The Holocaust, the Nakba, the Genocide in Gaza & How the I.H.R.A. Definition of Antisemitism Censors Scholars

In this episode of Occupied Thoughts, FMEP Fellow Ahmed Moor speaks with Marianne Hirsch, Professor Emerita of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University. Professor Hirsch made news recently when she withdrew from classroom teaching because Columbia instituted the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism, telling the Associated Press that “‘A university that treats criticism of Israel as antisemitic and threatens sanctions for those who disobey is no longer a place of open inquiry…I just don’t see how I can teach about genocide in that environment.”’ In this podcast, Ahmed Moor and Professor Hirsch discuss the IHRA definition of antisemitism and its impact on teaching and learning as well as the changes in academia and the changing balance of influence and power between administrators and scholars. Digging into Prof. Hirsch’s areas of expertise, they discuss genocide scholarship and Germany, looking at the achievements and failures of German “memory culture” and comparing the Holocaust, the Nakba, and the genocide in Palestine today. Through a look at the Genocide and Holocaust Studies Crisis Network, which Prof. Hirsch helped to found, they discuss how scholars are trying to use their expertise in fascism, mass atrocities, and political violence to name, explain, and counter the rise in authoritarianism and ethnonationalism around the world. 

Occupied Thoughts by FMEP · The Holocaust, the Nakba, the Genocide in Gaza & How the I.H.R.A. Definition of Antisemitism Censors Scholars
Subscribe to “Occupied Thoughts” on iTunes | Soundcloud |Spotify
Recorded on August 27,  2025

For more, see: 

Marianne Hirsch is William Peterfield Trent Professor Emerita of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University and Professor in the Institute for Research on Women, Gender, and Sexuality. She is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a former  President of the Modern Language Association of America. She was born in Romania and educated at Brown University, where she received her BA/MA and Ph.D. degrees. Hirsch’s work combines feminist theory with memory studies, particularly the transmission of memories of violence across generations. Her recent books include School Photos in Liquid Time: Reframing Difference, co-authored with Leo Spitzer  (University of Washington Press, 2020), and the co-edited volumes Imagining Everyday Life: Engagements with Vernacular Photography (Steidl, 2020) and Women Mobilizing Memory (Columbia University Press, 2019). 

Ahmed Moor is a Palestinian-American writer born in Gaza and a 2025 Fellow at FMEP. He is an advisory board member of the US Campaign for Palestinian rights, co-editor of After Zionism (Saqi Books) and is currently writing a book about Palestine. He also currently serves on the board of the Independence Media Foundation. His work has been published in The Guardian, The London Review of Books, The Nation, and elsewhere. He earned a BA at the University of Pennsylvania and an MPP at Harvard University.

In this episode of Occupied Thoughts, FMEP Fellow Peter Beinart speaks with Dr. Lara Jirmanus and Professor Atalia Omer about the Harvard University’s two new reports, one on Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian bias and the other on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias. They discuss the quality of the reports, how the antisemitism report erases Jews who are critical of Israel, and what the potential impact is for a report on Islamophobia, anti-Arab and Anti-Palestinian bigotry.

Occupied Thoughts by FMEP · What Harvard’s Antisemitism and Islamophobia Reports Get Wrong

Subscribe to “Occupied Thoughts” on iTunes | Soundcloud |Spotify

Recorded on May 15, 2025

For more, see the two Harvard reports: Combating Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Palestinian Bias” and “Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias.” 

Dr. Lara Jirmanus is a family physician and a Clinical Instructor at Harvard Medical School. Lara has been involved in grassroots organizing, advocacy and research for many years, addressing worker and immigrant rights in the US, infectious diseases in Brazil and the impact of conflict and displacement in the Middle East. She recently published “Harvard talks free speech but silences Palestine” (Al Jazeera May 7, 2025).

Atalia Omer, PhD is professor of religion, conflict, and peace studies in the Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame and a core faculty member of the Keough School’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies. Her research focuses on religion, violence, and peacebuilding as well as theories and methods in the study of religion and Palestine/Israel. Atalia  earned her PhD in religion, ethics, and politics from the Committee on the Study of Religion at Harvard University and she was, until recently, a senior fellow at Harvard Divinity School’s Religion and Public Life’s Religion, Conflict, and Peace Initiative. Atalia is also on the Board of Directors of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. She recently published “I’m an Israeli professor. Why is my work in Harvard’s antisemitism report?” (The Guardian, May 9, 2025.)

Peter Beinartis a Non-Resident Fellow at the Foundation for Middle East Peace. He is also a Professor of Journalism and Political Science at the City University of New York, a Contributing opinion writer at the New York Times, an Editor-at-Large at Jewish Currents, and an MSNBC Political Commentator. His newest book (published 2025) is Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning.

In this episode of the Occupied Thoughts podcast, FMEP president Lara Friedman speaks with Professor Rebecca Ruth Gould, author of the newly published book, Erasing Palestine: Free Speech & Palestinian Freedom. The discussion digs into Professor Gould’s own experience being attacked for an article she authored on Israel/Palestine, and more broadly into the ongoing campaign using the IHRA definition of antisemitism as a weapon to delegitimize and suppress criticism of Israel/Zionism, Palestinian voices, and Palestine rights activism in the UK and around the world.

Occupied Thoughts by FMEP · Free Speech, IHRA, & Palestinian Freedom – A Conversation with Rebecca Ruth Gould

Recorded on September 29, 2023

Watch this conversation on Youtube

Subscribe to “Occupied Thoughts” on iTunes | Soundcloud |Spotify

Resources

Rebecca Ruth Gould’s books include Erasing Palestine: Free Speech and Palestinian Freedom (Verso, 2023), The Persian Prison Poem: Sovereignty and the Political Imagination (Edinburgh University Press, 2021), and Writers and Rebels: The Literature of Insurgency in the Caucasus (Yale University Press, 2016). She has written on the challenges of defining antisemitism and respecting free speech for Prospect Magazine, Jacobin, Political Quarterly, The New Arab, and Middle East Eye, among other venues. She is Distinguished Professor of Comparative Poetics and Global Politics, at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. For more on Professor Gould see her website and follow her on X – @rrgould

Articles by Rebecca Ruth Gould

Interviews with Rebecca Ruth Gould on her book, Erasing Palestine

Reports mentioned in the podcast

FMEP resources on the IHRA definition & the controversy around it

 

In this episode of FMEP’s Occupied Thoughts podcast, FMEP President Lara Friedman speaks the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) director Giovanni Fassina and ELSC manager of communication and advocacy strategies and campaigns Alice Garcia about ELSC’s groundbreaking new report, “Suppressing Palestinian Rights Advocacy through the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism – Violating the Rights to Freedom of Expression and Assembly in the European Union and the UK.” This report is the first case-based account of human rights violations resulting from the institutionalization and application of the controversial IHRA definition by the EU and the UK.

 

Occupied Thoughts by FMEP · How IHRA Antisemitism Definition Suppresses Palestinian Rights Advocacy in EU/UK: Insight from ELSC

Recorded June 12, 2023

You can also watch this conversation on YouTube

 

Resources related to this podcast

European Legal Support Center (ELSC)

Articles & Interviews about the Report

Attack on ELSC & the Report

Expert objections to the IHRA definition

FMEP resources on IHRA definition & related controversy

 

Since 2016, there have been efforts both in Congress and in US states to pass legislation framed as as being about fighting antisemitism, but that in practice (both impact and in many cases explicit intent) is about targeting non-violent protest, activism and criticism of Israel and/or Zionism. The chart below tracks all of this legislation, in its various forms, at both the Federal and State levels.

You can track this legislative trend here. Last update: June 27, 2023

In addition, a compendium of analysis/commentary on the Constitutional and broader free speech threats posed by this legislation — constantly updated — can be found here.

To follow what is happening with respect to a parallel campaign to have Congress legislate U.S. support for settlements, see Lara’s research/table, here ;to follow what is happening at the state level, see here.

Questions about this issue or data table should be directed to: Lara@fmep.org

 

Occupied Thoughts by FMEP · The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism: “The Wrong Answers to the Wrong Set of Questions”
Subscribe to “Occupied Thoughts” on iTunes | Soundcloud |Spotify
Watch this conversation on YouTube

In this episode of the Occupied Thoughts podcast, Dr. Alana Vincent (Umea University, Sweden) joins FMEP’s Sarah Anne Minkin to discuss how she moved from supporting the use of the the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) Working Definition of Antisemitism to opposing it. Dr. Vincent describes the chilling and silencing effects of the IHRA definition, the shortcomings of European Union research that purports to justify it, and the advantages of alternative definitions that offer clarity and nuance.

Dr. Alana Vincent is Associate Professor in History of Religion and studies Modern Judaism, Interreligious Dialogue, Religion & Literature at Umea University in Sweden. 

Sarah Anne Minkin is Director of Programs and Partnerships at FMEP.

Resources mentioned in the podcast: 

Recorded Wednesday, October 19, 2022
(if video doesn’t load you can access it directly on YouTube)

Featuring (bios below):

  • Kenneth Stern (Bard College/lead drafter of the IHRA definition)
  • Carinne Luck (Diaspora Alliance)
  • Simone Zimmerman (Diaspora Alliance)
  • Moderator/discussant: Lara Friedman (Foundation for Middle East Peace)

At a time of surging antisemitism in the U.S. and worldwide, most efforts to tackle this serious problem center on the IHRA definition of antisemitism. This definition is often framed as apolitical, non-partisan, commonsense, and above not only reproach but any critical examination and debate.

This framing conceals a critical truth: the IHRA definition of antisemitism is the focus of deep controversy, strenuous debate, and serious criticism. This includes criticism from scholars and experts on antisemitism, Jewish history, the Holocaust, and other related areas of study. And it includes criticism from experts on and defenders of Americans’ First Amendment free speech rights.

At the root of the controversy is the concern that the IHRA definition’s examples about Israel and Zionism have been abused and weaponized to chill and suppress pro-Palestinian speech. This concern is not merely hypothetical: the experience of recent years demonstrates the ease with which the IHRA definition can be exploited to attack free speech and activism critical of Israel/Zionism or in support of Palestinian rights, or even free speech articulating Palestinians’ lived experience and historical narrative.

Given strong — and growing — pressures on Congress to endorse or even adopt/impose the IHRA definition as a matter of law, we presented this policy lab to help congressional staff understand the debate amongst experts, and the degree to which experts on antisemitism have concerns about the IHRA definition, and know about the work experts have undertaken to clarify the problems and offer concrete solutions.

Resources cited/mentioned during the discussion

Expert bios

Kenneth S. Stern is the director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate and an attorney and award-winning author. For twenty-five years, he was the American Jewish Committee’s expert on antisemitism, and he was also the lead drafter of the “Working Definition of Antisemitism.” He has argued before the Supreme Court of the United States and testified before Congress. His work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, and The Forward. He also has written books on antisemitism and on Holocaust denial. His most recent book is The Conflict Over the Conflict: The Israel/Palestine Campus Debate (New Jewish Press, 2020).

Carinne Luck is the Founding International Director of Diaspora Alliance, following on two years of focusing much of her time supporting progressive Jewish and non-Jewish leaders in Europe and the US to pushback against antisemitism and its instrumentalization. She has been working as an organizer, trainer, and strategist for two decades, including with Mijente, Hand in Hand, IfNotNow, MoveOn, and CTZN WELL. In 2008 she was a founding staff member of J Street, where she served as Vice President for Field and Campaigns.

Simone Zimmerman is the Director of Strategic Communications & Outreach at Diaspora Alliance. Simone is an organizer and strategist who has been working at the intersection of the progressive movement and the politics of the American Jewish community for over a decade. She was the Executive Director of B’Tselem USA and a co-founder of IfNotNow, a grassroots movement of young American Jews working to end the American Jewish community’s support for Israel’s military occupation. She lived in Israel-Palestine between 2016 and 2018, where she was a Dorot Fellow and worked at Gisha — Legal Center for Freedom of Movement.

Lara Friedman is the President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP). She is a leading authority on the Middle East, with particular expertise on U.S. foreign policy in the region, on Israel/Palestine, and on the way Middle East and Israel/Palestine-related issues play out in Congress and in U.S. domestic politics, policies, and legislation. She has been tracking and researching developments related to the IHRA definition of antisemitism for more than a decade (see the FMEP website for her research and related resources). Lara is a former officer in the U.S. Foreign Service, with diplomatic postings in Jerusalem, Washington, Tunis and Beirut.

 

 

There is an ongoing campaign in Congress and in state legislatures to pass laws barring BDS against Israel and/or boycotts or other forms of economic pressure against settlements. In parallel, efforts are ongoing at the State and Federal level to define criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism and use this definition to quash free speech and activism ont campuses. For details about the campaign in states, see here; in Congress, see here. For details of the quashing free speech on campuses legislation, see here.

Below is a compilation (updated as new resources appear) of expert opinion/analysis regarding the constitutionality/free speech concerns raised by this legislation. Last update: June 27, 2023

(more…)

Traditionally, “antisemitism” has meant hostility and prejudice toward Jews because they are Jews—a scourge that has imperiled Jews throughout history, and is a source of resurgent threats to Jews today. In recent years there has been an energetic effort to re-define the term to mean something else. This new definition – known today as  the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) “working definition of antisemitism, is explicitly politicized, refocusing the term to encompass not only hatred of Jews, but also hostility toward and criticism of the modern state of Israel. For example, it labels as antisemitic “applying double standards” to Israel or requiring of Israel “behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” While it notes that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic,” in practice this “double standard” language has paved the way for attacking virtually all criticism of Israel as prima facie antisemitic, based on the simplistic argument that focusing criticism on Israel, when other nations are guilty of similarly bad behavior, can only reflect animus against Jews.

In the media and on social media, and in the mainstream political discourse, there are almost daily interventions in support of the IHRA definition – interventions that too often dismiss the well-established, well-fleshed-out substantive and constitutional concerns/objections to the definition and its implementation.

Yet, this new definition has been the focus of enormous controversy and myriad challenges, including from academics/experts on antisemitism and Holocaust studies in the U.S., Israel, and around the world; from prominent voices and groups that defend free speech and human rights; from progressive Jewish community organizations; from leading legal scholars; from groups defending Palestinians and Palestinian rights; and more.

In this context, I have created a new data table — a compendium of expert views and other resources laying out concerns/objections to the IHRA definition. 

You can find the new database here. As always, I will be updating it regularly (if you find resources that I have omitted, please send them to me!)

Last update: April 24, 2023

When President Donald Trump signed his executive order on antisemitism back on December 11, 2019, some of us warned the real target was campus free speech critical of Israel. Complaints filed in the wake of the executive order demonstrate these accuracy of these warnings. To help people track these cases (and the many cases that preceded them in recent years), I’ve created this resource table, which I will update whenever new information becomes available.

Last update: June 29, 2023