Campaigning against the IHRA definition in the US

JVL Introduction

Palestine Legal is a campaigning organisation that protects the civil and constitutional rights of people in the U.S. who speak out for Palestinian freedom.

It records two important campaigns in the month of January, the first one involving a notable success with regard to the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights.

This body has released a new fact sheet describing protections that cover students who are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, or of another religious group – resisting years of demands by pro-Israel groups and right-wing politicians for the Biden administration to further entrench the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

The second is a call on the American Bar Association (ABA) to remove reference to the this Working Definition  in a proposed resolution on antisemitism.

[Note: Palestine Legal does not believe in brief headlines!]

Palestine Legal Welcomes Ed Dept’s Decision to Combat Antisemitism Without IHRA Definition In New Factsheet

05 January 2023

The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights has released a new fact sheet describing protections that cover students who are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, or of another religious group.

The fact sheet comes after years of demands by pro-Israel groups and right-wing politicians for the Biden administration to further entrench the Trump-endorsed IHRA definition of antisemitism. The Israel lobby has demanded that Biden’s Education Department enshrine the distorted definition in federal regulations.

“We are reassured to see the Department do the right thing: avoid reference to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and focus resources on addressing threats of bigotry by white supremacists,” said Palestine Legal attorney Liz Jackson. “Antisemitism is frightening, especially with the resurgence of right-wing nationalism and racism of all kinds.”

“The experts at the Department are right to address the threat of antisemitism alongside other forms of racism. They are right that censoring Palestinians does nothing to combat antisemitism.”

The newly released fact sheet focuses on real threats, such as the resurgence of Nazism targeting Jewish students, hurling “terrorist” as a racist slur against Muslims, and violence against Sikh students wearing turbans.

Labeling all criticism of Israel’s behavior as antisemitism is a distraction. The real fight against antisemitism must be joined to the struggles against racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, etc, as well as to the struggle for equality and human rights for all people.

Civil rights experts at the U.S. Department of Education know that no other form of discrimination has a fixed or codified definition in law because identifying discrimination depends on factual context, and it shifts over time. Even Trump’s Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos acknowledged this.

Jackson emphasized, “As pressure from the Israel lobby escalates demands that the Department of Education twist civil rights law to redefine antisemitism and censor Palestinians, we appreciate the Office for Civil Rights for keeping their focus on the real work: protecting all vulnerable students.”

Civil rights orgs resist right-wing campaign to silence campus Palestine solidarity

The Department has faced heavy pressure from the Israel lobby to attack Palestinians by adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which defines criticism of Israel as antisemitic.

Palestine Legal, along with 16 civil rights organizations, laid out in a letter to the Department’s Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Llahmon on August 31, 2022,  how the IHRA definition is a tool to censor Palestinians and their allies, in violation of the First Amendment

The IHRA definition would have shut down events, canceled university classes, and punished students and professors for speaking about life as a Palestinian.

Many Palestinians bear the scars of 1948, when they were ethnically cleansed from the land that became the Israeli state. IHRA would define Palestinian stories as a denial of Jewish self-determination—a ridiculous and harmful conclusion.

Palestinians continue to face racism on US campuses, at the borders, and inside occupied Palestine. IHRA would define Palestinian descriptions of their daily life as discrimination against Jews. That is gaslighting, and unlawful censorship.

Meanwhile Israel has embraced its most fascistic government yet and violence against Palestinians is expected only to escalate. In this context it should be especially clear that anything like the IHRA definition restricting what Palestinians can say about their conditions is not viable as a policy.

40+ Civil and Human Rights Groups to ABA: Controversial IHRA Definition Deployed to Target Advocacy for Palestinian Rights Should Have No Part in Resolution on Antisemitism

23 January 2023

Last week, Palestine Legal joined more than 40 civil rights, human rights, and grassroots organizations in calling on the American Bar Association (ABA) to remove reference to the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition on Antisemitism in a proposed resolution on antisemitism.

The letter, signed by the ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, among several dozen other organizations, notes that “the IHRA definition has been used consistently (and nearly exclusively) not to fight antisemitism, but rather to defend Israel and harm Palestinians – at the cost of undermining and dangerously chilling fundamental rights of free speech, freedom of assembly and protest, and academic freedom.” It warns that the ABA’s embrace of the IHRA definition would legitimize this infringement on core democratic rights as well as undermine the ABA’s own ability to engage on issues related to Palestinian rights.

The ABA’s House of Delegates will consider proposed policy Resolution 514 on antisemitism at its meeting during the first week in February. The Resolution states that the ABA urges governments at all levels in the U.S. “to condemn antisemitism as referred to in the IHRA working definition of antisemitism . . . .” The Resolution is co-sponsored by ABA entities, including the Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice, Coalition on Racial and Ethnic Justice, Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, International Law Section, and Senior Lawyers Division. It is also co-sponsored by the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association.

Palestine Legal and the Center for Constitutional Rights sent a supplemental letter, providing additional context and examples of how proponents of the IHRA definition use it to censor protected expression in support of Palestinian rights. The examples, which include efforts to threaten and censor educational events, university classes, film screenings, student resolutions to divest from entities profiting from human rights violations, and similar expressive activity, demonstrate how the IHRA definition infringes on fundamental rights and perpetuates anti-Palestinian racism.

“The inclusion of the IHRA definition in proposed Resolution 514 would implicate the ABA in the censorship of constitutionally protected expression and anti-Palestinian discrimination,” said Palestine Legal Senior Staff Attorney, Meera Shah. “The ABA should stand firm in its commitment to the rule of law and justice for all and refuse to endorse a definition that has been weaponized against Palestinians, critics of Israel, and human rights defenders.”

The IHRA definition dangerously conflates criticism of the Israeli state with antisemitism and is routinely deployed to censor those who speak out in support of Palestinian rights. Seven of the 11 contemporary guiding examples attached to the IHRA definition concern Israel, including “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” and “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” These guiding examples falsely conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism and have been weaponized to smear anti-Zionism and support for Palestinian rights as per se antisemitic. Under this definition, Palestinians telling their stories of dispossession and discussing the racism they face as Palestinians could be punished for anti-Jewish discrimination, an absurd and unlawful result.

If you are a member of the ABA and would like to connect with others working to oppose the IHRA reference in the proposed ABA resolution, please reach out, and we can connect you.

For more information, check out our resource page on the Distorted IHRA Definition and our 2-pager with JVP Action.