Defend Europa
Opinion » Exploring the IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism

Exploring the IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism

Anti Semitism

We have all heard the wailing and cries of anti-Semitism coming from the political establishment and the mainstream media in recent months, especially heightened during the run-up to last year’s UK General Election. The Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has constantly been mired in ‘controversy’; being subject to smearing attacks and accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’. Indeed, Labour became the first political party in the UK to become subject to a full statutory investigation under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010. (1)

There was much consternation in the media and political establishment because of Labour’s initial refusal to sign up to one example of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) definition of anti-Semitism because of concern over conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. However, the Labour Party did eventually join the Conservative government in signing-up wholeheartedly to the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism. 641 out of 643 MP’s signed up personally to the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism as well in what has been called the “largest collective parliamentary support for any non-parliamentary document in modern times”. (2)

Obviously, this is of concern because although the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is not yet law, the British government was one of the first governments to sign up wholeheartedly to the definitions, which could be a first step on the way to making it law which will suppress even further our already greatly eroded rights to free-speech! (3) It will also give a free pass to organised Zionist powers in the West who are engaged in efforts to subvert our ‘democracies’ and persecute their enemies such as political dissidents and supporters of Palestinians rights without fear of criticism.

This being the case, I thought I would do an impartial review of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) definition of anti-Semitism and look at the examples of anti-Semitism they give to see if they pass close inspection.

I decided to visit the website to look at their definition of anti-Semitism and to see the examples of anti-Semitism they give. I then went to Jewish sources to provide evidence from the horses’ mouth so to speak which would inform my response to their definitions.

I have re-produced the wording from their website as below with my response underneath the examples in bold:

The Working Definition of Antisemitism
In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by … antisemitism and xenophobia, the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils”. The committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:

Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:

“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.”

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

Obviously, anyone encouraging or justifying the killing or harming of Jews would be wrong and it would be unlawful to do so as just as it would be if any other person or group was attacked in this way. I agree with this example. 

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence for the malign influence some powerful Jews have had as a collective group on the world’s governments, media, society and economy as admitted by Jews themselves please see a couple of quotes from Jews below:

In this quote taken from a article in the Times of Israel, Mannny Friedman admits Jews do control the media saying: ” Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media. We’ve got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost obscene. Just about every movie or TV show, whether it be “Tropic Thunder” or “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is rife with actors, directors, and writers who are Jewish. Did you know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews?
But that’s not all. We also control the ads that go on those TV shows.
And let’s not forget AIPAC, every anti-Semite’s favorite punching bag. We’re talking an organization that’s practically the equivalent of the Elders of Zion. I’ll never forget when I was involved in Israeli advocacy in college and being at one of the many AIPAC conventions.
A man literally stood in front of us and told us that their whole goal was to only work with top-50 school graduate students because they would eventually be the people making changes in the government. Here I am, an idealistic little kid that goes to a bottom 50 school (ASU) who wants to do some grassroots advocacy, and these guys are literally talking about infiltrating the government. Intense.” (4)

And this quote below from Israeli spokeswoman, Tzipora Manache,

“You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they (Americans) do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you can’t criticize Israel…” (5)

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

Just a thought but would this apply to mainstream media and political establishments in the Western world for example when demonising Russians, Iranians, North Koreans or Chinese, Muslims and white people, castigating whole groups for wrongdoings of a few whether real or perceived?

What about when the Jewish dominated and controlled Hollywood portrays the mafia gangsters as synonymous with Italians in countless films and TV shows even when Murder Inc was Jewish? (6) When the Germans and Japanese people are portrayed as the enemy collectively in many war movies and the Arabs talked about as the enemy of Israel?

Let’s face it, when it is said for example the Russians or the Iranians are a threat to world peace, obviously it doesn’t mean every single person of that nation is a threat, no it means the governments and organised power structures in those countries are perceived as a threat and so it is surely the same when organised Jewish groups and Israel are criticised.   

No right-thinking person would damn a whole group of people for crimes of one or a group of their members but when a certain racial or ethnic element is heavily involved in crime or anti-social behaviours then isn’t it only right to call this out whatever their nationality or tribe?

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

Well what happened to freedom of debate and free-speech? I’m not aware of any other historical event where it is considered beyond the pale to debate or doubt the official narrative. Indeed it is forbidden to challenge the official story in many countries such as Germany where they jail old ladies such as 91 years old Ursula Haverbeck for merely questioning the victors version of events!

Why should this be the case, surely, if these events happened the way the establishment claims, then debate should be welcomed because they would be able to prove beyond doubt their case. I’m sorry but simply calling people ‘anti-Semitic’ for challenging organised Jewry’s version of an historical event is plain childish and does nothing but create suspicion as to what they have to hide.

Whilst I do not claim to be an expert on World War 2 history or the alleged holocaust or indeed to have expert technical knowledge of the workings of gas chambers, I do know there are plenty of revisionist historians, technical experts and scientists who do have expertise in these subjects and who do dispute the official narrative of World War 2 and the ‘Holocaust’. I suggest there is some quite compelling evidence given which refutes the official story in documents such as the Leuchter report (7) and Rudolf report (8). 

