One of the most notable initiatives, which I began campaigning for in January 2020, is for social media companies to adopt the International Holocaust Memorial Association definition of antisemitism – a widely accepted educational framework which explains classical and modern antisemitism.
From a successful social media campaign (#AdoptIHRA) to a newly announced set of policy recommendations from the Israeli government, the pressure continues to mount on digital platforms to deal with hate speech against Jews.
But instead of getting on board in the fight against bigotry, fringe Jewish groups like Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), IfNotNow, and the New Israel Fund are using the discussion to politicize antisemitism.
Social media companies have thus far refused to adopt the IHRA definition in full, but through discussions at the nongovernmental and governmental level, Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok have all modified their approach to antisemitism and are engaging in open dialogue. While hate speech against Jews was always forbidden (though not enforced) across platforms, only this year was Holocaust denial banned explicitly on Twitter and Facebook. It’s not enough, but it is a step in the right direction.
Dealing with antisemitism today requires acknowledging that anti-Zionism can be used as an excuse to justify hate speech (and hate crimes), something Facebook has stated it now takes into consideration in its community standards.
For example, multiple times in the last year alone, synagogues around the world were defaced with “free Palestine” graffiti. In another example, a pro-Palestinian student heckled a Holocaust survivor speaking on a campus and demanded he “condemn” Zionism and the policies of Israel, simply because he was a Jew.
With the onset of COVID-19, social media saw a massive wave of antisemitic posts blaming “Zionists” for the virus, including neo-Nazi David Duke suggesting the “global Zionist elite” was behind coronavirus. Already in 2021, a Canadian synagogue was defaced with antisemitic graffiti, with the perpetrator being an anti-Israel BDS activist. In thousands of other social media posts, anti-Israel activists use classical antisemitic tropes such as Jews with hooked noses to depict “Zionists,” and use the word “Zionist” to demonize and attack Jews.
THE RESPONSE from extremist groups like JVP has been to demonize the IHRA definition, claiming it “shuts down free speech” and “silences Palestinian voices.” Perhaps most ridiculously, IfNotNow claimed the IHRA definition is a “right-wing tool.” This is not only untrue, it is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. First of all, the idea that Palestinians cannot criticize the policies of Israel, or Zionism, without being antisemitic is both absurd and condescending to the Palestinians. Discussion and critique of Zionism is not antisemitic as per the IHRA framework – but it is antisemitic to demonize Zionists, hold Jews to a double standard, or call for death to Zionists.
Second, the IHRA definition does not call for any form of censorship – even of antisemitic speech. It calls for education and acknowledgment. As one of the founders of the #AdoptIHRA campaign, and as an expert in the field who proposed social media policy reform via IHRA to both the Knesset and the Strategic Affairs Ministry (and who worked with them on the policy recommendations released by the ministry this month) – I can attest to the fact that the adoption of IHRA on social media would foster genuine dialogue, not shut it down. The recommendations call for labeling antisemitic speech and providing educational resources, not censorship.
Third, IHRA explicitly states that criticism of the State of Israel or its policies is not antisemitic speech. The only conceivable reason these groups would be lobbying so hard against this definition is that they wish to protect modern antisemitism, not free speech.
It is important to note that even facing social consequences for antisemitic speech isn’t “weaponizing” the IHRA definition – IHRA doesn’t call for any consequences or concrete actions against antisemitic speech. However, it is the very essence of free speech to state that anyone has a right to say unsavory things, while at the same time anyone else has a right to call them out on it.
The attempts by these political groups to advance their agenda by twisting the purpose of the IHRA framework is in fact an attempt to legitimize antisemitism and embolden one of the most dangerous forms of hate speech that exists today against Jews: antisemitism in the name of anti-Zionism.
The IHRA definition is widely accepted by the consensus Jewish community, dozens of academic and civil institutions, 30 countries, and even the European Union – and it isn’t because all of them agree with every policy of the modern State of Israel. It is because antisemitism today has two toxic forms, and to fight it, we must define it – online or in person.
The writer is the CEO of Social Lite Creative and a research fellow at the Tel Aviv Institute.