The Causative Relationship Between IHRA and Anti-Palestinian Racism

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The latest iteration of this phenomenon can be found in a new framework that is being introduced in K-12 education called “anti-Palestinian Racism” (APR), a reaction to the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.  The relationship between IHRA and APR is one worth exploring, for it highlights how anti-Jewish activists learn from us — that if Jews can establish and operationalize a definition of antisemitism, architects of “Anti-Palestinian Racism” can do the same. 

It came as a tsunami, or so it seems. In the doldrums of the summer hours when school is out, radical activists in the garb of the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association drafted “Anti-Palestinian Racism: Naming, Framing, and Manifestations,” a report that details rhetoric and behavior deemed to be racist against Palestinians. It has already been adopted by the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) in a vote of 15-7. 

Scanning reactions from the organized Jewish community, a unified front mobilizes around the need to “urgently implore our school districts to adopt IHRA.” But what if IHRA, a working definition of antisemitism, is the action that created “anti-Palestinian Racism,” an equal and opposite reaction?  

One would assume that the creation of a definition emerges from a problem. The creation of this sub-type of racism, anti-Palestinian racism, presupposes a surge of racism directed at Palestinians. However, according to Axios, anti-Jewish hate crimes, which spiked in the fall of 2023 following the Oct. 7 massacre in Israel, have replaced Black Americans as the most targeted group in America’s ten largest cities. Claiming that “most people do not report these incidents [anti-Palestinian racist incidents] because of a fear of reprisal in their workplace or their profession,” drafters of the APR report no data on anti-Palestinian hate crimes directed at Palestinians in the West. Moreover, among Generation Z, support for Palestine and the Palestinian cause is rising. What then prompted the creation of this new — in their own words — “extension of Orientalism, anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia”?

The origin story of “anti-Palestinian racism” is located in California and the battle over the Liberated Ethnic Studies Curriculum in K-12 education in 2019. Tipped off about antisemitic tropes, demonization, and delegitimization of Israel within the curriculum, Jewish advocacy groups began to ring the alarm bells. Their warranted concerns compelled state officials to criticize the first draft of the ethnic studies curriculum sharply and ordered major revision by writers from the state Department of Education. 

Claiming the curriculum to be “anti-Jewish,” Jewish advocacy groups demanded school districts adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Their thinking? If schools had a working definition of antisemitism, this would function as a guardrail, thus preventing antisemitic content from reaching classrooms. Unlike “anti-Palestinian racism,” the IHRA definition emerged from a real surge in anti-Jewish hate crimes, which have been on the rise long before Oct. 7. Between 2021 and 2022, the number of antisemitic hate crimes increased by 36%, the highest ever recorded by the FBI. 

However, in addition to possibly birthing the “anti-Palestinian racism” framework, several problems emerge from IHRA. For scholars of antisemitism, enshrining and codifying a complex phenomenon such as antisemitism limits our ability to keep up with a hatred capable of evolving and shifting. Additionally, while the definition was adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), an international organization based in Stockholm, it has been challenging to adopt as many continue to see IHRA as a tool to target free speech. But the most dangerous “equal and opposite reaction” to IHRA may have come in the form of Anti-Palestinian Racism.

For scholars of antisemitism, enshrining and codifying a complex phenomenon such as antisemitism limits our ability to keep up with a hatred capable of evolving and shifting. 

Let us then examine the language used in IHRA and compare it to APR. According to the IHRA definition, “antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” To help guide policymakers, IHRA offers examples to illustrate antisemitism. Among the several examples are dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotyping Jews as a collective and 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, thus implying Jews are indigenous to Israel. 

What is anti-Palestinian racism? According to the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association, “anti-Palestinian racism is a form of anti-Arab racism that silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames or dehumanizes Palestinians or their narratives.” And just like IHRA, drafters of this new framework provide examples as a guide for what constitutes “anti-Palestinian racism.” Among the leading examples of forms of APR are “denying the Nakba, dehumanizing and defaming Palestinians, and failing to acknowledge Palestinians as indigenous people with a collective identity tied to a historic Palestine.”

Remarkably, several examples from the Anti-Palestinian Racism report function as foils to IHRA’s guiding examples. Take, for instance, that “failing to acknowledge Palestinians as indigenous people” and IHRA’S “denying the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland.” Or “defaming Palestinians as a terrorists threat” and IHRA’S “accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imaging wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person.” And finally, “denying the Nakba” and IHRA’S “accusing the Jewish people of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust” (i.e., denying the Holocaust). 

The plethora of examples of anti-Palestinian racism inspired by antisemitic canards should not come as a surprise. The antisemite projects onto the Jews their anxiety and fear while simultaneously appropriating antisemitic tropes to their culture. To wit, the antisemite has learned how to use our language and shared experiences against us. Are we to blame? 

In 1944, Polish-Jewish jurist Raphael Lemkin coined the term “genocide” in his work, “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.” Lemkin would later serve with a team of Americans working to prepare documents for the Nuremberg trials, where he was able to get the word “genocide” included in the indications against Nazi leadership. Seventy-eight years later, the word “genocide” is being used against the Jews vis-à-vis Israel. 

“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” is a critical reminder that our actions may have unsolicited consequences. Does this mean we stop advocating for ourselves, retreat to silos? Of course not. What it does mean is rethinking strategy. What has the creation of the IHRA definition given us? What will mandatory antisemitism training sessions achieve?  

The biggest delusion is thinking we can end Jew hatred. No, it exists in order to rectify the world, for the appearance of antisemitism is one of the early symptoms of a diseased system. To heal the system — be it an institution such as higher education or the government — we must think beyond antisemitism. This means thinking beyond ourselves and what’s in our best interest—thinking about what’s in the best interest of everyone, not just the Jews.

Naya Lekht received her Ph.D. in Russian Literature and wrote her dissertation on Holocaust literature in the Soviet Union. Naya is currently the Education Editor for White Rose Magazine and a Research Fellow for the Institute for Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy.