Communal groups condemn Amnesty after it attaches name to anti-IHRA letter

Amnesty International has signing an open letter this week urging the United Nations not to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, claiming it has been used to suppress criticism of human rights violations by the Israeli authorities.

The open letter, backed by 104 organisations, argued it was essential efforts to combat antisemitism do not embolden or endorse policies and laws which undermine human rights.

Addressed to the UN’s Secretary General António Guterres and Under-Secretary-General Miguel Ángel Moratinos, signatories included Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and Israeli organisation such as B’Tselem and Breaking the Silence.

Groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace and Jewish Network for Palestine were also amongst the signatories.

Describing antisemitism as a “pernicious ideology that poses real harm to Jewish communities around the world and requires meaningful action to combat it”, the letter hits out at the IHRA definition.

It states:”The IHRA definition was originally developed to guide research and law enforcement data validation before being used by the IHRA in its work, which includes education about the Holocaust and antisemitism.

“Adoption of the definition by governments and institutions is often framed as an essential step in efforts to combat antisemitism.

“In practice, however, the IHRA definition has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism, including in the US and Europe.”

It added:”If the UN endorses the IHRA definition in any shape or form, UN officials working on issues related to Israel and Palestine may find themselves unjustly accused of antisemitism based on the IHRA definition.

“The same goes for numerous UN agencies, departments, committees, panels and/or conferences, whose work touches on issues related to Israel and Palestine, as well as for civil society actors and human rights defenders engaging with the UN system.”

Responding to the letter, a Board of Deputies spokesperson said: “Amnesty UK’s continued attempts to advocate against the IHRA definition of antisemitism ring particularly hollow when one considers that the same organisation actively voted down a motion a few years ago to combat antisemitism in this country.

“The idea that Amnesty has inserted itself into a discussion as to how Jewish people identify anti-Jewish racism demonstrates just how far it has fallen as an organisation.”

Claudia Mendoza, co-chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, said: “We support the adoption of the IHRA definition and believe it has been a useful guide for governments and agencies in identifying antisemitism in all its manifestations.

“Considering Amnesty International’s report a year ago which attacked the very concept of Jewish sovereignty, we can understand why they might find such a definition unhelpful.

“To deny Jews, and Jews alone the right to define the persecution they face reveals much about how this organisation approaches anti-Jewish racism.”