General Discussion

"new definition" but also the House bill passed last year. Although the Senate didn't pass it the push under Crumb the 1st and the rabid right in this country is to include an expanded view of criticism of Israeli government policy. As Nadler in the Senate mentioned about the bill sent to them by the House:

“Speech that is critical of Israel alone does not constitute unlawful discrimination,” Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said during a hearing Tuesday. “By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title VI’s ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly.” Nadler is referencing TitleVI which is our main Civil Rights Act from 1964.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-passes-bill-to-expand-definition-of-antisemitism-amid-growing-campus-protests-over-gaza-war

That expanded view is very much used in the US now by the rabid right in power with well known examples of people being questioned, detained, confined etc. for political speech that was not pro-Hamas but rather was highly critical of policy by Likud leaders.

Rep. Torres from New York disagrees with the concern of Nadler and others:

"Fellow New York Democrat Rep. Ritchie Torres, one of the 15 Democratic cosponsors of the bill, told NPR he finds that argument unconvincing.

"There's a false narrative that the definition censors criticism of the Israeli government. I consider it complete nonsense," Torres said in an interview with NPR.

"If you can figure out how to critique the policies and practices of the Israeli government without calling for the destruction of Israel itself, then no reasonable person would ever accuse you of antisemitism," he added."

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/02/1247374244/house-passes-bill-aimed-to-combat-antisemitism-amid-college-unrest

That last sentence is precisely the nub of this because the current rabid right wing leadership in both Israel and the US have taken steps toward that end of making critique of policy or critique of Zionism as being for the destruction of Israel. Whether by restrictions on the press in Israel for example or actions regarding political speech here in the US there are moves that, despite the bill not passing here, have gone into effect here in the US that goes beyond the IHRA document. That is the "new definition" I'm talking about.

Specifically about the IHRA I would note 2 items from their web site and make the point you asked about which one goes far in allowing people to equate criticism of policy with antisemitism and the other refutes it at the same time. First is this:

"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."

The second is this:

"However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."

Both are in this link: https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

Now my point with regard to those two statements is that I agree completely that some instances or comparisons of policy or actions would be abhorrent. But by the reasoning stated by IHRA themselves if the person making a comparison also makes those allegations against policy or conduct of other countries then it "cannot be regarded as antisemitic." I would simply point to the idea that in the US many people want to make any such talk to be forbidden speech and indeed if you go through US Customs/CBP etc. and they see your phone would have on it messages making these allegations against policy/actions of the Israeli government it would not matter to them that you also have similar messages about Myanmar, Yemen, Sudan, El Salvador etc. You are likely to have a rough time. I am not equating the situation in those countries with the Israel/Gaza issue I am merely saying if someone makes the comparison of more than just Israel then by the statement of the IHRA then neither the comparison nor the person making it should be considered antisemitic on that basis. A person could still be very antisemitic for other beliefs, actions or statements but not on that one.