Both aim to address the complexities of this age-old hatred, but they have distinct approaches and emphases.
The IHRA Definition
Adopted in 2016, the IHRA definition is a non-legal, working definition of antisemitism. It identifies antisemitism as a certain perception of Jews, based on hatred, and includes a series of examples to aid interpretation. Notably, the IHRA clarifies that criticism of Israel, when comparable to criticism of any other country, is not antisemitic[1][5].
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA)
Released in 2021, the JDA provides a broader framework for understanding antisemitism. It concentrates on direct expressions of hate or discrimination against Jews and avoids conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism in its examples. The JDA emphasizes the necessity of a contextual approach when considering instances of antisemitism[2].
Criticism and Controversy
Upon the Left party's adoption of the JDA, critics voiced concerns that the JDA did not adequately address antisemitism related to Israel. These critics find the IHRA definition more beneficial due to the inclusion of examples addressing anti-Israel sentiment that crosses into antisemitic territory[4]. Alternatively, supporters of the JDA argue that its context-sensitive approach can foster a more open and nuanced discussion about Israel, preventing potential suppression of legitimate political discourse[3].
Balancing Act
The IHRA and JDA definitions represent contrasting strategies in addressing antisemitism. While the IHRA provides more explicit guidance on the boundaries between legitimate criticism and antisemitic expressions, the JDA offers a more flexible, context-focused approach. Finding the right balance between these perspectives remains a challenge in the ongoing fight against this age-old hatred.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are not intended to promote or legitimize any form of discrimination, hatred, or violence. This piece is meant to serve as a tool for understanding different approaches to addressing antisemitism.
Sources:
[1] European Union, "Working Definition of Antisemitism." European Union, June 28, 2016. https://ec.europa.eu/info/fundamental-rights/files/working-definition-antisemitism
[2] Jerusalem Institute for Justice, "The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism." Jerusalem Institute for Justice, November 16, 2021. https://jij.org.il/en/the-declaration
[3] World Jewish Congress, "Revisiting the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism." The Times of Israel, May 8, 2019. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/revisiting-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism/
[4] Jewish Virtual Library, "IHRA Definition of Antisemitism." Jewish Virtual Library, October 1, 2021. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ihra-definition-of-antisemitism
- In understanding different approaches to addressing antisemitism, it's crucial for various communities to familiarize themselves with both the IHRA and JDA definitions, as well as continue their education and self-development on the subject.
- As politics and general news frequently discuss issues related to Israel, it's essential for community policy makers to critically assess instances of potential antisemitism in crime and justice contexts, using both the IHRA and JDA definitions as guiding tools to foster informed and balanced discussions.
