Reading time : 5 minutes
By Feroze Mithiborwala
1 December 2025, The political battle over the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) “working definition” of antisemitism has become one of the most consequential free-speech fights of our time. What was once a niche European document — drafted for the limited purpose of guiding monitoring, not policing speech — has metastasized into a weapon used by states, lobby groups, and university administrations to suppress dissent on Israel, silence Palestinian advocacy, and intimidate academics.
But the newest developments in the United States and Europe have revealed an even deeper problem: codifying the IHRA definition does not only threaten political speech — it threatens religious liberty, academic integrity, and could even be deployed to censor passages from the New Testament.
This is no fringe concern. It has been raised by civil-liberties organisations, Jewish scholars, Christian bodies, constitutional attorneys, and even members of the U.S. Congress. The coalition opposing IHRA’s codification is politically diverse but united around one core principle: a definition of antisemitism cannot be allowed to function as a speech-policing instrument that rewrites political discourse — or sacred texts.
I. How IHRA Became a Tool for Political Control
The IHRA definition appears innocuous enough at first glance — a vague, catch-all description of antisemitism accompanied by a list of “examples,” seven of which concern criticism of Israel rather than Jews as Jews.
The single most important person to understand this evolution is Kenneth S. Stern, the lead drafter of the original text. Stern has spent years warning lawmakers that his work is being dangerously misused. As he wrote:
- “The ‘working definition of antisemitism’ was never intended to be a campus hate-speech code. When so used it is an attack on academic freedom and free speech, and will harm not only pro-Palestinian advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the academy itself.” — Kenneth S. Stern
Stern’s warning is clear: IHRA was not drafted as a legal instrument. It was never meant to be used to fire professors, ban speakers, or criminalize political advocacy. Yet that is precisely how powerful interests have deployed it.
II. Civil Liberties Organisations: IHRA Is a Direct Threat to Free Speech
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been one of the strongest voices warning Congress against converting IHRA into law. In its formal opposition to the Antisemitism Awareness Act — legislation that folds IHRA into Title VI enforcement — the ACLU wrote that it:
- “would chill free speech of students on college campuses and undermine First Amendment protections.” — ACLU
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), the largest free-speech organisation in American academia, was equally direct. It described IHRA-based legislation as:
- “An unconstitutional effort to police political speech, particularly around Israel and Palestine.” — FIRE
Civil-liberties groups see IHRA not as a protection against prejudice, but as a political instrument for suppressing criticism of a foreign state.
III. Christian Churches and Theologians: IHRA Is Vague, Politicised, and Dangerous
One of the most significant institutional critiques came from the World Council of Churches (WCC), representing over half a billion Christians. In its official declaration on the definition, the WCC warned that IHRA is:
- “Unhelpfully vague” and “tends towards providing support to those who would portray any criticism of Israeli government policies as antisemitic.” — World Council of Churches (WCC)
The WCC did not frame the issue solely in political terms — it insisted that IHRA threatens legitimate Christian theological discourse. For centuries, Christian theologians have debated Jewish-Christian relations, the context of Jesus’ ministry, and the political dynamics of first-century Judea. Under IHRA’s “examples,” such scholarship can be misidentified as antisemitic simply because it touches on Jewish leadership structures or Roman-era conflicts.
But some critics have gone further.
IV. The New Testament Problem: If IHRA Is Codified, Biblical Verses Become “Hate Speech”
During the U.S. Congressional debate over the Antisemitism Awareness Act, the possibility that IHRA could criminalize Biblical citation triggered one of the most explosive debates in modern American religious politics.
1. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL)
Gaetz warned that the IHRA-based law could “literally deem the Bible antisemitism.” Citing passages from the Book of Acts and the Pauline epistles, he argued:
- “The Bible is clear. There is no myth or controversy on this. Therefore, I will not support this bill.” — Matt Gaetz
2. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA)
Greene, drawing on traditional Gospel narratives, declared:
- “This bill could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews.” — Marjorie Taylor Greene
3. Theologians and Religious Academics
While mainstream theologians have been cautious in their wording, conservative scholars such as Ben Dunson (Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary) noted in public commentary that:
- “The New Testament says things that are antisemitic according to the IHRA’s definition, and will therefore be in violation of federal anti-discrimination law.” — Ben Dunson
William Wolfe, a leader at the Centre for Baptist Leadership, was even more blunt:
- “This bill will criminalize Christianity.” — William Wolfe
Although these critics come from the theological right rather than the progressive left, their warnings underscore a profound point: IHRA’s vague language is so expansive that it can threaten even canonized religious texts.
V. Why This Matters for Progressives: Freedom of Religion Is a Left Principle
Progressive critics must avoid the trap of thinking that religious freedom belongs only to the right. The left’s intellectual history — from Thomas Paine to Frederick Douglass to Martin Luther King Jr. — is rooted in a fierce defence of religious liberty as a core component of human freedom.
