Rescind the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
The Issue
We call upon all institutions and organisations that have adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism to rescind it, and to reject any replacements, including the Jerusalem Declaration, which are similarly flawed.
The IHRA definition is politically motivated and has been weaponised to suppress legitimate criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights. Seven of its eleven "examples" explicitly conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism—most notably, defining as antisemitic the description of Israel as a "racist endeavour." This attempts to silence opposition to the Israeli state's ethnonationalist structure, its apartheid policies, and the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Israel quite clearly is a racist state founded on supremacist policies, and the IHRA definition attempts to obscure this reality.
Promoted actively by the Israeli government, the IHRA definition serves to shield Israel from accountability while attacking free speech, protest, and human rights advocacy. It has enabled false accusations against students, academics, activists, and anti-Zionist Jews. It has been condemned by over 100 human rights organisations—including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B’Tselem, and the ACLU—and even by its original author, Kenneth Stern, who has publicly opposed its institutional adoption on the grounds that it endangers free speech.
Far from combatting antisemitism, the IHRA definition distorts the meaning of the term, undermining the fight against genuine anti-Jewish hate and fosters a dangerous hierarchy of racism. It is discriminatory against Arabs who are also Semitic people, marginalises Palestinian voices, delegitimises anti-Zionist Jewish perspectives, and violates fundamental freedoms protected under the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, and international law.
The International Court of Justice has found there is a plausible case of genocide being carried out by Israel. In this context, continuing to uphold a definition that obscures Israeli state violence and criminalises those who speak out against it, risks complicity in grave human rights violations.
Equality acts and anti-discrimination policies and laws are rendered ineffective if a definition is accepted that establishes the superiority of one group’s rights over others, serves to justify a racist entity founded on the suppression of others, and seeks to legitimise an illegitimate state.
We recognise that Israel is an apartheid state built upon the dispossession and subjugation of the Palestinian people. We insist upon our right to name and oppose this. We therefore demand that every public body and organisation takes a principled and determined stand against all forms of racism, including anti-Palestinian racism and antisemitism, and immediately rescinds any endorsement of the IHRA definition.
15
The Issue
We call upon all institutions and organisations that have adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism to rescind it, and to reject any replacements, including the Jerusalem Declaration, which are similarly flawed.
The IHRA definition is politically motivated and has been weaponised to suppress legitimate criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights. Seven of its eleven "examples" explicitly conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism—most notably, defining as antisemitic the description of Israel as a "racist endeavour." This attempts to silence opposition to the Israeli state's ethnonationalist structure, its apartheid policies, and the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Israel quite clearly is a racist state founded on supremacist policies, and the IHRA definition attempts to obscure this reality.
Promoted actively by the Israeli government, the IHRA definition serves to shield Israel from accountability while attacking free speech, protest, and human rights advocacy. It has enabled false accusations against students, academics, activists, and anti-Zionist Jews. It has been condemned by over 100 human rights organisations—including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B’Tselem, and the ACLU—and even by its original author, Kenneth Stern, who has publicly opposed its institutional adoption on the grounds that it endangers free speech.
Far from combatting antisemitism, the IHRA definition distorts the meaning of the term, undermining the fight against genuine anti-Jewish hate and fosters a dangerous hierarchy of racism. It is discriminatory against Arabs who are also Semitic people, marginalises Palestinian voices, delegitimises anti-Zionist Jewish perspectives, and violates fundamental freedoms protected under the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, and international law.
The International Court of Justice has found there is a plausible case of genocide being carried out by Israel. In this context, continuing to uphold a definition that obscures Israeli state violence and criminalises those who speak out against it, risks complicity in grave human rights violations.
Equality acts and anti-discrimination policies and laws are rendered ineffective if a definition is accepted that establishes the superiority of one group’s rights over others, serves to justify a racist entity founded on the suppression of others, and seeks to legitimise an illegitimate state.
We recognise that Israel is an apartheid state built upon the dispossession and subjugation of the Palestinian people. We insist upon our right to name and oppose this. We therefore demand that every public body and organisation takes a principled and determined stand against all forms of racism, including anti-Palestinian racism and antisemitism, and immediately rescinds any endorsement of the IHRA definition.
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 5 July 2025