The American Bar Association (ABA) passed a resolution on February 6 that condemned antisemitism but omitted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, Jewish News Syndicate (JNS) reported.
The resolution stated that the ABA “should take a leadership role in opposing antisemitism, both in the United States and around the world,” including the denunciation of all instances of antisemitism and advocating governments and social media companies to take action against antisemitism. A provision adopting IHRA was removed; according to The Jerusalem Post, Human Rights Watch, Jewish Voice for Peace, the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Peace Now and Palestine Legal had been among the organizations urging the ABA to reject IHRA.
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Civil Rights Vice President Steven M. Freeman wrote in a February 1 letter to the ABA that the ADL applauded the resolution as “admirable” but is “disappointed” that the resolution doesn’t include IHRA. Freeman argued that IHRA is important in being able to identify antisemitism since it “has consistently taken the form of a totalizing conspiracy theory, adaptable to societies fears and anxieties, and their cynical weaponization, over time.” “The IHRA Working Definition does not undermine free speech or prohibit criticism of Israel,” Freeman said.
We thank @ABAesq for addressing #antisemitism with Resolution 514. Still, including the #IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism would better reflect how antisemitism manifests today. pic.twitter.com/i3SBdQV3bW
— ADL (@ADL) February 3, 2023
The American Jewish Committee (AJC) said in a statement, “AJC appreciates that the American Bar Association adopted a resolution to condemn antisemitism and commit the ABA toward taking a leadership role in fighting anti-Jewish hatred. It is an important statement at a time when antisemitism has risen to alarming levels in this country. At the same time, AJC is disappointed the resolution omits the widely recognized definition of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which provides clear guidance on what is antisemitism and what it is not. Some ABA members claimed the IHRA definition inhibits free speech because it considers all criticism of Israel antisemitic. That is false. Even a cursory reading of the definition would disprove that.”
The Simon Wiesenthal Center tweeted that the omission of IHRA from the resolution “will only enable more hatred from Jew and Israel haters and give cover to university bureaucrats and others to dodge their responsibility to hold bigots accountable.”
.@ABAesq's removal of @TheIHRA definition of #Antisemitism will only enable more hatred from Jew and Israel haters and give cover to university bureaucrats and others to dodge their responsibility to hold bigots accountable. https://t.co/m1kLMJSSLQ
— SimonWiesenthalCntr (@simonwiesenthal) February 8, 2023
The Jewish Federations of North America also said that while they lauded the resolution they were “disappointed” it didn’t include IHRA. “We look forward to continuing our engagement with ABA leadership – and across the legal community – to use IHRA to fully implement this resolution opposing and educating ABA members on antisemitism,” they added.
Jewish Federations applaud @ABAesq for considering a resolution that stands up against antisemitism. We are disappointed that it does not include @TheIHRA working definition, a tool we support that outlines modern manifestations of antisemitism. (1/2)
— The Jewish Federations of North America (@jfederations) February 2, 2023
We look forward to continuing our engagement with ABA leadership – and across the legal community – to use IHRA to fully implement this resolution opposing and educating ABA members on antisemitism. (2/2) pic.twitter.com/9d2kO3nvZh
— The Jewish Federations of North America (@jfederations) February 2, 2023
Human rights attorney and International Legal Forum CEO Arsen Ostrovsky said in a statement, “Although we acknowledge ABA’s condemnation of antisemitism, which is at record highs across America, such proclamation, in the absence of a recognized source offering guidance as to that which actually constitutes antisemitism, is no more than a symbolical statement of intent. Moreover, it affords the opportunity for those who seek to masquerade their antisemitism behind a façade of anti-Zionism or vilification of Israel, to do so.” He argued that IHRA is “the most widely endorsed and respected definition of antisemitism in the world, which has been adopted by over 35 countries, multilateral organizations & hundreds of civil society institutions” and that it’s “willfully misleading” to say that IHRA is used to censor criticism of Israel. “On the contrary, makes it explicitly clear that ‘criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic,’” Ostrovsky said. “However, IHRA also rightfully recognizes that modern antisemitism can manifest itself in the application of double standards to Israel, denying Jewish people the right to self-determination and other examples, such as drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” He concluded the statement by urging the ABA to “revisit this issue at the next possible occasion.”
