Is the IHRA definition of antisemitism a threat to free speech?
Ash Sarkar has argued that if the Labour Party, the main opposition in the UK, adopted the IHRA definition on antisemitism that the right for free expression for the Palestinians would be restricted. Palestinians would not be able to express the injustice they face day in day out without being labelled antisemitic. Opposing antisemitism would entail discriminating against the Palestinians people. Given that seven out of the eleven examples relate to Israel, the IHRA definition seems to say more about what can be said about a geopolitical conflict than hatred for Jews as Jews.
Here lies the problem with Sarkar’s argument. After the Holocaust antisemites had no means by which to express their foul worldview without being denounced. They needed a way to camouflage their antisemitism. The state of Israel became a proxy for expressing antisemitism. Israel was a state, not a Jew. So you could denounce Israel as much as you like while not denouncing Jews, even though the Jewish factor of Israel was the main motivator for such vitriol. This is how the conflation between antisemitism and anti-Zionism came to pass.
Distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitic criticism became increasingly difficult as the two became conflated. The IHRA definition asserted that legitimate criticism of Israel didn’t entail that Jewish self-determination was wrong. The specific example was to deny the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination by asserting the establishment of a state of Israel was a racist endeavour. Delegitimising Jewish self-determination was antisemitic. As Israel is the result of exercising the Jewish right to self-determination, to question the legitimacy of Israel’s existence was to question the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination. Criticising Israel for the direction it was going in is entirely different to questioning whether it should exist.
The Palestinians have a claim to the land of Palestine in which Israel occupies a lot of it. Palestinian nationalism was committed to establishing a Palestinian state through the entire land of Palestine entailing that Israel’s claim was illegitimate because it was stolen from the native inhabitants. It is clear that this version of Palestinian nationalism will fall foul of the IHRA definition. Such nationalism would entail the destruction of the Israeli state and many Jews would have to flee the region. In fact this form of Palestinian nationalism is antisemitic. Hamas, an antisemitic terrorist organisation, is committed to acting on this form of Palestinian nationalism.
Palestinian nationalist also believe that they ought to have a right to return to their homeland, which includes Palestinians having the right to resettle in Israel. Israel requires a Jewish majority to ensure that Jews have self-determination so naturally Israel rejects such a right existing. Jews would become a minority in Israel if the Palestinians were allowed to return. Palestinians face the injustice of a state failing to recognise their right to live where they once lived peacefully before they were uprooted in the 1948 war. Palestinians must be free to express their viewpoint, so the question is does the IHRA definition prohibit Palestinians from sharing their injustice to the world?
The answer is no. A priori; antisemitism and anti-Zionism are distinct belief systems. The injustice Palestinians faced as a result of the forceful removal can give them grounds for being anti-Zionist in the sense that they opposed how Israel was established. Palestinians can also realise that acting on that anti-Zionism by advocating the destruction of Israel is not only antisemitic but unhelpful in achieving Palestinian liberation. Israel will not allow Palestinians self-determination if they think Palestinians could be an existential threat to Israel if given sufficient power and resources. Anti-Zionism can be a protest against the systematic actions of the Israeli state towards the Palestinian people, while still advocating the virtues of Jewish self-determination.
The conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism emerged because of the activities of antisemites. This is unfortunate because there should be a hard distinction between the two belief systems. The above examples are meant to show that Palestinians can in fact be free to express criticism of Israel without falling into antisemitism. The trouble is that the content of the criticism doesn’t tell you whether the criticism is stated with antisemitic intent or as a legitimate form of anti-Zionism. This allows authorities to abuse the IHRA definition to stop legitimate Palestinian dissent from being heard. The IHRA definition does not restrict Palestinians from criticising Israel.

