The Unsettled Podcast — Lara Friedman: What will Biden do?

“President Joe Biden campaigned on the idea that he’d bring the country back to ‘normal.’ But that message has raised some eyebrows, as many have pointed out that America’s “normal” doesn’t necessarily mean good, or right.  In this episode of Unsettled, producer Ilana Levinson interviews Lara Friedman, President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, about what is considered normal U.S. foreign policy on Israel-Palestine, the relationships with Israeli and Palestinian leaders that Biden inherits from former President Donald Trump, and what we can expect from Biden given his record as Vice President in the Obama administration. Unsettled is produced by Emily Bell, Asaf Calderon, Max Freedman, and Ilana Levinson. Original music by Nat Rosenzweig. Additional music from Blue Dot Sessions.”

Listen to the podcast here:

Podcast host Yousef Munayyer and guest Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, discuss the expected Israel/Palestine policy of the incoming Biden Administration and the damage caused by the Trump Administration to Middle East peace (recorded 8 Dec 2020).

The Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) invites you to attend 

The IHRA Definition & the Fight Against Antisemitism: A webinar series examining how a problematic definition of antisemitism is being used to quash criticism of Israel and threaten freedom of speech 

Part 1: Views on IHRA from Around the Globe 

 Recorded on Monday, December 14th 

Featuring Seth Anziska, Associate Professor of Jewish-Muslim Relations at University College London; Ryvka Barnard, Head of Civic Space at UK-based anti-poverty and human rights charity War on Want; and Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine Director of Human Rights Watch; in conversation with FMEP’s Lara Friedman. 

To find past recordings and future webinars and resources in this series, click here

Resources the panelists and moderator referred to during the webinar: 

The IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) working definition of antisemitism — and its examples — is on its way to being adopted and used across the globe to restrict free speech. From the State Department to English Premier League soccer teams, from universities to social media platforms, concerted campaigns to label criticism of Israeli policies and challenges to Zionism as antisemitism — and to impose formal/legal consequences — continue to gain momentum. In state legislatures and Congress in the United States, across Europe and in Latin America, the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and its examples is being used to quash criticism of Israel, to delegitimize advocates for Palestinian rights, and to undermine civil society organizations — including human rights and humanitarian groups — for their work with or support for Palestinians. This politicization and weaponization of the fight against antisemitism has grave implications, not just for Israel-Palestine activism but for free speech and civil society writ large, as well as for the battle against real and rising antisemitism around the world. 

FMEP is proud to announce an ongoing webinar series exploring these efforts to redefine antisemitism in this problematic manner, as well as arguments and efforts to oppose it. 

Participants 

Seth Anziska is the Mohamed S. Farsi-Polonsky Associate Professor of Jewish-Muslim Relations at University College London. His research and teaching focuses on Israeli and Palestinian society and culture, modern Middle Eastern history, and contemporary Arab and Jewish politics. He is the author of Preventing Palestine: A Political History from Camp David to Oslo (Princeton University Press, 2018), which was awarded the British Association for Jewish Studies Book Prize in 2019. His writing has appeared in The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, and Foreign Policy. Seth received his PhD in International and Global History from Columbia University, his M. Phil. in Modern Middle Eastern Studies from St. Antony’s College, Oxford, and his BA in history from Columbia University. 

Ryvka Barnard is the Head of Civic Space at UK-based anti-poverty and human rights charity War on Want. She campaigns against human rights abuses associated with the growing power of the military and security industry, with a special focus on the UK-Israel arms trade. She writes frequently on the topic in the Independent, Middle East Eye and has appeared on the BBC and other broadcast channels discussing these issues. Ryvka has a PhD in Middle Eastern Studies from New York University where she specialized in the politics of tourism development in the occupied West Bank.

Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine Director at Human Rights Watch, investigates human rights abuses in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Prior to his current role, he was a Bertha Fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights, where he focused on US counterterrorism policies, including legal representation of Guantanamo detainees. As the 2013-14 Arthur R. and Barbara D. Finberg Fellow at Human Rights Watch, he investigated human rights violations in Egypt, including the Rab’a massacre, one of the largest killings of protesters in a single day. A former Fulbright Scholar in Syria, Omar holds a JD from Stanford Law School, where he co-authored a report on the civilian consequences of US drone strikes in Pakistan as a part of the International Human Rights & Conflict Resolution Clinic, an MA in Arab Studies from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Affairs, and a BA in International Relations from Stanford.

Lara Friedman is the President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) and a leading authority on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, with particular expertise on the Israeli-Arab conflict, Israeli settlements, Jerusalem, and the role of the U.S. Congress. She is published widely in the U.S. and international press and is regularly consulted by members of Congress and their staffs, by Washington-based diplomats, by policy-makers in capitals around the world, and by journalists in the U.S. and abroad. In addition to her work at FMEP, Lara is a Contributing Writer at Jewish Currents and a non-resident fellow at the U.S./Middle East Project (USMEP).

The Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) invites you to attend 

The View from Europe: Israel, Palestine, Biden, & Antisemitism

Recorded on Thursday, December 10th

As the United States prepares for the end of one presidential administration and the beginning of another, FMEP is taking stock of the opportunities, burdens, and dynamics facing the European Union as it engages with Israel and Palestine. As the EU looks to the new Biden Administration, what are its expectations around cooperation with the United States and the EU’s roles in the region? How does the EU assess and address Israel’s new alliances in the Gulf or internal Palestinian and Israeli politics? And what are the impacts of the redefinition of antisemitism to include criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism? To discuss these issues, FMEP is proud to host a panel of European experts and advocates in conversation with FMEP President Lara Friedman. 

featuring 

Dr. Muriel Asseburg (Senior Fellow in the Middle East and Africa Division of Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin) 

Dr. Dimitris Bouris (Assistant Professor/Senior Lecturer of EU Security/European External Relations at the Department of Political Science at the University of Amsterdam)

Alexandra Gerasimčiková (Policy advisor for ACT Alliance EU, Brussels) and 

Dr. Anders Persson (Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science, Linnaeus University)

In conversation with 

Lara Friedman (President of FMEP)

Panelists 

Dr. Muriel Asseburg is Senior Fellow in the Middle East and Africa Division of the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin. Her current research is focused on conflict dynamics and peace-making in the Levant (Israel/Palestine and Syria, in particular); German, European and US Middle East policies; as well as questions of state building, political reform and security in the Eastern Mediterranean.  Asseburg studied political science, international law and economics at Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich where in 2000 she obtained a Ph.D. with a thesis on “Palestinian State and Nation Building in the Interim Period”. She has also lived, studied, and worked in the USA, Israel/Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. For more on Dr. Asseburg’s work, visit her webpage.

Dr. Dimitris Bouris is Assistant Professor (Senior Lecturer) of EU Security/European External Relations at the Department of Political Science at the University of Amsterdam and also a Visiting Professor at the College of Europe (Natolin). He is also the leader and coordinator of EUMENIA – a Jean Monnet Network on EU-Middle East relations. Dr. Bouris is the author of “The European Union and Occupied Palestinian Territories: State-building without a state” (Routledge 2014), the co-editor (with Tobias Schumacher) of the “Revised European Neighbourhood Policy: Continuity and Change in EU Foreign Policy” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017) and also the co-editor (with Daniela Huber and Michelle Pace) of the “Routledge Handbook on EU-Middle East Relations” (forthcoming 2021). He has published a number of scholarly articles in peer-reviewed academic journals as well as policy briefs and op-eds for major news and policy outlets such as Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Al Jazeera and EU Observer. His research focus lies at the intersection of International Relations (IR theory, peacebuilding, state-building, security sector reform, conflict resolution), EU Studies (EU External Relations, EU Common Security and Defence Policy) and Middle East and North Africa Studies (with a particular focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).

