Israel renewed its political attack on New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani just one day after he took office.
The trigger was his decision to lift restrictions on boycotts of Israel and revoke New York City’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Both moves were among several executive orders issued by former Mayor Eric Adams that Mamdani chose to overturn.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry said Mamdani “revealed his true face” by removing the IHRA definition.
It claimed the move would “fuel antisemitism.”
The backlash pushed a long-running debate back into the spotlight.
What is the IHRA definition?
And why do many academics, civil rights groups, and even its original author warn it endangers free speech?
What is the IHRA?
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance is an intergovernmental body. Sweden, the UK, and the United States launched it in 1998.
Its stated mission focuses on Holocaust education, research, and remembrance.
Today, the IHRA includes 29 European countries, along with Israel, the US, Canada, Australia, and Argentina.
Member states agree on policies during biannual meetings.
In 2016, during a plenary meeting in Bucharest, the IHRA adopted a “working definition” of antisemitism.
The IHRA definition states:
“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.”
The definition comes with 11 illustrative examples meant to guide its application.
Seven of those examples focus on Israel.
They include describing Israel as a “racist endeavour” or applying “double standards” to Israeli behavior.
Critics say this is the core problem.
Why is it Problematic?
Rights organizations and activists, including Jewish anti-zionist groups and activists, argue the IHRA definition blurs the line between antisemitism and political criticism of Israel.
They stress that it conflates hatred of Jews with opposition to Zionism or Israeli state policy.
The definition has already shaped policy decisions. Several UK universities canceled pro-Palestine events after adopting it. Israeli Apartheid Week events faced bans under claims of antisemitism.
In one case, when the University of Central Lancashire canceled such an event, a senior pro-Israel figure described it as a “turning point” in stopping criticism of Israel on campuses.
A senior Israeli diplomat later admitted that the real power of the IHRA lies in its examples, not its short core definition.
Another senior figure at a major US pro-Israel organization went further.
He said, “Essentially the definition is the examples.”
The Author’s Warning
Kenneth Stern wrote the original definition in 2004.
He worked with other academics for the American Jewish Committee.
Stern designed it for European data collectors. Its goal was to help monitor antisemitism trends, not regulate speech.
In 2019, Stern publicly warned against using the definition on university campuses.
He said "right-wing groups" had weaponized it.
During a US congressional hearing in 2018, Stern said the definition risked a “chilling effect” on free speech.
He stressed it was never meant to police political debate.
Academics across the world echo that warning.
Many Jewish scholars also oppose the definition’s current use.
In 2020, a year-long study by University College London found the IHRA definition caused anxiety among students and staff.
It discouraged open discussion on Israel and Palestine.
The study concluded the definition chilled debate.
In 2024, UCL academics called for its replacement with a framework “fit for purpose.”
Legal experts also raised alarms.
They warned the definition could curtail debate and undermine academic freedom.
Adoption Under Pressure
Despite the criticism, adoption has expanded rapidly.
More than 1,200 entities worldwide now endorse or apply the IHRA definition. They include countries, cities, universities, NGOs, and political parties.
In the UK, both the Conservative and Labour parties adopted it. Universities faced warnings over potential funding cuts if they refused.
In the United States, it has been adopted at multiple levels of government and institutions. A 2019 US presidential executive order directed federal agencies to consider the IHRA definition when enforcing civil‑rights law under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Several states—37 by mid‑2023—have formally adopted or endorsed the IHRA definition through legislation, resolutions, or executive actions, and many US cities and counties have done the same. Some universities, including Harvard, also adopted the definition as part of settlements to address campus discrimination claims.
A Deeper Historical Debate
The controversy also touches a deeper question.
"What is antisemitism and who are semites?"
The term traces back to the Bible’s Book of Genesis. It refers to the descendants of Shem, son of Noah.
Historically, Semitic peoples include Arabs, Israelites, Canaanites, and others. They share linguistic and geographic roots across West Asia and North Africa.
Several scholars, including Egyptian thinker Abdel Wahab Elmessiri, noted that many European Jews descend from converts. They do not share the same ethnic Semitic lineage.
Despite this, modern political discourse narrowed “antisemitism” to mean hostility toward Jews alone.
In 1879, German journalist Wilhelm Marr popularized the term “antisemitism”. He used it to frame hatred of Jews as racial, not religious.
This shift allowed discrimination to persist even when religious intolerance declined.
It fueled racial theories that later shaped Nazi ideology.
In the late 19th century, antisemitic movements spread across Germany, Austria, and Hungary. They gained political power and institutional backing.
These ideas later reached their most extreme form under Adolf Hitler.
Zionism and Political Use
Zionist leaders later used European antisemitism to argue Jews could never integrate.
They promoted the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine under colonial sponsorship.
As resistance to Zionism grew, accusations of antisemitism shifted toward Arabs and Palestinians.
The term began to target political opposition, not racial hatred.
Historical studies show Jewish communities lived for centuries across the Arab and Islamic world.
They integrated socially and culturally and did not face the ghettos or legal exclusion common in Europe.
After Israel’s creation in 1948 and the expulsion of around 700,000 Palestinians, resistance rose.
The term “antisemitism” gained new political weight.
Why Activists Push Back
Today, rights groups and activists stress that the IHRA definition continues this trend.
They say it shields Israel from accountability by framing criticism as hatred. They also warn it weakens free expression and restricts discussion of Palestinian history, displacement, and occupation.
For many, Mamdani’s decision signals resistance to that pressure.
The debate now extends far beyond New York.
It cuts to the heart of speech, power, and who gets to define the limits of political debate.
