Rising Global Antisemitism: Countries Supporting Conflicting Anti-Holocaust Definition
In the face of increasing global antisemitism, many nations have embraced the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. However, a recent study by Jerusalem-based think tank NGO Monitor reveals a contradictory trend, with these same countries financially supporting non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that contest the IHRA’s definition.
Since its introduction in May 2016, the IHRA’s definition has garnered widespread acceptance, adopted by 40 governments and several intergovernmental organizations. Seen as a pivotal policy in combating antisemitism, these endorsements come with a twist. NGO Monitor’s research highlights a significant number of these endorsing nations also funding NGOs that resist the IHRA framework.
Among the countries identified are Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and even the European Union, all recognized as champions of human rights. Surprisingly, these countries have been supporting organizations accused of engaging in and promoting blatant antisemitism as per the IHRA’s definition.
The study reveals that beyond financial backing, these NGOs are actively propagating antisemitic narratives while dismissing antisemitism as inconsequential within the realm of human rights. Notably, some of these organizations openly reject the IHRA’s position, denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination and suggesting Israel’s existence is a racist endeavor.
The study suggests that opposition to the IHRA’s definition stems not only from ideological differences but also from self-preservation. With the IHRA’s definition gaining momentum, many of these NGOs fear being labeled as antisemitic for their activities, particularly those critical of Israel.
In April 2023, 104 NGOs expressed concerns about the IHRA definition potentially designating as antisemitic the allegations that Israeli authorities are committing apartheid against Palestinians.
Breaking down the study’s data from 45 campaigns involving 345 NGOs: 52% aimed to dissuade governments and intergovernmental institutions, including the United Nations, from endorsing the IHRA definition as the standard for identifying antisemitism. Meanwhile, 39% consisted of broader campaigns aimed at shaping public opinion, and 9% targeted professional entities like the American Bar Association and universities.
As nations grapple with the alarming rise in global antisemitism, the financial support provided by some of these countries to NGOs that contradict the IHRA’s definition raises questions about their commitment to combating this toxic trend. While these nations champion human rights, their simultaneous funding of organizations accused of promoting antisemitic views highlights a paradoxical stance.
International efforts are required to address the contradiction between endorsing the IHRA definition of antisemitism and supporting NGOs that resist it. Striking a delicate balance between free expression and combating antisemitism remains a challenge, but it is essential for nations to reassess their funding priorities and ensure consistency in their fight against this global menace.
As the world continues to grapple with the impact of rising antisemitism, it is crucial for nations to align their actions with their stated commitment to combating this bigotry. By addressing this contradiction head-on, countries can reaffirm their dedication to upholding human rights and eradicating the scourge of antisemitism.
