The IHRA working definition not fit for purpose
JVL Introduction
The claim by Lord Pickles, reported in the Jewish Chronicle, raises the abusive application of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism to new heights.
Lord Pickles alleges that a parliamentary motion, up for debate soon, “unambiguously falls within IHRA’s definition of antisemitism”.!
It is no less than a claim the definition rules out our right to discuss, in any shape or form, pro-Israel influence on our politics and our democracy.
There is a word for this: censorship.
Lord Pickles, remember, is not an innocent: he played a pivotal role in the UK’s adoption of the IHRA’s Working Definition of Antisemitism and headed the UK’s presidency of the organisation, which ended in 2025.
If ever-clearer proof was needed that what supporters of the IHRA working definition really care about isn’t fighting antisemitism but preventing Israel’s actions being scrutinised, this must be it!
This article was originally published by the Jewish Chronicle on Tue 16 Jun 2026. Read the original here.
Parliament’s ‘Israel lobby’ debate ‘falls within’ IHRA antisemitism definition, says Lord Pickles
Former Holocaust issues envoy warns Commons procedures are being ‘abused’ to legitimise known trope
The former chair of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has warned that House of Commons procedures are being “abused” to facilitate a debate based on an age-old antisemitic conspiracy theory.
Lord Pickles told the JC that a parliamentary motion scheduled for June 22 calling for a public inquiry into “pro-Israel influence on politics and democracy” falls squarely within the IHRA definition of antisemitism and risks legitimising a centuries-old anti-Jewish trope at a time of record levels of antisemitism in Britain.
He has suggested that the House of Commons should examine its procedures after the debate was granted when a petition surpassed the 100,000-signature threshold required for the petitions committee to consider it for debate.
The petition claims there is an “urgent need to scrutinise how pro-Israel organisations, networks, and lobbying efforts may shape government decisions, party policy, and public debate”.
But Pickles, who previously served as the UK’s special envoy for post-Holocaust issues and as communities secretary in David Cameron’s cabinet and currently chairs the Lords’ group of Conservative Friends of Israel, said the petition’s very premise was antisemitic.
“The motion unambiguously falls within IHRA’s definition of antisemitism,” he told the JC.
“At a time of rising Jew hatred on our streets, the House of Commons procedures are being abused to debate an antisemitic trope as old as the hills. I believe it brings deep shame to the Mother of Parliaments.”
The government formally adopted the IHRA definition and all 11 of its examples in December 2016. While there have previously been calls to enshrine the framework in law, it is currently a non-legally binding educational tool.
Pickles’ intervention follows Jewish communal organisations citing concern that the debate could lend parliamentary legitimacy to antisemitic narratives.
Russell Langer, director of public affairs at the Jewish Leadership Council, told the JC: “This petition is based on an antisemitic conspiracy theory and has been amplified by those seeking to cause further division. We therefore wrote to the committee earlier this year to request this petition was taken down.
“Since then, we have had the Golders Green attack and a Downing Street summit to discuss how to tackle antisemitism across society. This only makes it more absurd that this petition is getting the respectability of a parliamentary debate.
“If those speaking in this debate, including from the front benches, are sincere in their efforts to fight antisemitism, they will be clear in linking the rhetoric in this petition to the increased threat to the Jewish community.”
Danny Stone MBE, chief executive of the Antisemitism Policy Trust, urged parliamentarians to avoid engaging with antisemitic tropes during the debate and said it was “the responsibility of every decent parliamentarian to go in and ensure that the particular historical resonance surrounding the charge of undue influence when it comes to Jews, is not engaged by any of their colleagues within the context of this debate”.
“They might also point out that there are lobbies for many countries, Israel being one of them. It is unexceptional in that regard. Too often Israel is singled out as uniquely powerful or evil – an antisemitic framing.”
“No doubt Parliament and the government in its response will wish to set the standard in showing how Israel can and should be treated – like any other member of the UN,” Stone added.
The petitions committee’s chairman, Liberal Democrat MP Jamie Stone, had previously defended the decision not to reject the petition, citing similar debates about Russian and Chinese influence on British politics.
Wow! There is something malevolently insidious that allows pro-israel lobby groups to redefine UK policies. If MPs accept funds from any lobby group that practices apartheid, ethnic cleansing etc they have already shown political bias. Also it allows these dark forces to mould UK policies. We have seen it in the US with AIPAC.
Again you see a man who like others has europeanised his ideaology.
Every criticism and concerns of Israel is met with antisemitism robotic language.
There is a battle here waging between zionism and judaism. Where zionism requires ultimate assimilation. This modern monster values its vanity more than judasim. Judasim is just a cloak, a mask to perpetuate fascists, racists ethnic cleanising. The genocide which is being greeted with ‘your antisemitic’. It monopolises the Holacaust and messanic text as if the 2 are connected or the people involved connected to these events.
How can one say one historical horror is more worthy than others?!
I urge everyone to read Kenneth Stern’s views(the chief drafter) of the IRHA definition and how it is used/manipulated. Also in 1942 a group of Jewish Scholars wrote an open letter to the New York Times regarding the Deir Yassin massacre under Begin. The language they used were fascists and nazi ideaology. Are you trying to tell me Einstein or Arendt were antisemitic?
We often hear this claim that anti-Jewish hate is rising or at an all time high. In fact there is no evidence of this, YouGov surveys show that what has greatly increased is negative views about Israel, not antisemitism.
We also hear that anti-Jewish hate crimes have dramatically increased. Again, surprisingly, there is no reliable evidence concerning this claim either. Police recorded hate crimes against Jewish people have indeed increased, but all that is required for Police staff to record a motivation of antisemitism is victim perception, not evidence.
In analyses of CST reports on your website we read that over 80% of incidents in 2023 related to Israel, and the CST attribution of antisemitism to many incidents where details were available has been contested. It has been shown that only a small minority of specific anti- Israel sentiments are associated with antisemitism, yet pro-Israel groups have wrongly convinced many British Jewish people that most criticisms of Israel are antisemitic.
It seems that one purpose for such manufactured exaggeration, and the IHRA use, is to better silence Israel’s critics, even during a genocide. Another seems to be to impede legitimate scrutiny of Israel’s influence on our democracy, beyond obvious donations and trips to Israel. It won’t work.
I was looking at the previous entry on the site and seeing how ‘UK Lawyers for Israel’ defines its actions and objectives. It would seem that according to Lord Pickles and his allies even alleging the existence of such an organisation would constitute an antisemitic trope.
Putting to one side for the moment, the many reasons why the IHRA definition has been disowned by so many Jewish and non-Jewish people …
According to a recent email received from a US Jewish organisation, 63% US Jews are now non-Zionist. Presumably they feel the IHRA definition is irrelevant to them.
And isn’t the percentage of non-Zionist Jews in this country rising and now close to /at the point where a large minority of the UK Jewish population becomes the majority? So they probably feel the same way.
It doesn’t seem reasonable for Lord Pickles to insist UK institutions and public genuflect to the IHRA definition when so much of it has been rejected by so many of those it claims to protect.