Alexandra Gerasimčiková is a Brussels-based policy advisor for ACT Alliance EU, an advocacy network of European development agencies supporting over 100 local partners in the West Bank and Gaza. She is advising the agencies on EU policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and leading their European advocacy cooperation. Alexandra also contributes to publications on EU foreign policy in its neighbourhood. Her most recent analysis for Responsible Statecraft covered the EU’s sanctions policy. Alexandra holds a Master’s degree in Middle East, Caucasus and Central Asia Security from University of St Andrews. Twitter: @alexandra_grsm. For more on Alexandra Gerasimčiková’s work, go to this link.

Anders Persson is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Linnaeus University. He researches the role of the European Union in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has written four books about this topic, including EU Diplomacy and the Israeli-Arab Conflict, 1967–2019 (Edinburgh University Press, Aug 2020) and The EU and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 1971-2013: In Pursuit of a Just Peace (Lanham, Lexington Books: 2015). He has published peer-reviewed articles in journals such as Journal of Common Market Studies, Mediterranean Politics, Journal of European Integration, Middle East Critique, Journal of Conflict Transformation and Security and New Middle Eastern Studies. He serves as expert commentator for Swedish TV/radio/press on Israel-Palestine and contributes regularly to Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, Al Jazeera English, Politico EU and EU Observer.

Moderator

Lara Friedman is the President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) and a leading authority on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, with particular expertise on the Israeli-Arab conflict, Israeli settlements, Jerusalem, and the role of the U.S. Congress. She is published widely in the U.S. and international press and is regularly consulted by members of Congress and their staffs, by Washington-based diplomats, by policy-makers in capitals around the world, and by journalists in the U.S. and abroad. In addition to her work at FMEP, Lara is a Contributing Writer at Jewish Currents and a non-resident fellow at the U.S./Middle East Project (USMEP).

The IHRA Definition & the Fight Against Antisemitism: A webinar series examining how a problematic definition of antisemitism is being used to quash criticism of Israel and threaten freedom of speech 

Part 4: Antisemitism, Free Speech, Social Media, and Corporate Accountability 

Co-sponsored with 7amleh

Thursday, December 17th

Featuring Alison Carmel, International Relations Manager at 7amleh; Marwa Fatafta, MENA Policy Manager at Access Now; Lara Friedman, President of FMEP; and Brian Hauss, staff attorney at the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project; in conversation with Peter Beinart, Non-Resident Fellow at FMEP.

To find past recordings and future webinars in this series, click here

The IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) working definition of antisemitism — and its examples — is on its way to being adopted and used across the globe to restrict free speech. From the State Department to English Premier League soccer teams, from universities to social media platforms, concerted campaigns to label criticism of Israeli policies and challenges to Zionism as antisemitism — and to impose formal/legal consequences — continue to gain momentum. In state legislatures and Congress in the United States, across Europe and in Latin America, the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and its examples is being used to quash criticism of Israel, to delegitimize advocates for Palestinian rights, and to undermine civil society organizations — including human rights and humanitarian groups — for their work with or support for Palestinians. This politicization and weaponization of the fight against antisemitism has grave implications, not just for Israel-Palestine activism but for free speech and civil society writ large, as well as for the battle against real and rising antisemitism around the world.

Resources shared/mentioned during this webinar include:

The IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) working definition of antisemitism — and its examples — is on its way to being adopted and used across the globe to restrict free speech. From the State Department to English Premier League soccer teams, from universities to social media platforms, concerted campaigns to label criticism of Israeli policies and challenges to Zionism as antisemitism — and to impose formal/legal consequences — continue to gain momentum. In state legislatures and Congress in the United States, across Europe and in Latin America, the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and its examples is being used to quash criticism of Israel, to delegitimize advocates for Palestinian rights, and to undermine civil society organizations — including human rights and humanitarian groups — for their work with or support for Palestinians. This politicization and weaponization of the fight against antisemitism has grave implications, not just for Israel-Palestine activism but for free speech and civil society writ large, as well as for the battle against real and rising antisemitism around the world.

Participants 

Alison Carmel is the International Relations Manager at 7amleh is a digital rights defender, writer, researcher and activist. For the past ten years she has supported building the capacity of human rights defenders and civil society organizations to advocate for their rights utilizing digital technologies and the Internet.

Marwa Fatafta is a Palestinian writer, researcher and policy analyst based in Berlin. She leads Access Now’s work on digital rights in the Middle East and North Africa region as the MENA Policy Manager. She is also an advisory board member of the Palestinian digital rights organization 7amleh. Previously, she worked as the MENA Regional Advisor for Transparency International Secretariat. Marwa was a Fulbright scholar to the US, and holds an MA in International Relations from Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. She holds a second MA in Development and Governance from University of Duisburg-Essen.

Lara Friedman is the President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) and a leading authority on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, with particular expertise on the Israeli-Arab conflict, Israeli settlements, Jerusalem, and the role of the U.S. Congress. She is published widely in the U.S. and international press and is regularly consulted by members of Congress and their staffs, by Washington-based diplomats, by policy-makers in capitals around the world, and by journalists in the U.S. and abroad. In addition to her work at FMEP, Lara is a Contributing Writer at Jewish Currents and a non-resident fellow at the U.S./Middle East Project (USMEP).

Brian Hauss is a staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. Brian was previously a staff attorney with the ACLU Center for Liberty, where he focused on combating religious refusals to comply with anti-discrimination laws. He also spent two years as the ACLU’s William J. Brennan First Amendment Fellow. Brian is a graduate of Yale University and Harvard Law School. He served as a law clerk to the Hon. Marsha S. Berzon of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Peter Beinart is Professor of Journalism and Political Science at the City University of New York. He is also a Contributing Opinion Writer at The New York Times, a CNN Political Commentator, Editor-at-Large of Jewish Currents and a Non-Resident Fellow at the Foundation for Middle East Peace. He writes the Beinart Notebook newsletter on substack.com.

In this episode of “Occupied Thoughts,” host Peter Beinart is joined by Palestinian academics Rashid Khalidi and Nadia Abu El-Haj to discuss a recent statement on the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, signed by 122 Palestinian and Arab thought leaders.

You can subscribe to “Occupied Thoughts” on iTunes | Soundcloud | TuneIn 

Peter Beinart is 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 a CNN Political Commentator.

Nadia Abu El-Haj is Ann Olin Whitney Professor in the Departments of Anthropology at Barnard College and Columbia University, Co-Director of the Center for Palestine Studies, and Chair of the Board of Directors, The Society of Fellows/Heyman Center for the Humanities at Columbia. The recipient of numerous awards, including from the Social Science Research Council, the Wenner Gren Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Harvard Academy for Area and International Studies, the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, and the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, she is the author of numerous articles and essays published on topics ranging from the history of archaeology in Palestine to the question of race and genomics today. Abu El-Haj has published two books: Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society (2001), which won the Albert Hourani Annual Book Award from the Middle East Studies Association in 2002, and The Genealogical Science: The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology (2012). While Abu El-Haj’s two books to date have focused on historical sciences (archaeology, and genetic history), her third book, forthcoming from Verso, considers the post 9/11 wars and contemporary U.S. militarism through an exploration of the complex ethical and political implications of shifting psychiatric and public understandings of the trauma of American soldiers.

Rashid Khalidi is Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University. He received a B.A. from Yale University in 1970 and a D. Phil. from Oxford University in 1974, and has taught at the Lebanese University, the American University of Beirut, and the University of Chicago. He was President of the Middle East Studies Asociation, is co-editor of the Journal of Palestine Studies. He served as an advisor to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid and Washington Arab-Israeli peace negotiations from October 1991 until June 1993. Khalidi is author of eight books, including The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine: Settler-Colonial Conquest and Resistance, 1917-2017 (2020), and Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness (rev. ed. 2010), and has co-edited three other books and published over 110 academic articles. He has written op-eds in the New York Times, Washington Post, and many other newspapers, and has appeared widely on TV and radio in the US and abroad.

The IHRA Definition & the Fight Against Antisemitism: A webinar series examining how a problematic definition of antisemitism is being used to quash criticism of Israel and threaten freedom of speech 

Part 1: Views on IHRA from Around the Globe 

 Recorded Monday, December 14, 2020

Featuring Seth Anziska, Associate Professor of Jewish-Muslim Relations at University College London; Ryvka Barnard, Head of Civic Space at UK-based anti-poverty and human rights charity War on Want; and Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine Director of Human Rights Watch; in conversation with FMEP’s Lara Friedman.

To find past recordings and future events in this series, click here.

Resources shared/mentioned during this webinar include:

  • Twitter handles for our panelists:

Lara Friedman – https://twitter.com/LaraFriedmanDC

Seth Anziska – https://twitter.com/SethAnziska

Ryvka Barnard – https://twitter.com/WarOnWant

Omar Shakir – https://twitter.com/OmarSShakir

__

The IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) working definition of antisemitism — and its examples — is on its way to being adopted and used across the globe to restrict free speech. From the State Department to English Premier League soccer teams, from universities to social media platforms, concerted campaigns to label criticism of Israeli policies and challenges to Zionism as antisemitism — and to impose formal/legal consequences — continue to gain momentum. In state legislatures and Congress in the United States, across Europe and in Latin America, the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and its examples is being used to quash criticism of Israel, to delegitimize advocates for Palestinian rights, and to undermine civil society organizations — including human rights and humanitarian groups — for their work with or support for Palestinians. This politicization and weaponization of the fight against antisemitism has grave implications, not just for Israel-Palestine activism but for free speech and civil society writ large, as well as for the battle against real and rising antisemitism around the world.

FMEP is proud to announce an ongoing series exploring these efforts to redefine antisemitism in this problematic manner, as well as arguments and efforts to oppose it.

Participants 

Seth Anziska is the Mohamed S. Farsi-Polonsky Associate Professor of Jewish-Muslim Relations at University College London. His research and teaching focuses on Israeli and Palestinian society and culture, modern Middle Eastern history, and contemporary Arab and Jewish politics. He is the author of Preventing Palestine: A Political History from Camp David to Oslo (Princeton University Press, 2018), which was awarded the British Association for Jewish Studies Book Prize in 2019. His writing has appeared in The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, and Foreign Policy. Seth received his PhD in International and Global History from Columbia University, his M. Phil. in Modern Middle Eastern Studies from St. Antony’s College, Oxford, and his BA in history from Columbia University.

Ryvka Barnard is the Head of Civic Space at UK-based anti-poverty and human rights charity War on Want. She campaigns against human rights abuses associated with the growing power of the military and security industry, with a special focus on the UK-Israel arms trade. She writes frequently on the topic in the Independent, Middle East Eye and has appeared on the BBC and other broadcast channels discussing these issues. Ryvka has a PhD in Middle Eastern Studies from New York University where she specialized in the politics of tourism development in the occupied West Bank.

Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine Director at Human Rights Watch, investigates human rights abuses in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Prior to his current role, he was a Bertha Fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights, where he focused on US counterterrorism policies, including legal representation of Guantanamo detainees. As the 2013-14 Arthur R. and Barbara D. Finberg Fellow at Human Rights Watch, he investigated human rights violations in Egypt, including the Rab’a massacre, one of the largest killings of protesters in a single day. A former Fulbright Scholar in Syria, Omar holds a JD from Stanford Law School, where he co-authored a report on the civilian consequences of US drone strikes in Pakistan as a part of the International Human Rights & Conflict Resolution Clinic, an MA in Arab Studies from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Affairs, and a BA in International Relations from Stanford.

