UCL students reject IHRA’s definition of antisemitism

A motion to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s “Working Definition of Antisemitism” was rejected by the University College London (UCL)’s student body.

212 students opposed the motion after expressing that freedom of speech regarding Israel had been infringed, against 78 votes supporting the motion.

The non-legally binding definition by the IHRA states: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.

“Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

So far, 31 countries have adopted this definition, including over 130 UK local councils, the police, CPS and judiciary.

The IRHA definition sparked controversy as critics have alleged that it conflates antisemitism with criticism of the State of Israel.

The definition specifies 11 “contemporary examples of antisemitism”, which previously faced resistance from Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn.

According to the IRHA definition, claims that the “State of Israel is a racist endeavour”, comparisons between Israeli policy and that of Nazi Germany, and “applying double standards by requiring of a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” are also considered to be antisemitic.

At UCL’s General Assembly on Monday 21 January, a heated debate ensued over the Israel-Palestine conflict. University newspaper Pi Media reported that second year student Tiger Solomons-Tibi drew attention to a recent spike in antisemitic incidents across both the UK and within UCL, citing the need for Jews to “feel safe” on campus.

UCL Debate Society’s Vice President Max Traegar argued: “Without a definition, hateful acts against Jews are relegated to a murky corner where antisemitism remains open to interpretation with potentially tragic effects.”

Hateful acts against Jews are relegated to a murky corner where antisemitism remains open to interpretation with potentially tragic effects

– Max Traegar

A second-year Medicine student expressed that while she “wholeheartedly” rejects “racism against Jews”, she did not not agree with the motion.

She said: “Voting for this motion unfortunately may remove the platform that we provide for certain speakers to raise awareness for human rights issues, and block our valid and internationally-acclaimed criticism of the State of Israel.”

Another speaker in opposition raised that the definition “conflates denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination with legitimate criticism of Israel”.

Abeni Olayinka Adeyemi, the women’s officer at UCL, suggested that codification of the IRHA definition was unnecessary, as “students who report discrimination against them are already supported through advice centre with all options including the option of going down the disciplinary route if they wish to do so”.

UCL Jewish Society President Oliver Kingsley commented after the assembly: “The Islamic Society and the Friends of Palestine Societies got a massive turnout so it was inevitable from the start we were going to lose. But we put up a good fight and we spoke well in support of it.”

He further clarified that the IHRA definition “stops people from inviting speakers who say Zionists are Nazis,” without preventing people from speaking out about Israel.

He said that Jewish students were “incredibly disappointed and saddened” by the result, saying that antisemitism “shouldn’t be defined by non-Jewish students”.