EDI Publications and Data

IHRA working definition of antisemitism

Queen Mary University of London is committed to creating a truly inclusive environment, building on our cherished cultural diversity, where students and staff flourish, reach their full potential and are proud to be part of the University. One aspect of this work is in investigating and addressing issues regarding racial bullying and harassment.

Queen Mary is committed to ensuring freedom of speech within the law for all students, staff and visiting speakers. Our Freedom of Speech Policy is set within the context of the University’s values and our commitment to promoting a strong collegial community, as well as diversity and inclusiveness. We are also committed to upholding the right to academic freedom for informed and balanced debate, and to meeting the University’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010 including in relation to our Public Sector Equality Duties.

Following a rise of antisemitism in society and on university campuses in the UK, Queen Mary considered the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism as a means of demonstrating that antisemitism has no place in our University, and a way of helping to promote greater understanding, awareness and tolerance across our university community through a deeper knowledge of how racism can manifest itself and therefore be addressed.

In October 2020, the Senate of Queen Mary University of London approved the adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, with two caveats recommended by the UK Parliament Home Affairs Committee in 2016 to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate. The two caveats recommended by the Home Affairs Committee in 2016 are:

• It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.
• It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.

IHRA working definition in full with Home Affairs Committee caveats

The IHRA working definition is included here in full, along with the Home Affairs Committee caveats.

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
 
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
 
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• 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.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
 
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
 
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

The two caveats recommended by the Home Affairs Committee in 2016 are:

• It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.
• It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.