IHRA offers a ‘consistent definition’ of antisemitism

I am replying to Mahreen Hoda and Ece Turnator’s letter to the editor criticizing the Select Board for “rushing” to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism and claiming that the IHRA raises constitutional issues. In an interview with The Acton Bridge, Hoda erroneously argued that the IHRA “examples are not focused on protecting Jewish people, or a Jewish person, or in the case of a school, a Jewish child. They’re aimed at protecting the state of Israel from very specific criticism.” She said that they “have to worry about what our kids will say and what consequences will fall on our kids if they dare to break the rules and talk about what’s happening in the news.”

Antisemitic incidents nationally have risen meteorically in the last two years. Acton itself has a serious antisemitism problem, as reported by many of those who addressed the Select Board about personal experiences and documented in the civil rights complaint alleging pervasive antisemitism at the high school.

The IHRA definition has been widely adopted — because it is needed. Without a consistent definition, those who perpetrate antisemitism will attempt to define the term to exclude their own bigotry. As historian Raul Hilberg noted, “The Nazis did not call themselves anti-Semites.” Those who engage in modern forms of antisemitism are often no different. Perpetrators target Jews for supporting Israel’s existence yet claim that their intent was “anti-Israel, not anti-Jewish.”

The IHRA does not prohibit speech — it is a tool for identifying antisemitic speech. Moreover, the IHRA expressly recognizes that criticism of Israel, similar to criticism of other countries, cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Israel-related examples that fall within the IHRA definition include the use of double standards, demonization, and/or delegitimization, not mere criticism.

It’s time to educate about antisemitism and stop it.

Karen Hurvitz

Tanglewood Drive