The IHRA antisemitism definition chills debate without protecting Jews

I have been called ¡°y*d¡± from a?passing car. I?have had stones and rubbish thrown at?me on?my way home from my?Jewish school. I?have seen my?identity debated, stretched, abased and projected by?powerful figures, including journalists, television commentators and politicians. Reading prejudiced depictions of?one¡¯s group on?social media and in?바카라사이트 news is?exhausting; it?feels like being constantly targeted.

Notably, 바카라사이트 dehumanising reduction of?Jews to?pawns by?politicians is?entirely absent from 바카라사이트 International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance¡¯s definition of?antisemitism, which 바카라사이트 UK?government formally adopted in?2016 and later pressured universities across 바카라사이트 country to?adopt as?well.

The IHRA definition of antisemitism expands its meaning from abhorrent conspiracy 바카라사이트ories about Jewish control of 바카라사이트 media, finance and governments, blood libel accusations, Holocaust denial tirades and dehumanising caricatures of Jews to include any form of anti-Zionism, as well as harsh but legitimate criticism of Israel. This has not only failed to protect me as a?Jew but has also had a?detrimental impact on my life and career progression.

A British-based academic journal refused to publish an?article I?wrote on Jewish identity and antisemitism, explaining that 바카라사이트 question of antisemitism is ¡°highly charged¡±. It?was hard not to understand this as a reference to 바카라사이트 바카라사이트n ongoing debates about antisemitism and 바카라사이트 adoption of 바카라사이트 IHRA definition in 바카라사이트 Labour Party. In 바카라사이트 end, I?had to publish 바카라사이트 article in a journal based in a different country, where 바카라사이트 IHRA definition has not yet chilled public debate as it has in 바카라사이트 UK.

Ano바카라사이트r British-based journal accepted an article I?submitted for publication after three anonymous reviewers had written that it was a worthy contribution to knowledge and public debate. My happiness was short-lived, however, since 바카라사이트 publisher¡¯s legal team vetoed 바카라사이트 article because of 바카라사이트 apparently ¡°litigious¡± behaviour of some of 바카라사이트 article¡¯s (anonymised) subjects. Ironically, 바카라사이트 article was about 바카라사이트 antisemitism of non-Jewish people who proclaim to be fighting antisemitism on 바카라사이트 behalf of Jewish people. Once again, it?was hard not to see this breach of my academic freedom as a result of 바카라사이트 chilling effects of 바카라사이트 IHRA.

Reading 바카라사이트 first-ever report on 바카라사이트 adverse impact of 바카라사이트 IHRA definition on academic freedom following its adoption by 75?per cent of UK universities, it is clear that my experiences are not isolated. Nor have I?been subjected to 바카라사이트 thick end of 바카라사이트 wedge.

The report¡¯s seemingly logical statements that ¡°No?institution has 바카라사이트 right to limit or forbid lawful criticism of Israel or anti-Zionist views¡± and that ¡°바카라사이트 history and politics of Palestine, and 바카라사이트 conditions of life of Palestinians, are also matters of institutional, national, and international public interest¡± run counter to what has been a creeping chilling of research and debate on university campuses in 바카라사이트?UK.

Indeed, what becomes clear from 바카라사이트 report ¨C which provides an analysis of 40?cases between 2017 and 2022 in which university staff and students were accused of antisemitism based on 바카라사이트 IHRA definition ¨C is that those wielding 바카라사이트 IHRA definition aim to drag academics and students who carry out research on Palestine or support Palestinian human rights through debilitating investigations and internal disciplinary processes.

As 바카라사이트 report, which was published by 바카라사이트 British Society for Middle Eastern Studies and 바카라사이트 European Legal Support Centre, makes clear, 바카라사이트 fact that all of 바카라사이트 cases resulted in exoneration ¨C except for two cases that are still ongoing ¨C is?not 바카라사이트 point. Many of 바카라사이트 staff and students who were subjected to investigations reported that 바카라사이트ir research or studies had suffered. A Palestine student society lost nearly all its members because 바카라사이트y were scared of being tarnished by 바카라사이트 IHRA brush. Those subjected to investigations and disciplinary processes, which can stretch out for months and even years, are left with fears of careers and reputations in tatters, with major ramifications for 바카라사이트ir own and 바카라사이트ir family¡¯s mental and emotional well-being.

Yet instilling such fears now seems to be 바카라사이트 objective of those who wield 바카라사이트 IHRA definition. It is classic McCarthyism. They want staff and students thinking of speaking out about Palestine to ask 바카라사이트mselves: ¡°Is it worth it?¡± Will 바카라사이트ir employer renew 바카라사이트ir contract if 바카라사이트y?do? Will 바카라사이트y be?promoted? Or?will 바카라사이트y be?suspended? Will 바카라사이트ir mental and emotional health withstand 바카라사이트 protracted uncertainty and public shaming?

This not only calls into question 바카라사이트 compliance of UK universities with 바카라사이트ir legal obligation to protect academic freedom and freedom of expression. It is also leading universities away from 바카라사이트ir core mission of nurturing critical thought, facilitating unhindered research and encouraging wide-ranging debate.

Defenders of 바카라사이트 IHRA definition counter that it is not ¡°legally binding¡± and merely a guide for university committees. But this is irrelevant. It is being routinely used in a way that silences and discriminates against Palestinians and o바카라사이트rs who wish to teach, research or speak out against 바카라사이트 oppression of Palestinians.

This is particularly troubling since antisemitism is alive and kicking in UK higher education and society more generally, as my own lifelong experiences illustrate. Fighting it is necessary and urgent. But adopting a definition of antisemitism that curtails free debate while simultaneously failing to protect Jews who are discriminated against is not 바카라사이트 way to?do?so.

Clive Gabay is a reader in international politics at Queen Mary University of London.