UN – more organisations say NO to the IHRA definition of antisemitism
JVL Introduction
Human Rights Watch has relaunched its early April 2023 letter to the UN because so many more organisations want to sign, including Jewish Voice for Labour. We are publishing their Press Release and the letter with the full list of current signatories. So far 104 organisations that have signed and this number is growing all the time. Human Rights Watch consider that this is a crucial moment, while we await the UN Action Plan on antisemitism currently being developed by UNAOC High Representative Moratinos and expected in June. (as reported by HRW here).
The move to get the UN to adopt the IHRA’s “non binding working definition” is part of a move to see this as the gold standard for defining antisemitism, despite its many flaws and its rejection by numerous Jewish and non Jewish academics, jurists and political activists. JVL has worked since our inception and published many articles on this “definition”. It has the impact of silencing Palestinian voices who would likely be found guilty of antisemitism for describing their own experience as racism or apartheid. There is, however, growing unified support in opposition to IHRA’s endorsement by the UN.
This article was originally published by Human Rights Watch on Thu 20 Apr 2023. Read the original here.
UN: More Groups Address ‘Antisemitism’ Issue
Amnesty International Among 104 Urging Against Adopting Controversial Definition
Loading article text…
Excellent letter and great that Human Rights Watch and others are leading the fight back. But I do get frustrated that we sometimes hold back too much. We should be saying that, at one and the same time, the IHRA is a racist definition which fails to address many of the manifestations of antisemitism. It is racist as it defines virtually every Palestinian as anti-Semitic by defining almost any opposition to Israel’s oppression of Palestinians as anti-Semitic. And the woolly words of the definition itself say nothing about discrimination against Jewish people because they are Jewish.
You couldn’t have put a more convincing argument forward.
I cannot see the UN ignoring all this evidence and still voting to use the IRHA definition.
I remember reading and posting this back in January 2020, when the debate and arguments were raging.
Hugh Tomlinson QC
Condemns IHRA
https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/hugh-tomlinson-ihra/