Lara Friedman is the President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) and a leading authority on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, with particular expertise on the Israeli-Arab conflict, Israeli settlements, Jerusalem, and the role of the U.S. Congress. She is published widely in the U.S. and international press and is regularly consulted by members of Congress and their staffs, by Washington-based diplomats, by policy-makers in capitals around the world, and by journalists in the U.S. and abroad. In addition to her work at FMEP, Lara is a Contributing Writer at Jewish Currents and a non-resident fellow at the U.S./Middle East Project (USMEP).

The Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) invites you to attend 

The IHRA Definition & the Fight Against Antisemitism

A series examining how a problematic definition of antisemitism is being used to quash criticism of Israel and threaten freedom of speech

 

The IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) working definition of antisemitism — and its examples — is on its way to being adopted and used across the globe to restrict free speech. From the State Department to English Premier League soccer teams, from universities to social media platforms, concerted campaigns to label criticism of Israeli policies and challenges to Zionism as antisemitism — and to impose formal/legal consequences — continue to gain momentum. In state legislatures and Congress in the United States, across Europe and in Latin America, the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and its examples is being used to quash criticism of Israel, to delegitimize advocates for Palestinian rights, and to undermine civil society organizations — including human rights and humanitarian groups — for their work with or support for Palestinians. This politicization and weaponization of the fight against antisemitism has grave implications, not just for Israel-Palestine activism but for free speech and civil society writ large, as well as for the battle against real and rising antisemitism around the world. 

FMEP is proud to announce an ongoing webinar series exploring these efforts to redefine antisemitism in this problematic manner, as well as arguments and efforts to oppose it. Please use the links below to register for each webinar and to learn more about the expert panelists.

This is Palestine is a podcast by IMEU

_

From Pompeo’s attack on BDS to the battle for free speech on college campuses, anti-Semitism is being weaponized to silence criticism of Israel and stifle advocacy for Palestinian rights. Omar Baddar speaks with Diana Buttu, Lara Friedman, and Roua Daas about this crisis of free expression and political speech.

Listen to The Weaponization of Anti-Semitism

Analysis by FMEP’s Lara Friedman, published at the American Prospect on November 12, 2020

Weaponizing Anti-Semitism, State Department Delegitimizes Human Rights Groups

Authoritarian regimes and illiberal forces will exploit the new U.S. policy.

Amidst the hullabaloo around last week’s U.S. elections, most people probably forgot the recent shocking news that the U.S. Department of State plans to label three leading global human rights groups—Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Oxfam—“anti-Semitic.” They shouldn’t have. A new report today suggests that the plans will not only move forward, but will be geared to have even broader impact than originally suggested. With the victory of President-elect Biden, some might now be tempted to dismiss all of this as a desperate, partisan gambit that, if implemented, will be easily undone by a new Biden administration. In reality, the labeling of humanitarian and civil society groups as “anti-Semitic” looms as an inexorable outcome, now or in the future, of an ongoing and escalating campaign, embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike, which has weaponized combating anti-Semitism to quash criticism of Israel, attack progressive political actors and movements, and delegitimize civil society organizations.

At the core of this campaign is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) “working definition of antisemitism,” which, in a memo explaining the targeting of Amnesty and friends, the State Department contends the groups are violating. The IHRA was established in 1998 to “strengthen, advance and promote Holocaust education, research and remembrance.” Over time, it increasingly focused on anti-Semitism, and today positions itself as the international body with responsibility for fighting—and authoritatively defining—anti-Semitism. Herein lies the controversy.

There appears to be bipartisan support around making the IHRA definition the official U.S. tool for rooting out alleged anti-Semitism.

Traditionally, “anti-Semitism” means 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. The IHRA definition, in contrast, 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 anti-Semitic “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 anti-Semitic, 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.

According to this logic, it is anti-Semitic to challenge Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands—unless one is equally challenging occupation anywhere. Likewise, boycotting or calling to boycott Israel or settlements to protest violations of Palestinian rights is considered anti-Semitic—unless one is similarly boycotting every country guilty of violating the rights of any people, anywhere.

The IHRA definition also stipulates that it is anti-Semitic to deny “the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor”—notwithstanding the fact that other peoples, including Palestinians, are denied self-determination, and other nations have their existence challenged, including, for example, by Israelis who argue that the state of Jordan should be replaced with Palestine. Yet, this line has become the basis for indicting anyone who identifies as anti-Zionist, or who supports boycotts of Israel or settlements, as anti-Semitic, irrespective of their reasoning and absent evidence that their views are grounded in hostility toward not Israel, but Jews.

In December 2019, President Donald Trump was applauded by members of both parties for his Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism, in which he gave the IHRA definition and its Israel-focused examples the weight of U.S. law. Since then, that order has been the basis for a flood of complaints and investigations targeting U.S. campuses, based on allegations related to criticism of Zionism and Israel. Separately, there have been efforts to incorporate the IHRA definition and its examples into laws dealing with hate crimes and discrimination in U.S. states. There is also an ongoing campaign pressing Facebook and other social media platforms to adopt and enforce the IHRA definition and its examples, with the key backers making clear that their target is not anti-Semitism as it is traditionally defined, but anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel.

In September 2020, the State Department promised a “whole-of-government” approach to the issue of fighting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement; the department’s targeting of human rights groups, based on tying the IHRA definition to BDS to allege anti-Semitism, makes clear what this approach, if implemented before Trump leaves office, will be about. The threat, however, is not just from the Trump administration. The call to use the IHRA definition in a “whole-of-government” approach to fight anti-Semitism was articulated previously by Democratic congressman Ted Deutch of Florida, in a 2019 op-ed entitled “The US Should Adopt the IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism.” While Deutch condemned the State Department’s plans to label human rights groups anti-Semitic, he has not retracted his support for implementing the definition in general.

The IHRA definition 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.

In short, there appears to be bipartisan support around making the IHRA definition, already adopted by an ever-growing list of countries, the official U.S. tool for rooting out alleged anti-Semitism. Should this come to pass, the full spectrum of organizations that challenge Israeli policies—or that advocate, support, or defend boycotts of Israel or settlements—will find themselves in the U.S. government’s crosshairs.

The State Department’s targeting of humanitarian and civil society groups must be understood in this context. It is not an isolated outrage, as it is being treated by some longtime backers of the IHRA definition who appear shocked to see the definition used this way, like the Anti-Defamation League. Rather, it is an inevitable consequence, intended or not, of the effort to enforce the IHRA’s politicized definition of anti-Semitism, and the dangerous implications of this effort cannot be overstated. It will be a short leap from sticking the “anti-Semitism” label on a group like Amnesty International—which does not accept U.S. funding in any case—to sticking it on virtually all groups that engage on Israel-Palestine, including many that rely on U.S. funding for their work across the globe. Other angles of attack will doubtless come into play, like seeking to strip nonprofit organizations of their tax-exempt status (a first shot at which is already under way). Across the globe, authoritarian regimes and illiberal forces will exploit the new U.S. policy as a pretext to escalate their own attacks on civil society groups.

Delegitimizing the world’s leading human rights organizations with false accusations of anti-Semitism is a feature, not a bug, of a larger effort to weaponize the fight against anti-Semitism for political ends. Even with Biden moving into the White House in January 2021, absent a determined effort to roll back or amend the IHRA definition, or to adopt a different interpretation of its examples, the targeting of vital human rights and humanitarian aid organizations, in the United States and around the world, will be just the start.