The United Nations should respect human rights in its efforts to combat antisemitism and not adopt the controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism, 60 human rights and civil rights groups said in an open letter on Monday.
In the open letter ent to Secretary-General António Guterres and the High Representative for the UN Alliance of Civilizations Miguel Ángel Moratinos, the 60 groups said that antisemitism is pernicious, poses real harm to Jewish communities around the world, and requires meaningful action to combat it.
“As the UN develops its own action plan towards a coordinated and enhanced response to antisemitism rooted in human rights, we are aware that a number of Member State governments and organizations aligned with some of those governments, as well as the former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief Ahmed Shaheed, have been advocating that the UN adopt and use the “working definition of antisemitism” of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA),” the groups said in the letter, urging the UN “not to do so.”
The groups said that the IHRA definition was originally “developed to guide research and law enforcement data validation before being used by the IHRA in its work, which includes education about the Holocaust and antisemitism.”
Adoption of the definition by governments and institutions is “often framed as an essential step in efforts to combat antisemitism. In practice, however, the IHRA definition has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism, including in the US and Europe,” the groups noted.
“Such misuse has also been criticized by the former Special Rapporteur on Racism E. Tendayi Achiume.”
Ken Stern, the main drafter of the IHRA definition, recently reiterated his concerns about the institutional adoption of the definition in light of its proposed inclusion in an American Bar Association (ABA) draft resolution on antisemitism. Stern’s concern stems from the IHRA definition’s repeated use as “a blunt instrument to label anyone an antisemite.” In the end, ABA members adopted a resolution on antisemitism that did not reference the IHRA definition.
“Stern’s message to ABA applies equally to the UN,” the groups said.
The human rights and civil society organizations noted that those who use the IHRA definition in this way tend to rely on a set of eleven “contemporary examples of antisemitism” attached to the definition by the IHRA in 2016. Seven of those examples refer to ‘Israel’.
These examples, which are presented as possible illustrations and indicators to “guide the IHRA in its work”, include:
“denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination; e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” and
“applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
The groups said the first example “opens the door to labeling as antisemitic criticisms that Israeli government policies and practices violate the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the findings of major Israeli, Palestinian and global human rights organizations that Israeli authorities are committing the crime against humanity of apartheid against Palestinians.”
“This example could also be used to label as antisemitic documentation showing that Israel’s founding involved dispossessing many Palestinians; or arguments, also made by some Members of the Israeli Knesset, to transform Israel from a Jewish state into a multiethnic state that equally belongs to all of its citizens – that is, a state based on civic identity, rather than ethnic identity.”
The example on “applying double standards” opens the door to labeling as antisemitic anyone who focuses on “Israeli abuses as long as worse abuses are deemed to be occurring elsewhere. By that logic, a person dedicated to defending the rights of Tibetans could be accused of anti-Chinese racism, or a group dedicated to promoting democracy and minority rights in Saudi Arabia could be accused of Islamophobia.”
“This example suggests also that it is antisemitic to evaluate Israel as anything but a democracy, also when assessing its actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, where it has for more than half a century governed millions of Palestinians who have no say on the most consequential issues affecting their lives and who are deprived of their basic civil rights.”
The groups noted that the targets of accusations of antisemitism based on the IHRA definition have included university students and professors, grassroots organizers, human rights and civil rights organizations, humanitarian groups and members of the US Congress, who either document or criticize Israeli policies and who speak in favor of Palestinian human rights.
If the UN endorses the IHRA definition in any shape or form, UN officials working on issues related to ‘Israel’ and Palestine may find themselves unjustly accused of antisemitism based on the IHRA definition, they said.
Signatories include Human Rights Watch, Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Palestinian human rights group Al Haq, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), and dozens of other organizations.
The groups called the UN to “ensure that its vital efforts to combat antisemitism do not inadvertently embolden or endorse policies and laws that undermine fundamental human rights, including the right to speak and organize in support of Palestinian rights and to criticize Israeli government policies.”
