In Latin America, a Tale of Two Countries and One Definition That Matters
Costa Rica just made a bold move: it formally adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, becoming only the sixth Latin American country to do so. That may sound like a bureaucratic footnote, but in this moment, it’s anything but.
So, what does this mean? It means Costa Rica is no longer content with vague condemnations. It means the country has drawn a clear line between legitimate political criticism and antisemitic hate. It means they are taking seriously what so many governments around the world still tiptoe around: that the Jewish people, like all people, deserve protection not just in theory, but in law, in education, and action. And it couldn’t come at a more critical time.
Two Countries. Two Directions.
Just as Costa Rica stepped forward, Brazil took a stunning step back. According to reporting by the Jerusalem Post, Brazil quietly withdrew its support for the IHRA definition, following its controversial decision to side against Israel in South Africa’s genocide case at the International Court of Justice.
So now we have two democracies in Latin America moving in opposite directions. Costa Rica’s embrace of the IHRA definition stands in contrast to those that lean into moral fog by withdrawing their support. This withdrawal not only undermines the global effort to combat antisemitism but also sends a message that Brazil is not committed to protecting all its citizens. One responds to rising hate with tools. The other trades in political symbolism, while real people suffer. The contrast is stark. And it raises the question: Why is defining antisemitism so controversial in the first place?
When Words Aren’t Defined, They Get Weaponized
We live in a world where language itself is under siege. What is “resistance”? What is “colonialism”? What is “genocide”? These are not just academic questions. The answers are shaping global headlines, courtroom proceedings, student protests, and UN resolutions.
Without definitions, anything goes. Hate hides in euphemism. The IHRA definition, developed with input from scholars, governments, and Jewish communities, offers a clear, practical guide to distinguish antisemitism from free speech. It’s not about censoring opinions, but about drawing a line between criticism and hate speech. It is not perfect. No definition is. But abandoning it, as Brazil just did, invites ambiguity exactly when moral clarity is most needed. You can’t fight what you refuse to name.
A Small Country Sends a Big Message
Costa Rica’s Jewish community is small, around 2,500 people. But its voice just echoed across a region where antisemitic incidents are rising, often fueled by online conspiracy theories, geopolitical scapegoating, and the misuse of anti-Israel sentiment as cover for bigotry.
In March, at the United Nations Human Rights Council, Gilbert Meltzer, President of the Costa Rican Jewish community, called for the government to adopt the IHRA definition. He cited data: over 75% of Costa Rican Jews perceived antisemitism rising. Over 60% felt authorities weren’t doing enough. The government listened.
Why This Should Matter to All of Us
If we can’t define and track antisemitism, we can’t effectively combat it. And if that’s true for antisemitism, it will be true for other forms of hate too. Today it’s Jews. Tomorrow it’s someone else. In a time when too many countries are silent, Costa Rica spoke. Now the question is: Who will follow? And who will hide behind the fog?