Were the gas chambers not debunked? There is certainly a lot of evidence and well written articles to suggest that homicidal gas chambers did not exist but were perhaps an invention of Allied/Soviet propaganda to justify the incineration of Germany & much of Europe during World War 2. I’ve given links to two quite convincing articles on the subject here at  (9) & here at (10). 

It is not in my view ‘anti-semitic’ simply to have an opinion contrary to the official version of events. It was after all the celebrated American historian Harry Elmer Barnes who said “Truth is always the first war casualty. The emotional disturbances and distortions in historical writing are greatest in wartime.”

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Whilst I would not disagree that the Jewish people were treated harshly & that many Jews suffered terribly through either death or injury because of their treatment by the German National Socialist state in World War 2, they are not a special case and far more people of other nationalities and ethnic groups suffered and died at the hands of both the Axis and Allied forces during the war.

Unfortunately, there are many examples where it has been either admitted by or proved that Jews and the state of Israel have either invented or exaggerated aspects of the ‘Holocaust’. I’ve linked to a couple of examples given here in the late great Robert Faurisson’s article on the Institute for Historical Review’s website & here in this 2002 interview given by former Israeli Education minister Shalamit Aloni to Amy Goodman on the Democracy Now! TV & radio show. (11)

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

What about this article by Joel Stein in the LA Times where he detailed just how dominant Jews are in controlling Hollywood and made a point of saying he didn’t care what Americans thought as long as Jews kept on running Hollywood! (12)

Why do so many Jewish organisations exist such as this small section below then if Jewish citizens do not put loyalty to Israel and their Jewish brethren before the interest of their host nations?

American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC);

B’nai Brith Anti-Defamation League (ADL);

Conservative Friends of Israel;

Labour Friends of Israel;

Liberal Democrats Friends of Israel;

World Jewish Congress.

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.

Well just go and ask the Palestinian people if the state of Israel is a racist endeavour where they have been drove from their homes and denied the right of return to the land of their ancestors.

How about these for examples of persecution meted out to innocent Palestinians given in these articles here, and here, (13)

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

So is expecting the Zionist state of Israel not to mercilessly slaughter Palestinian women and children simply wanting to return to their homes behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation? I think people who think double-standards are applied should take another long hard look at the treatment meted out to innocent palestinians by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) for example during The Great March of Return here, Israel war crimes in Gaza  or the fact that Israel was a state born out of acts of terror committed by Zionist terror groups such as the Stern Gang (14) who assassinated Lord Moyne & the Irgun (15) who carried out the bombing of the King David Hotel where British troops were amongst those murdered, and other atrocities such as the massacre of Palestinians at Deir Yassin.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

The apostles Matthew and Peter made it clear that the Jews and Israel were responsible for Jesus being put to death in Matthew 27:25 and Acts 2.22:23 and Acts 4:10.

I’ve taken this passage from Matthew 27 King James Version (KJV):

27 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.
3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in.
8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
10 And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.
11 And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.
12 And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.
13 Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?
14 And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.
15 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.
16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
17 Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?

18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
19 When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
21 The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
23 And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. (16)

The ritual murder by Jews of Christian children is the alleged murder by a Jew or Jews for ritual purposes. It is often termed Blood libel which is argued it is libelous allegations involving alleged use of blood from non-Jews. Whilst there may have been false charges, several books have argued the case for Jewish ritual murder (possibly the wicked deeds of religious extremists or occult-oriented individuals). Little St Hugh of Lincoln, Werner of Oberwesel, Simion of Trent and William of Norwich are such sad cases. (17)

Ariel Toaff, an Israeli university professor & son of the former Chief Rabbi of Rome, published a controversial book on the subject, Ebrei d’Europa e Pasque di Sanque (European Jews and Blood Easters) in which he made the hypothesis that some accusations made against Jews for these ritual murders were true. I took the passage below from Ariel Toaff’s Metapedia page:

Ariel Toaff’s work
Saint Simon of Trento
Recently in Italy, Ariel Toaff, an Israeli university professor controversially published the book Ebrei d’Europa e Pasque di Sangue (European Jews and Blood Easters) where he hypothesized that some accusations of the past against Jews for their rituals were true. He was harshly criticized and had to call his book off. Israel Shamir was among the few who supported his research. The focus is set on the figure of 2-year-old Saint Simon of Trento, also called Simonino da Trento, who was kidnapped and murdered by Jews. His body was found in a cellar of a Jewish owned house in Trento, Italy by local magistrates. There was even an eye-witness. Eight Jews were sentenced to death and executed in late June 1475. (18)

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

I agree with this In my view any comparison of the National Socialist state of Gerrmany with Israel would be extremely harsh but more so perhaps on the ‘Nazis’!  The concentration camp which is the Gaza strip would seem far worse to me than any concentration camp the ‘Nazis’ ever controlled.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.’

Whilst I personally do not take the view that whole groups of people should be held collectively responsible for the criminal actions of their country, surely this standard should apply to all peoples equally? Is it not wrong to hold white people collectively responsible for the slave trade (even ignoring the prominent Jewish role in this vile trade) or the harsh treatment of native americans by European settlers during the American Indian Wars?























Related posts

Holocaust Memorial Day: A Celebration of European Guilt

Defend Europa



The Roots Underlining Realignment

The Champagne Nationalist

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More