The White House Should Have Been More Explicit in Adopting the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism

The White House released its National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism on May 25, 2023. The document outlines a comprehensive approach to combating antisemitism in the United States, including through education, law enforcement, and diplomacy.

Although the strategy is a significant milestone in the fight against antisemitism in the United States, it fails in one key respect: it makes only one reference to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, and it does not explicitly adopt the definition. This is a missed opportunity for the White House and United States Jewry, as the IHRA definition is widely accepted as the authoritative definition of antisemitism.

The White House should have been more explicit in adopting the IHRA definition for several reasons. First, the definition provides a clear and explicit understanding of what constitutes antisemitism. This can be helpful for law enforcement, educators, and others who need to identify and tackle antisemitic behavior.

Second, the IHRA definition is widely and increasingly accepted by governments, non-profit organizations, corporations, and individuals around the world. By adopting the IHRA definition, the White House would send a strong signal that the United States is committed to combating antisemitism, as understood by the mainstream of society, in all its forms.

Third, the IHRA definition is comprehensive. It recognizes that antisemitism can take many forms, including verbal abuse, physical violence, and discrimination, and can be cloaked in many veils, such as a supposed denunciation of “Zionism,” delegitimization of Israel’s right to exist as an independent state, and unfair and prejudicial efforts to make Israel a pariah, such as through the activities of the Boycott, Divest, Sanction (BDS) movement. This is important, as it ensures that all forms of antisemitism are addressed.

There are three specific steps the White House should take to adopt the IHRA definition:

• The White House should issue a statement explicitly adopting the IHRA definition;

• The White House should work with Congress to pass legislation that would require the government to use the IHRA definition in its efforts to combat antisemitism; and

• The White House should provide funding to organizations that are working to combat antisemitism and that use the IHRA definition.

By taking these steps, the White House would advance the battle against antisemitism, and also make clear that other definitions of antisemitism — such as the one proposed by Nexus, which does not accept the denunciation of Zionism as antisemitic —  is not an acceptable solution.

There are also several practical reasons why the White House should have explicitly adopted the IHRA definition. For example, the definition can be used to train law enforcement on how to identify and respond to antisemitic incidents. It can also be a helpful tool in schools and public settings to educate America’s youth and public figures about antisemitism and the violent dangers it has presented in the past and present.

The White House’s decision not to explicitly adopt the IHRA definition is a missed opportunity. It sends a mixed message about the United States’ goals and commitment to the fight against antisemitism. The White House should take steps to address this oversight, and to reaffirm its place in this fight.

Leel Sinai is an Israeli-American Attorney in New York City. He engages in Jewish and Israel advocacy through certain non-profit affiliations. The views expressed are his alone. 

The post The White House Should Have Been More Explicit in Adopting the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism first appeared on Algemeiner.com.