Amos Goldberg Is Wrong about the IHRA Definition

Writing for +972 Magazine’s Hebrew edition, Professor Amos Goldberg praised New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani’s decision to rescind the city’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which his predecessor Eric Adams adopted. Goldberg is hardly alone in bristling at the widely accepted definition. For years, he and other Israeli post-Zionist professors have opposed the definition, arguing that it serves to suppress any criticism of the State of Israel.

Plenty of these academics hold positions of influence and authority in Israel and around the world, treated as token “experts,” seemingly granting antizionists a public relations victory. But many of their charges lack merit. Thankfully, this article has organized the bulk of these charges in a way, easy to address.

Goldberg claims, for example, that the IHRA definition “does not deal with antisemitism at all, but rather serves as a powerful instrument for setting the boundaries of discourse about Israel, silencing critical voices toward it and toward Zionism, and restricting freedom of expression.”

He is not telling the truth. In fact, the IHRA definition emphasizes that criticism of Israel similar to that directed against any other country is not considered antisemitic, and is legitimate. It explains, however, that when the word “Zionist” is used as code for “Jew” in order to evade accusations of violating freedom of speech, this reflects the evolution of antisemitism from its “traditional” religious form to its “modern” political form.

Antizionism is perceived as antisemitic because it denies the Jewish people the right to exist as a nation and rejects recognition of Israel both as a political entity and as an expression of Jewish self-determination, not because Israel ought to be immune to any criticism.

It is also important to note that the IHRA definition is not legally binding, even when adopted by a state, campus, or company. For example, Israel’s Ben-Gurion University, which accepts the IHRA’s definition, continued to employ Dr. Sebastian Ben Daniel after he made antisemitic remarks claiming that IDF soldiers were educated to be child killers. Ben Daniel did wind up being suspended for a few months, but this was a decision made independently by the college.

Goldberg’s claim that the definition “has also caused immeasurable harm to the determined struggle against ‘real’ antisemitism by turning it into such a controversial political issue” is also flawed. The IHRA is no more “political” or “controversial” than any other attempt to fight racism, and the fact that over 1,260 institutions have adopted it underscores popular support for the definition.. Still, this is somewhat irrelevant. Either the definition helps define and therefore fight Jew hatred, or it does not, regardless of who may find this “controversial.” It seems that what Goldberg really finds objectionable is IHRA’s attempt to explain how many aspects of antizionist discourse are indeed antisemitic.

Goldberg also fails to explain how the definition has, in his words, “granted absolution to overt antisemites, so long as they support Israeli policy against the Palestinians.” Goldberg is relying on his readers’ ignorance here. On the same IHRA webpage that labels “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” as antisemitic, it also makes clear that

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

One does not excuse the other.

Goldberg further claims that due to the adoption of the IHRA, “the ability to speak about Israeli policy and protest against it has increasingly narrowed, because in light of the definition, almost any criticism of Israel or Zionism could be interpreted as antisemitic.”

There are countless examples of critics of the Israeli government who support IHRA, even in the Knesset itself. American universities like Harvard and Columbia, which adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism in 2025, continue to provide open platforms to pro-Palestinian activists, student groups, and faculty members who harshly criticize the State of Israel.

Goldberg further argues that “the State of Israel and its supporters succeeded in shifting the discussion from criticism of apartheid, the Nakba, the occupation and annexation… to the question of whether discussion of all these issues is legitimate or whether it is in fact an expression of antisemitism.” This is a common kind of deception among antizionists. He treats these contestable accusations as already proven to support a new questionable claim, laying a trap for his detractors to get stuck debunking facts instead of addressing the weaknesses of his core argument.

This manipulation suggests that on some level, he acknowledges that such claims conveniently omit relevant historical context and facts on the ground, and rely on internally inconsistent reasoning. Or is he merely a run-of-the-mill ideologue oblivious to his own shortcomings?

Either way, this is not a level-headed academic weighing in on what is and what is not bigotry against Jews. This is an activist arguing that the application of double standards toward Israel should be allowed because doing so is the only way to achieve the goals of the Palestinian antizionist movement.

Goldberg goes so far as to dismiss IHRA because “seven (out of eleven) of its examples concern Israel; that is, the definition identifies contemporary antisemitism primarily with Israel, rather than with hostility, discrimination, and violence against Jews worldwide.”

Is he really arguing that incidents like the recent Myron Gaines controversy at Ohio University,, the former Harvard president’s infamous defense of antizionist calls for genocide, and the DC shooting should not be regarded as bigotry because the perpetrators’ motivations are pegged to negative beliefs about Israel?

In fact, the opposite is clearly true. Opposition to the existence of the State of Israel, the national home of the Jewish people, is inseparable from antisemitism in effect, and generally in intent. It is no coincidence that, after the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust was carried out on Israeli soil in 2023, the surge in global antisemitism reached unprecedented levels.

Jews constitute approximately two percent of the U.S. population, but recent surveys found that 70% of religiously motivated hate crimes were committed against Jews. A similar trend has occurred in Canada, the UK, France, and much of the Western world.

Goldberg also seems intent on accusing IHRA of promoting competition between antisemitism and other prejudices, writing:

“According to this definition, antisemitism stands on its own and is not connected in any way to other forms of discrimination, racism, and hatred, and the struggle against antisemitism is not connected to international conventions and organizations designed to combat such phenomena. As if antisemitism were sui generis, something unique and beyond every other problem of racism, discrimination, and hatred. In other words, the assumption is one of ‘Jewish superiority’ in the struggle against various forms of racism.”

He is playing a double game here. At times, he treats antisemitism as interchangeable with other forms of racism, fully captured within an equal universal framework. Yet when antisemitism is examined as having distinct contemporary features, particularly in relation to Israel, he dismisses that analysis outright and reframes the entire exercise as an attempt to promote “Jewish superiority.” This issue is not that these positions are inherently contradictory, but that they are applied selectively to avoid engaging with how antisemitism operates in contemporary contexts, effectively treating any and all references to Israel as beyond scrutiny.

If antisemitism is truly identical to other forms of hatred, then there is nothing inherently suspect about analyzing its specific characteristics, just as scholars do with anti-Black racism, hatred against the Roma, or other forms of prejudice. But if acknowledging those characteristics is itself framed as illegitimate, then the goal is not universalism. It is to deny antisemitism the analytical clarity afforded to other forms of discrimination.

As the late British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks once explained:

“Antisemitism means denying the right of Jews to exist collectively as Jews with the same rights as everyone else. It takes different forms in different ages. In the Middle Ages, Jews were hated because of their religion. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century they were hated because of their race. Today they are hated because of their nation state, the state of Israel. It takes different forms but it remains the same thing: the view that Jews have no right to exist as free and equal human beings.”

This aligns with IHRA’s attempt to outline how antisemitism manifests in contemporary contexts. Recognizing antisemitism’s specific dynamics obviously does not elevate Jews above other groups.

Goldberg’s entire article amounts to little more than pseudo-intellectual cover for antizionists who are frustrated that Holocaust Inversion and calls to destroy Israel are not acceptable arguments in civil discourse. For the rest of us who recognize the pipeline between antizionism and anti-Jewish hatred and violence, IHRA is still our best tool.

This image is free for use on a commercial platform in accordance with copyright law.Source: Marcywinograd. Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication