The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law hosted a bipartisan congressional briefing on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism on March 5, featuring a panel of experts in the field.
Moderated by Kenneth Marcus, the founder, chairman and CEO of the Brandeis Center, the briefing, titled “Understanding the IHRA’s Working Definition of Anti-Semitism: Why It Matters, How It Works, and Where It Makes a Difference,” explored how the use of this “international gold standard” can “better identify cases of anti-Semitism and protect Jewish communities.”
“We thought that we needed to reeducate many of the congressional staff and interns,” Karen Paikin Barall, the Brandeis Center’s chief policy officer, told Washington Jewish Week. “They told us that they had heard about the [IHRA] definition, but never really had the opportunity to understand how it works in practice and wanted to learn more about it, so we decided to do the briefing, partnering with the major Jewish organizations.”
The IHRA defines antisemitism as anti-Jewish scapegoating, stereotypes, conspiracy theories and discrimination, and includes denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination. Per the IHRA’s working definition, pegging Israel as a “racist endeavor” is antisemitic.
Dozens of countries and international organizations have adapted the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism. Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, the former special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, spoke to the definition’s bipartisan support and acceptance by the Biden administration in 2019, when it was adopted by the United States.
“This definition is 20 years old and the most widely accepted definition of antisemitism, and you can’t combat antisemitism unless you can define it,” Barall said. “It has withheld the test of time.”
She said that the IHRA definition is as applicable post-Oct. 7 as it was when it was first created.
“And the definition gives policymakers, universities, civil rights, a common language to recognize what antisemitism is — modern antisemitism — and when we can identify the problem clearly, we can enforce civil rights law and effectively protect Jewish students,” Barall added.
Sandra Hagee Parker, a panelist and the chair of Christians United for Israel Action Fund, also spoke to the importance of a standard definition of antisemitism.
“If I were an educator, I would say, ‘Thank you for giving me a guideline because this is a Herculean task and happens at such an increasing rate. I don’t know what [antisemitism] is,’ and we can’t rely on … ‘You’ll know it when you see it,’” Parker said at the briefing, referencing a phrase by the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart.
But the Brandeis Center’s staff feel that the IHRA definition isn’t used nearly enough, according to Barall.
“It’s definitely not being used in Congress enough,” Barall said. “Antisemitism is not going away. The rise of antisemitism is increasing and it’s even more timely now with the situation in the Middle East, in Iran.”
At the briefing, Marcus said the federal government and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights “largely flounder[ed]” for several years in the absence of an official definition of antisemitism. In response, Andrea Martin, an assistant professor of law at Penn State Dickinson Law and the co-founder of the Center for Jewish Legal Studies, brought a scholarly perspective to the panel.
“It is vital that we have a clear definition for antisemitism,” Martin said. “Why? Definitions are really important in the law. Judges need definitions for clarity. Why do we need it with antisemitism specifically? Because antisemitism is often misclassified, it’s misidentified and it’s misunderstood.”
Anti-Jewish hate is easily misclassified since it operates on multiple axes: national origin, religion and/or ethnicity, according to Martin. It can also be misidentified — as the world’s oldest form of hatred, antisemitism has evolved over time. “It started as religious hatred. It moved to racial hatred. It then transformed into ethnoreligious bigotry. And now, what we’re seeing today is hostility toward Jews that is based on Zionism,” Martin said. “So antisemitism can be difficult to identify because it changes.”
The IHRA working definition has ignited controversy as some claim that it prevents “valid criticism of Israel” and its policies, thus stifling the right to free speech. This definition of antisemitism “conflates protected political speech with unprotected discrimination,” according to a 2024 letter by the American Civil Liberties Union to the U.S. secretary of education.
Barall said this is a misconception. “The definition explicitly protects political debate and helps identify when criticism of Israel crosses into anti-Jewish or antisemitic discrimination or harassment,” she said.
“There is one type of speech that IHRA does shut down, and we have to acknowledge that it shuts down those who would claim any criticism of Israel is antisemitic,” Lipstadt said. “[The definition] says criticism of Israel does not necessarily constitute antisemitism.”
The briefing drew 50 attendees, including members of Jewish organizations, but mostly congressional offices, according to Barall.
“Even if we reached one or two people in the room, I am satisfied,” Barall said. “Judging from the questions and feedback we got, people really, really enjoyed the program and typically learned a lot. So I think it was successful.”