IHRA’s codification threatens:
1. Freedom of Expression
Criticism of a state — Israel, America, India, Britain, or any other — is the essence of free political speech. IHRA’s examples, particularly those conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, function as a state-sponsored speech code.
2. Academic Freedom
Research on the political history of Zionism, settler colonialism, or the Nakba becomes “suspect.” Professors have already been disciplined for teaching mainstream scholarship.
3. Freedom of Religion
If IHRA is interpreted broadly, millions of Christians could be targeted for quoting scripture. This includes passages such as:
- John 8:44 — “You are of your father the devil …”
- 1 Thessalonians 2:14–15 — “the Jews … who killed the Lord Jesus.”
- Acts 7:51–52 — Stephen’s rebuke of the Temple authorities.
Progressives may or may not endorse these verses theologically — but defending freedom of religion means defending the right to cite, interpret, and debate scripture without the interference of the state. Moreover, all religious texts contain texts and scriptures that are or could be offensive to the beliefs and practices of the other. In that context, all religious scriptures need to be looked at and none singled out.
4. The Right to Critique Nationalism
Judaism is a religion; Zionism is a political ideology. IHRA collapses the two into one, threatening the long tradition of Jewish anti-Zionist critique — from Hannah Arendt to Rabbi Elmer Berger and Hajo Meyer, to today’s Norman Finklestein, Ilan Pappe’, Jewish Voice for Peace amongst so many more.
VI. Jewish and Israeli Scholars Against IHRA
Some of the most forceful critics of IHRA are Jewish intellectuals and Israeli academics who insist on protecting open debate. Dozens of Jewish scholars drafted the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) precisely to counter IHRA’s weaponization.
Their critique was clear: IHRA is vague, politicized, and prone to abuse.
One of the JDA drafters noted that IHRA:
- “creates conceptual confusion and is routinely used to shut down criticism of Israeli state policies.”
Hundreds of Holocaust scholars, including Yehuda Bauer, Omer Bartov, and Amos Goldberg, have similarly rejected IHRA’s political uses.
VII. The Progressive Case Against IHRA
A progressive critique must be rooted in the principles that define our politics:
1. Anti-racism that is universal
Antisemitism is real, dangerous, and must be fought without compromise. But using antisemitism as a shield for apartheid, state violence, genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass murder of children, torture, collective punishment and starvation is itself a form of racism.
2. Anti-colonial solidarity
Palestinian liberation movements, Jewish anti-Zionist traditions, and global anti-imperialist struggles are threatened by IHRA’s restrictive framework.
3. A materialist critique of power
IHRA defines antisemitism not by social prejudice or political structures but by the subjective feelings of a nuclear-armed state. This is not anti-racism; it is state propaganda.
4. Internationalism
IHRA has been used to criminalize solidarity protests from London to Berlin and beyond. Diaspora activists, including Jewish anti-Zionists, have been surveilled, harassed, or arrested under its logic.
VIII. The Real Goal: Shielding Israel from Accountability
IHRA’s political function is clear:
- To divert attention from Israel’s atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank.
- To criminalize the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement.
- To silence campus dissent.
- To equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism.
- To intimidate scholars, journalists, clergy, students, and activists.
And now, most disturbingly:
To define core Christian scriptures as “hate speech” whenever they are inconvenient to Zionist political narratives.
This is the absurd yet logical endpoint of conflating a modern state ideology with a multi-millennial religious tradition.
Conclusion: A Definition That Cannot Be Salvaged
IHRA is not simply “flawed.” It is structurally unsalvageable. Because its examples are politically constructed, any attempt to enforce it will inevitably punish political speech, religious speech, academic inquiry, and anti-racist activism.
The IHRA definition is a danger:
- to the First Amendment,
- to religious liberty,
- to civil rights,
- to academic freedom,
- to Christian and Jewish dissenters,
- and to Palestinian liberation movements worldwide.
Progressives must reject IHRA not out of hostility toward Jewish communities — but out of solidarity with them, and with all people resisting racism, repression, and state power.
A new era of anti-racism must be built around moral clarity, universalism, and political courage. And that means saying, without apology:
The IHRA definition is a threat to free expression, a threat to scholarship, a threat to religion, and a threat to democracy. It must be opposed.
Feroze Mithiborwala is an expert on West Asian & International Geostrategic issues. He is the Founder-Gen. Sec. of the India Palestine Solidarity Forum. He was among the key organisers of the First Asian Convoy to Break the Siege of Gaza (2010) and the First Global March to Jerusalem (2012). He is also the Vice-President of Hum Bharat Ke Log, an organisation committed to Communal Harmony, National Unity and a Constitutional Democracy.